Project 60'

driller

El Presidente
After studying all the recent and current time slips, I have concluded my full attention needs to be on the sixty foot times. I've started listing virtually everything that would effect the short times and have commenced what I have dubbed "Project 60 Foot". The suspect parameters include tuning, suspension and weight distribution. I figured this forum would be a good place to discuss the suspension component of the project.

The following items were categorized in the suspension category:

  • Pinion Angle
  • Differential Mounts
  • Rear Shocks
  • Rear Sway Bar Links
  • QA1 CoilOver Suspension
  • Tubular Rear Upper Control Arms
  • Rear Subframe Bushings

Let's discuss the available options, including any I may have overlooked. :wink:
 

driller

El Presidente
First off, the pinion angle.

Pinion angle is a topic often discussed in drag racing performance. I'm certainly no expert but I have experience in setting up driveline angles on heavy equipment so I understand the basics and perhaps more importantly what the consequences are with a less than optimum setup.

The IRS setup in the Mark VIII greatly simplifies the discussion since for all intents and purposes, the differential carrier is fixed in position and doesn't rotate with the suspension components as in a solid axle car. Ideally, any movement of the housing is minimized with performance bushings for the mounting points. I currently have poly bushings on the front mount along with a pinion brace. I have drilled through and bolted the rear mount to effectively make it a solid mount to work with the steel rear cover brace. The plan is to optimize the pinion angle with solid mounts on the front mounting tabs.

I used a digital level (that was included with the QuickTrick Alignment kit) to measure all the angles of the driveline. Basically you measure the axis of the transmission, driveshaft and differential to calculate the operating angles of the driveline.

Pinion Angle MD-1.jpg

My measurements, front to rear, were as follows:

Centerline A (Transmission) measured 3.3 degrees down (front to rear).
Centerline B (Driveshaft) measured 1.05 degrees down.
Centerline C (Differential) measured ~7 degrees down.

Angle 1 (Transmission to Driveshaft) calculates to be 1.25 degrees.
Angle 2 (Driveshaft to Differential) calculates to be 5.95 degrees.

In a truly optimized setup, angles 1 & 2 would be equal and between 1.0 and 2.0 degrees. The objective here is to minimize the operating angles of the universal joints resulting in less parasitic driveline losses.

In my case, I need to lower the front mount of the differential housing, decreasing the angle of the differential and subsequently increasing the driveshaft angle. If I can get the differential axis equal to the transmission axis, the resulting operating angles should fall to within tolerance.
 

KStromberg

Vortech kicked in yo
I wish I had more to add here. You mentioned weight distribution. I am certain without a doubt that placing my fuel over the rear axles helped significantly. 63/37 is not a good ratio for drag racing(i dont think....lol). I wish I knew how much removing or relocating things affected these percentages. As in my case, removing the front swaybar was more of an effect on the launching dynamics than the actual weight loss from the bar. I think if you could get the nose of the car to lift more even if the weight remains the same it is going to bite harder out back whether this be through removing the swaybar OR adjustable coilovers up front where you can adjust the spring rate. If you relocate some weight out back(battery relocate?)then the effects are magnified. At least in my mind. I guess I'm just trying to generate some theories based upon what I did to my car to produce the 60s it has thus far. And of course, all the stall.
 

driller

El Presidente
I am certain without a doubt that placing my fuel over the rear axles helped significantly.
No doubt. Actually, isn't the fuel cell behind the rear axle? That would even be better. Keeping the center of gravity low and centered left to right is equally important.

Here was the weight distribution of the Blue Flame this past summer (without driver):

IMG_3079.jpg

IMG_3080.jpg

Basically 60/40 front to rear and a couple percentage points heavy on the drivers side.
 

mag

New member
I guess you could look at another area here and that would be chassis lift at launch. What is needed for the tires to hook and what kind of power is wasted when the nose of the car lifts more than necessary.
 
Last edited:

driller

El Presidente
I guess you could look at another area here and that would be chassis lift at launch. What is needed for the tires to hook and what kind of power is wasted when the nose of the car lifts more than necessary.
Yes, that's a whole other field of science. As most seasoned drag racers will tell you, lifting the tires is not necessarily faster. Any motion other than forward is wasted power.
 

KStromberg

Vortech kicked in yo
Yes, that's a whole other field of science. As most seasoned drag racers will tell you, lifting the tires is not necessarily faster. Any motion other than forward is wasted power.
Hey JP, I am sure you have seen vids of the turbo coyote Mark8 owned by Bobby. What fascinates me and supports your thinking there is while he has some lift at the nose, even with 1.2-1.3 60s I have NEVER seen that car wheelstand. Straight, flat, and suuuuuper quick.

Consider this a theory on my part. Our cars in their natural nose-heavy state could use SOME lift. It would be nice to be able to see how these weight distribution percentages "shift" on the hit leaving the line because while the sheer weight is the same shifting weight to the rear....to me... is a good thing if the nose is significantly heavier than the rear. I do think that Bobby's car has a weight distribution much better than ours. The 9" solid axle out back is heavy and he has front-halfed that car and gone tubular k-member which not only increases useable space but also drops the weight of his car up front.

I'd REALLY be curious to see what his percentages are and maybe that could shed some light since I think his nose lifts even less than ours. Lol

Heavier on the driver's side because of that huge 45# battery. Perhaps you should put a light odyssey battery there. :)
 
Last edited:

driller

El Presidente
I'm sure Bobby has all the suspension details worked out on his car.

Heavier on the driver's side because of that huge 45# battery. Perhaps you should put a light odyssey battery there. :)
sc03.jpg

Not an odyssey, but I did put in a 17 pound Braille battery. :wink2-green
 

KStromberg

Vortech kicked in yo
Do you think the 11.5# will be enough for my car? Just on track day. I want the lightest possible battery I can run.
 

driller

El Presidente
Do you think the 11.5# will be enough for my car? Just on track day. I want the lightest possible battery I can run.
Honestly, I think it would be fine, particularly just for the track.

I know at one time I had the Odyssey PC680 (15.4lb/680 Pulse Cranking Amps) and it only lasted a couple seasons track duty. I ran the Odyssey PC1200 (38.2lb/1200 Pulse Cranking Amps) for several years (street/strip duty) and was quite happy with it. So I picked the Braille b2317 (17lb/1191 Pulse Cranking Amps) because it was significantly lighter than the PC1200 with roughly the same capacity.

I've only had the Braille battery for about a year so the jury's still out with it but it seems to be holding up fine. :thumbsup:
 
Top