Surely to God, SAFETY is the prime concern(when discussing suitability of the various options)? There are a number of unforeseen issues at play when our FUCA's are under severe usage. Not only do they travel UP & DOWN, they also TWIST at various degrees throughout this travel. This complex behavior IS the main reason for the subsequent shortcomings of many of UAS's earlier FUCA attempts. I know, because I became the Unpaid Crash Test Dummy for much of the earlier attempts at "Getting it Right". Fortunately, the "Friendship"(between JP & I)was strong enough to carry us through a very "trying" period of development.:zlove: Once you allow COST($) to become the main issue in this discussion, you have LOST THE PLOT!!(It's like that 'old gem') "If you have a $10 Head, wear a $10 Helmet".:br:
Bullshit Chili. Obviously I'm not going to install something that is likely to fail, but I don't need to gold plate everything to make it race worthy. My race cars have always been built to a very low budget and mostly with second hand parts, and I've rarely failed to finish a race due to parts failure. Whereas I look around at so many people spending big money on all these great parts and race engines etc etc and they're the ones that never finish a race lol. Don't stress Chili, I've been racing for 10 years, have raced 5 years in a row at Bathurst, I'm not going to put my car or myself at risk by running parts that are likely to fail :zlove:
And as far as spending $600 plus for UAS's latest attempt, I understand the theory, but has anyone race tested these parts? As mentioned in this thread, UAS's previous versions, including the original version of this current FUCA, have all failed. Sorry but I'm not going to spend $600 bucks to test these out at Bathurst lol.
So, taking this latest piece of your undoubted 'Literary Genius' as a guide, just exactly where, do you get the questionable entitlement to label my accurate summation, of MY personal experiences(in regard to THIS specific item)as being "Bullshit"? I HAVE THE RUNS, ON THE BOARD! Lighten-up, Sunshine!!!:rolleyes2::zlove:
First up Chili, you quoted the wrong post And I wasn't calling your experience bullshit, I was calling out your post suggesting I was going to put safety above price.[TIS] :zlove::zlove:
To check if any suspension part may be prone to flexing or breakage, remove the springs and dampers and move the suspension up and down to check for any binding. If there is then isolate the part responsible. If there isn't then you are good to go, providing everything is bolted down securely and no parts are flawed. I know nothing of the problem you mention but suspect that the suspension design relies on some bush compliance in order to move smoothly. Sometimes bush compliance is used to generate a alignment advantage eg Honda for one have done this. So I would be careful about changing from the stock setup before understanding what is happening and why.
Point taken Mate(I was referencing your mention of cost vs function,) however, now that you have clarified your position, we are on the SAME PAGE!! All good!!:zlove::br:
Shane I have race tested both versions for many years and over 40 track days, with no issues. It will be out again at Eastern Creek Easter Monday 197kph around turn 1. As I have customised the front end with different pivot points to raise the roll center, increase camber and caster and radius or caster rod locations changed to introduce anti dive and also made custom rack ends to change Akerman angle changes. Prior to making these pivoting arms every time I went to the track I tore bushes apart or bent aftermarket control arms. This is mainly due smashing ripple strips and the twisting loads due to twisting loads from geometry changes. Keep in mind being a race car it has at least 4 degrees neg camber so I have the shorter pivoting arms so they have far less leverage so less chance of being an issue, although more loads. The Z32 and R32 have a unique, complex, heavy and poor designed front end. Nissan eventually went to a ball joint top and bottom in the 350Z and 350 Skyline like all other car manufacturers did by using top control arm set up with ball joints. If it is a road car with factory settings then Nismo bushes are the go. If you want to adjust camber and caster or more, then you need UAS pivoting arms. Many Z cars that come to our workshop have worn top control arm bushes and didn't really know. Worse still they have bent aftermarket control arms sometimes twisting on the threads. I only have the short race versions. I have plenty of these in stock and can do a deal. Call me 02 96209000.
John, sadly I'm already over budget and still spending on essentials for the weekend, so at this stage I'll be sticking with factory arms and camber bolts.
Weld up and redrill the lower arm holes in the cross member so they are 15mm outward from their initial position. That should give you approx 3 degrees Most of the problems with the FUCAS even the UAS ones is if the car is lowered by more than 30mm they hit the top of the bracket bolted to the shocker tower which bends the arms when the suspension bottoms out. Almost ALL the aftermarket arms have very thick pivot ends and spacer rods which reduces clearance even more than stock.. Either cut the top out of the bracket so it doesnt hit, or raise the car. If the car isnt too low you wont have a problem even with the Stillen arms. I ran Stillen arms for years without issue, but my car was only dropped 20mm.
