Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Put the ballast forward from the axle centerline.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Check out these lower control arm brackets from LMPerformance, maybe you can fab up something like them.....

http://www.lmperformance.com/5502/73.html

Other manufacturers have similar products.....

TRZ for one.

BMR http://www.bmrfabrication.com/products.htm

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Thanks Dave...
however, the rules don't permit ANY modification of ANY of the suspension attachment points, other than raising the location of the upper mount on the housing ( you CAN re-enforce to make them stronger, but that's all ).

oh THAT, Jeff... yes, I've read that only 1,181 times !
In the spirit of the rules, and their intentions... reasonable thought concludes that that "rule" applies to open wheel cars... or maybe somebody trying to put weight up inside their wheel well !
I copied this setup on my car, from a VERY experienced, knowledgable Stock class racer, running what I believe was a 428 Shelby. He's been through tech a couple times.

Yes, Div6, I've been told to go a little ahead of the rear axle. All moot if the car has no initial hook though.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Darn it!!

I always thought that as long as the parts were "bolt on" they were Stock legal, as my Southside Machine bars are supposed to be......they have the same bolt in lower bar rear bracket, legal as long as you don't weld 'em...??????

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Oh, it IS frustrating, Dave !
But that's why I chose Stock. The car is very near rust free, original paint... EXTTEMELY valuable body style. Would not choose a class that requires a bunch of modifications ( IE, Super Stock ).

I have one other question for the rear-coil-spring guys...
I have a too high in the rear problem. Springs are relatively stiff. I can correct the ride height by shortening them, and keeping the rear "well sprung". Or, I can replace them with a much softer set ?
My experience when putting in the softer springs, was that it DID get the lower control arms at a better angle, but resulted in a COMPLETE loss of any form of traction whatsoever. ( this was before I raised the mounting point of the upper arms ).

I'm attacking the ride height today. Have a few options... soft springs by far the easiest.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Use the spring rate that wil get you to the correct ride height. the springs only hold the car up. The fact that you had better results with a stiff spring prove that the suspension geometry in the car is way out of the ball park. I suggest that you get a magnetic protractor from your local tool or hardware store. Once you have lowered the back of the car then Jack the front of the car up until the rocker panel is perfectly level. Then place the protractor on the lower link bar if the lower bar is lower in the front than at the rear end your problem will be solved. If you can not get any down angle then you could drill a new hole in the rear bracket higher than the original hole. The whole key is the correct geometry and the shock package. You need shocks built specificly for drag racing. double adjustable on all 4 corners. Loose is for slick tracks and tighten up as the conditions will allow both front and rear. With your large displacement engine it makes alot of HP and torque. The chassis will have to be set up nearly perfect before you will be happy. I have built several cars for super stock and all have been set up by this method with excellent results.

Mike

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Aubrey, are you going to be in Medicine Hat for the open in 2 weeks?

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Thank YOU, Mike... some excellent general advice for this newbie !

Yes, Bob, that's what I'm trying to do... but MAN, I've never seen so many things go wrong in my life !

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I wouldn't count on that...
The rule book is specific. It does not differentiate fron one form of race car over another.
You'll eventually learn that the NHRA policy is that getting something thru tech on one occassion does not constitute allowance if later detected.
Now all those "experienced 428 Shelby racer's" can thank you when they get extra scrutinty next time they go thru tech! :eek:

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

HEEE HEEE !
"The rule book is specific.... it does not differentiate... "
sounds like JUMBO SHRIMP to me !
HEEE HEEE !!!!

But sreiously... when you search through "General Regulations", and find the specs permitted on something like a rear wing .... because it does not come out and say it's on the back of an altered or dragster, does that mean it also applies to a Stocker ? !

I'm out for the day tomorrow, but I'll get to the bottom of this on Thursday.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Nobody's going to want to help you if you keep arguing with them. But I'll give it one more try.

2007 NHRA Rulebook:
Stock.
Section 5A, page 59.
Frame.
Ballast.
Last sentence.
"See General Regulations 4.2" - that answers your statements about placing weight above rear tires.

Section 5A, page 61.
Body.
"Alterations or customizing prohibited; extent of customizing limited to paint only."
That answers your statement about adding a rear wing to the body of a Stock vehicle.

You should also study the introductory section, specifically page 15. "How to use this rulebook", 4th paragraph. That will nullify your statement about your "experienced 428 Shelby racer" having weight placed in defiance of General Regulation 4.2.

It sounds like you are getting god advice on your suspension. Assuming the advice is valid and legal to the rules, I would think you would be able to gain traction with weight placed legally in your Stocker.
I deleted most of my responses on clutch adjustments as you indicated you had a handle on that.

Good luck.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I try to make my site as easy to understand and use as possible, but I realize there might be some beneficial changes. In other words, I'm fairly certain my site contains all the information you need, but I'm not at all certain I'm presenting it clearly.

Specifically, what do you mean by "practical diagrams"? Perhaps this is something that needs to be added.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I'm fairly certain that most all of the bolt on suspension parts are Stock class legal.

Upon further review of the current rule book, you are sort of correct, but if you look in the traction bar section below the rear suspension section, on coil sprung cars the front mounting point cannot be lengthened, BUT, traction bars or mounting brackets at the rear axle housing, bolted on, must not be below the inner edge of your wheel rim, so there is a HUGE grey area that allows the relocation of the rear of the lower control arm, not just the raising of the rear of the upper arms.

I know that the Southside Machine setup is Stocker legal, uses a relocation bracket at the rear lower arm, and fits within the "no heims" caveat.

You want to lower the rear of the lower control arms, I'm tellin' ya.

Although this picture shows a welded part, (not legal) you can get the idea of what you need to do.

https://www.gbodyparts.com/images/relocbraket1.jpg

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Here are the UMI relocation brackets, intended for weld in, but again, just giving you a picture of where you need to go......

https://www.gbodyparts.com/images/relocbraket3.jpg

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I'm sorry, Jeff... I give up... no argument... you win.

Billy, thank you very much for taking the time in here !
My confusion is partly induced by terminology. I'm not an experienced drag racer.
A few drawings, indicating the fundamental desired geometry ( desired angles / measurements ), in a couple different settings... indicating what "this" setting would change. Evidentally, I can't read too well, so pictures would REALLY help !


Dave, what can I say ? !
Thank YOU for posting these photos. Again, my reading / comprehension seems to be in question, so I'd be afraid to change or move ANYTHING, without getting expressed written permission from NHRA Tech staff.
I'm definitely going to try and apply as much of the information as I am allowed.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Mike;
Are you saying that re-locating the lower control arms, lower at the axel tube (as Dave Cook shows), wil not put your IC in a more desirable (angle) point, and thus help your leave? Is this concept different between stick, and auto trans cars? Now I am confused..LOL
PS: I run a '70 GM "A" body car, with the UMI relocation brackets, that Dave has pictured in his last post.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Rally Bob,

If I set up my car that way it would spin the tires uncontrollably. I have run my car with a stick shift and an automatic. Both responded to the same setup. I tried moving the front mounting point up in the car several times with the same result, tire spin. I have worked very hard on my chassis setup over the years and found as much as 3 tenths of a second just in chassis tuning. There may be other ways to set up the rear suspension but this the only configuration that has worked in the cars that I have setup. My car is a 68 camaro SS/HA 350 cu in, 3200 lbs 9.92 1.28 60 ft.

Mike

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stick shift experience... 1.28 ????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

uuuuuuh..... uuuuuuuuuuh....
......I'll do what Mike says...

holy $%&#!!!!!!!!!!

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Aubrey;
You can check this post (from speedtalk.com) out and try to follow along.LOL
I know you don't run a "torque arm" setup but the theory(s) are related........
http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...=6691&start=30
PS: I am a big fan of the GM '60's "bubble tops"

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Plotting the I/C location length and height is all well and good, but with the limitations of Stock racing, with the driveline (including crankshaft C/L) being inherently high in the car, you can't treat it as you would a full tube chassis car in regards to the I/C length and height.

I've found that the I/C needs to be long and high to help use the sprung weight to help transfer (or roll) toward the rear, while simultaneously applying some "plant" to the rear axle housing.

The greatest percentage of the Stock type vehicle weight is located above the spindle/axle centerlines, and your suspension geometry must take full advantage of a bad situation.

I appreciate what is being said about the Camaro, but all we know about leaf spring cars does not apply to these factory trailing arm/coil sprung cars.

I never did sort out clearly as to whether your car has any or all solid bushings in the rear bars?
As mentioned, the more compliant bushings will have/use more pinion rotation under load, resulting in the need for more static pinion angle.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

That was GREAT, RallyeBob... learned all kinds of 8 cylinder words and everything !
HEEE HEEEE !!!

Dave, Mikes car is a Super Stock... I think he has an aftermarket 4 link

BTW, I got the ride height down, and did some measurements. It's better, but no where NEAR ideal.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I been thinking a lot about your 62 since I sent you a PM yesterday. I know guys that ran well in the day of these cars that did very little to the rear suspensions. Now I realize we have much better tires and a better clutch setup. These cars didn't seem to be so bad with a good set of tires and some shocks and maybe an airbag. It was soon realized that hard bushings and raising the mounting point of the top bar at the rear was the hot setup. Are you sure the front is working correctly. In the day everyone loosened up all the front end and the things nearly drug the rear bumper, but got weight transfer. Just some thoughts, I think you are getting there.
Jim N.

Traction Getting Better !
 

First, I'd like to thank everybody who advised me here...
I listened to all, and am applying what I am aloud to !

I must admit, I was just about ready to give up. Car has been jinxed !
EVERYTHING going wrong lately !
Have an engine miss that seems to be getting progressively worse. Concerned that it could be electrical system being over-taxed by the new "big" fuel pump, electric water pump and electric fan... with my stupid alternator not working.
Seems to still be really lean too. Don't get THAT ? Same carbs I ran before.

AS for traction, it appears that I may be getting there !
Raised the front about 3/4", and lowered rear a bit ( not enough yet ).
On cold slicks, for the first time, I felt that "jump" effect of a drag car !
FINALLY got a hint of atmosphere under the front tires.

I'm going to bring the rear down another inch. Car will still sit with some forward rake.

thanks again, people

Aubrey

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Glad you're finally getting some traction.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

As a result of your comments...and others similar...I've completely rearranged my site and added, on the home page, a "Getting Started" tutorial with 13 pictures. In effect, I've attempted to cram the engineering student's sophomore year onto one page!

Hope it helps.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Maybe ( likely ? ) I'm missing something, Billy ?
The diagrams helped though.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

questions aubrey...

what did you do with the 2 piece driveshaft ??
two upper links mounted at what position and hieght??
solid bushings all ??
rear locator bar used ?? fixed or floating ??
why was ballast bolted on rear crossmember frowned upon ??
spare tire & related fixtures used in trunk ??
rear bumper original ??
rear seat in place / factory ??
front bench seat / factory ??

what class does the wagon fit with the 409 4 speed ??? THAT would be a HOOT !!!!

jack mccarthy usa3609@aol.com

p.s. i get a couple inches of "atmosphere" in my u/sa wagon...
but better weight distribution helps... 1790 / 2650 = 4470

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

ALL the questions, Jack !

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction, Aubrey
 

There is a guy in Atlanta that has been racing 60's Chevrolet's with 409 Plus Cubic Inch engines since day one. His Name is Lamar Walden, he is still Nostalgie racing those cars. I might can get his number if you'd like to call him!

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Woodro...Could you elaborate on the approx date of Day one ???

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Woodro, I've spoken to Lamar a couple times.
You should have heard him laugh 4 years ago, when I told him I was building a car for actual modern Stock Eliminator ! ! !
His response... you can't get under the Index ( this was the general consensus for most anyone who was experienced with 409's in the later years of Stock ).
He did wish me good luck though !
My one Stock event that I managed to attend a couple years ago... qualified second to last in a 38 car field... but I WAS .18 under the Index ! ( 1.75 60ft... spinning through first gear ).

Anyhow, Lamar's experience, is mostly with SEVERELY modified cars and engines ( angle milled block, ect ).

"Day one" ?
Somewhere in spring of 1961 !
I was 1 year old

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Its too bad you didn't make it to the race in Medicine Hat. I don't know of one car that spun (in our class anyways). The bite was incredible. It would of bogged down that 409 like it never has been before!

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

How did you do, Bob ? Go a few rounds ?
ALWAYS like to see the stick guys come out on top !

Bog down ?
Can't even IMAGINE it !
( break something ?.... maybe )

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I was a duck both days! Had a great race against Caitlin Setters on Saturday. Both had good lites and she won by .012. Went red on Sunday by 5 thou. Car ran good. Qualified #1 Saturday and #2 Sunday. Mike Pruss with his new SS/GA was number one on Sunday. 28 cars on Saturday and 27 on Sunday. A G/SA Mustang broke on Saturday and could not return for Sunday. On a side note they did (I know this is talked about on another thread) not have any heads up races. On Saturdays race Sean Kennedy had a heads up in the third round and obviously was happy to learn about this as he would have been covered by a ton. His opponent was not very happy. Alan Falcone won on Saturday over Sean Kennedy. Not sure who won on Sunday.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Sounds like a Stockin' good time, Bob !

me ?
I don't need no stinking "heads up" races... no good when you're car is a slug that's trying to move across a metal sheet all covered in vegetable oil !

WAY too many bugs in my car... everybody else would have needed air cleaners so their engines wouldn't ingest them... fouling plugs and all.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

I hate to say this Aubrey but if you don't "need or want" heads up, then I suggest you go bracket racing.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Bob, you wouldn't be too intersted in heads up runs either, if you found your car suddenly, and consistently, .25+ off of it's potential 60ft time !

no no... I said, "need" only.
"Want" ?.... ABSOLUTELY !
That's why the pursuit to make the car fast ( relative term, generalizing performance ).
But until ( if ever ), this thing works right... I'm in a bad position if put in a heads-up situation.

The whole point of this project, for me, was to try and go fast, within a strict set of rules. ANYBODY can bolt good parts on, and have a fast car. When the rules don't permit "bolting on" virtually anything, and everything else is held to tolerances within a .001"..... THAT is the challenge !

Never had any interest in bracket racing.
Maybe that's why I'm such a lousy racer ?

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Then don't get discouraged and just keep trying. There hasn't been a racer out there that hasn't had issues with his or her car. We've all been there.

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Aubrey,,, Why don't you bring the car down to Bremerton Raceway at the end of this month? The BC Super Shifters will be making their annual visit down here in the states to take on the local stick cars,, its always a fun outing. Theres some "tuff" stick guys around here and I know your car would be appreciated by the fans here. I love those 62 bubbletops anyway,, and I'll be on the mike that day calling the action. Think about it,,, you won't have to worry about any indexes that weekend. You probably know some of the BC boys anyway,, it could be a fun outing for you............................ Danny Durham

Re: 62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction
 

Aubrey, PLEASE don't give up! I know it's frustrating and very EXPENSIVE as you try to develop this combo....We've all been following the build-up with you over the last few years.....You should be commended on getting that piece out there! Awesome job so far!!!! 1962 Bel-Air Sport Coupes don't exactly grow on trees anymore! THERE will be some DEAD ENDS as you sort this piece out....happens to all of us....How far away is your 'local' drag strip?....I would try to get the car to as many 'test and tune' days as I could.....FIX the problems beforehand if you can....like the fuel delivery/high speed miss thing...Find A BASELINE chassis situation with the previous mentioned info....also a BASELINE clutch set-up....TRY to get some OBSERVERS to go with you and carefully WATCH the car during a run...photos and videotape would be a plus also...Input from local racers there and try to find a guy with 'stick' savvy....RECORD your results and TRY to make ONE CHANGE at a time.....i think you're already doing this.....If your budget allows, that Bremerton date might be a good place to bring the car....you'd be with 'stick' guys....and maybe you could pick up a few pointers there....But please.....NEVER GIVE UP!!!
Just my .02..........