I am wanting to know the negative side of increasing the % of anti-squat... here is the story...

I made some LCA relocating brackets (thanks for not calling back, SPOHN, or answering your email: you saved me about $50!!), and got them on last night (UGLY WELDS :-)

They brought the rear mounting point down 2.625" (same as BMR's). Previously the drivers side was pro-squat with the rear mount being higher than the front about .75"

Well, goosing it on my driveway.. WOW it pulls the rear up and no spin!

How much is too much? Why don't we lower that point 6 inches? (I know that is extreme, I just want to understand the CONS - I know the PRO is better traction, esp. for drag racing.)

 

Brake hop is the only problem I've ever had.

 

After posting I read a section on anti-squat in a chassis book at the bookstore (2 pages is all), and that is what they said...

It seems to me that if it lifts the rear and maintains that throughout the run, then energy must be lost to that lift.

I will find out in an hour... on the way to the track now :-)

 

When we did the testing for this I dropped mine till if I blew a tire it would not hit the relocater. this gave me 4* up(from back to front) angle. Dropped 2/10th in 60ft alone

------------------
Ellis
Team Captain
Team North West F-Body
www.teamnwfbody.org

 

as you increase your anti-squat you are also going to increase your tendency for brake hop under heavy breaking with a torque arm type suspension.

the energy used to lift the car isn't "wasted" energy - it is the resistive force to the torquing of the rear axle - this force is replied regardless of what you do with it, you are just altering the rear suspension to take advantage of it.


Chris

 

Well, it helped.... lots! I don't know if I have enough room to drill another hole lower... :-) I and did that gorilla weld job (big, ugly, strong)

Gotta look and see... 60' only dropped .03, but I made it hook (sometimes) before... and no_spin=no_spin I guess...