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.