Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Horn clip?

  1. #1

    Default Horn clip?

    Anyone ever update older car to little newer horn front geometry ? Or any other good front end geometry to try out on some of these older cars. Since i know at least in my area there is a surplus of blue/grey/black rockets and smackdown masters cars laying around. Were would one find measurements for locating the pick up points of the suspension?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Where are you from? There's quite a few around Central/north Georgia.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Clint Smith would be able to put you in touch with someone. I believe Doug Steven's that helps with senoia raceway does horn front ends.

  4. #4

    Default

    im in the mid atlantic MD, Georgia is a bit of a hike haha

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Kriptonite will clip older rocket stuff and put their front end stuff on it. I don't have the first clue what their stuff is similar to. One would guess rocket. But i do know a few people that have them and claim they are the best steering car they have ever driven

  6. #6

    Default

    i have seen alot of older rockets with the kryptonite reverse strut front end, id imagine from the looks of them its a modified blue/grey geometry. Might be a good option i like the thinking behind it. still alot of guys love the blue grey over the xr1, think it has alot to do with comfort and understanding of adjustments that are effective

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Let me start by saying that I am not associated with anyone who is running one of these late model chassis from any manufacturer...but I am a very observant person who has a good understanding of chassis dynamics. My points are as follows: Their are reasons that the newer stuff(2016+ ruffly) is better. The newer chassis' not only have the increased right front clearance, but chassis setup technique has changed too. The new stuff is not dependent on static scale numbers. With the new stuff, you may have to put it on scales and set some ride heights, but this is not where the secret stuff comes in. The secret stuff has to do with the load numbers on the right front and also the load numbers on the right rear. The load number that is commonly worked on the right front is a number that is determined at 4-5 inches of travel. These load numbers are set on a spring smasher, and most all of the guys running this newer stuff will have the spring smasher machine with them at the track. These measured numbers at X number of inches of travel are much more relevant than any number that could be found by weighing a care at ride height on 4 scales. I am not saying that any certain chassis cannot be modernized, they all can. Someone said that a chassis is just steel tube that has been welded together, and this is true to a certain extent. If you are trying to run an older chassis, you must realize that although the chassis can be made to get the rf travel that a current chassis can achieve, you will not be getting the help that the other guys with these new chassis are getting. Very often they can call the chassis company after the heat race and the support guy will give them advice on what their right side load numbers should be. You will have to make your own setup decisions. By buying a current chassis, you are getting new steel, but most importantly you are buying know how. This know how usually comes from a top 30 driver, and he is beeing helped by several engineer type guys.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Batavia, OH
    Posts
    11,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtdobberrr View Post
    Let me start by saying that I am not associated with anyone who is running one of these late model chassis from any manufacturer...but I am a very observant person who has a good understanding of chassis dynamics. My points are as follows: Their are reasons that the newer stuff(2016+ ruffly) is better. The newer chassis' not only have the increased right front clearance, but chassis setup technique has changed too. The new stuff is not dependent on static scale numbers. With the new stuff, you may have to put it on scales and set some ride heights, but this is not where the secret stuff comes in. The secret stuff has to do with the load numbers on the right front and also the load numbers on the right rear. The load number that is commonly worked on the right front is a number that is determined at 4-5 inches of travel. These load numbers are set on a spring smasher, and most all of the guys running this newer stuff will have the spring smasher machine with them at the track. These measured numbers at X number of inches of travel are much more relevant than any number that could be found by weighing a care at ride height on 4 scales. I am not saying that any certain chassis cannot be modernized, they all can. Someone said that a chassis is just steel tube that has been welded together, and this is true to a certain extent. If you are trying to run an older chassis, you must realize that although the chassis can be made to get the rf travel that a current chassis can achieve, you will not be getting the help that the other guys with these new chassis are getting. Very often they can call the chassis company after the heat race and the support guy will give them advice on what their right side load numbers should be. You will have to make your own setup decisions. By buying a current chassis, you are getting new steel, but most importantly you are buying know how. This know how usually comes from a top 30 driver, and he is beeing helped by several engineer type guys.
    If you don't need those guys, your old updated car is just as good. The smasher don't care where you put those shocks. All the smasher tells you is what the load would be on your coilover mounts, if you travel that far. It doesn't mean you actually hit all those points. The same physics also still apply. More wedge loosens decel and tightens accel. You still have to understand what your car and driver is doing at all points on the track. Brandon Sheppard smash numbers are useless for a guy who doesn't back up the corner.

    There's nothing special about the smasher.
    Last edited by MasterSbilt_Racer; 10-29-2020 at 07:56 AM.
    Droop isn't the problem.

    Arizona Speedway - 2

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtdobberrr View Post
    Let me start by saying that I am not associated with anyone who is running one of these late model chassis from any manufacturer...but I am a very observant person who has a good understanding of chassis dynamics. My points are as follows: Their are reasons that the newer stuff(2016+ ruffly) is better. The newer chassis' not only have the increased right front clearance, but chassis setup technique has changed too. The new stuff is not dependent on static scale numbers. With the new stuff, you may have to put it on scales and set some ride heights, but this is not where the secret stuff comes in. The secret stuff has to do with the load numbers on the right front and also the load numbers on the right rear. The load number that is commonly worked on the right front is a number that is determined at 4-5 inches of travel. These load numbers are set on a spring smasher, and most all of the guys running this newer stuff will have the spring smasher machine with them at the track. These measured numbers at X number of inches of travel are much more relevant than any number that could be found by weighing a care at ride height on 4 scales. I am not saying that any certain chassis cannot be modernized, they all can. Someone said that a chassis is just steel tube that has been welded together, and this is true to a certain extent. If you are trying to run an older chassis, you must realize that although the chassis can be made to get the rf travel that a current chassis can achieve, you will not be getting the help that the other guys with these new chassis are getting. Very often they can call the chassis company after the heat race and the support guy will give them advice on what their right side load numbers should be. You will have to make your own setup decisions. By buying a current chassis, you are getting new steel, but most importantly you are buying know how. This know how usually comes from a top 30 driver, and he is beeing helped by several engineer type guys.
    The "updated magical suspension geometry" is just moving things around so they don't bounce off the track. With the 15" nose height rule (which granted, isn't enforced) it is pretty easy to get any car to have the nose be the first thing that hits the track, which is what you want. From a geometry standpoint, I have seen no massive overhauls in A frame configuration or steering geometry that warrants the OP taking the car to anyone to get the magic new front clip installed..
    As MBR said, the spring smasher is just a glorified spring rater and certainly contains no secret voodoo. My smasher battery died about 8 months ago and haven't had a need to replace it.

  10. #10

    Default

    Itís not magic, itís a set starting point that is known to be better. I believe the ďmagicĒ lay more in the spindles and the way the act upon the car in a turn ( weight jacking ) and these newer front ends have a better pre existing dynamic caster camber number. Which could all be achieved with any car by relocating pick up points for control arms, adjusting bumpsteer ect. The newer horn and rocket stuff is just a much closer baseline, and much more easily adjusted with the advent of slugged upper mounts. There is no magic other than having the right tools in your box to make and understand adjustments and the time to experiment with them.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Nothing magic about a smasher it's just a better way of tunning on the car. As masters said it still works the same. The only magic in the new front ends is the settings have been adjusted for the increased travel and current stance of the cars

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Batavia, OH
    Posts
    11,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jking24 View Post
    Nothing magic about a smasher it's just a better way of tunning on the car. As masters said it still works the same. The only magic in the new front ends is the settings have been adjusted for the increased travel and current stance of the cars
    That's correct. The components themselves are not all that different from 15 years ago.
    Droop isn't the problem.

    Arizona Speedway - 2

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    If you don't need those guys, your old updated car is just as good. The smasher don't care where you put those shocks. All the smasher tells you is what the load would be on your coilover mounts, if you travel that far. It doesn't mean you actually hit all those points. The same physics also still apply. More wedge loosens decel and tightens accel. You still have to understand what your car and driver is doing at all points on the track. Brandon Sheppard smash numbers are useless for a guy who doesn't back up the corner.

    There's nothing special about the smasher.

    Not too sure about that. In Jimmy's DoD interview, he said Rockets baseline was the best he had ever seen!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Macon GA
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZERO25 View Post
    Not too sure about that. In Jimmy's DoD interview, he said Rockets baseline was the best he had ever seen!
    Must be nice to be so naive as to think that dirt racers are actually telling the truth in interviews........... do you still put your teeth under your pillow for the tooth fairy when they fall out? Saying jimmy Owens is on the rocket baseline is like saying Epstein killed himself. As master built was sayin, physics matter and smash numbers arenít the whole story......

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Batavia, OH
    Posts
    11,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZERO25 View Post
    Not too sure about that. In Jimmy's DoD interview, he said Rockets baseline was the best he had ever seen!
    Which baseline? Before or after he altered his rear track width? Hmm

    Why did it take him years to make himself comfortable in an Xr1?
    Last edited by MasterSbilt_Racer; 10-31-2020 at 07:14 AM.
    Droop isn't the problem.

    Arizona Speedway - 2

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    Which baseline? Before or after he altered his rear track width? Hmm

    Why did it take him years to make himself comfortable in an Xr1?
    Dont shoot the messenger......you should be asking him these questions!

  17. #17

    Default

    Id venture to say Cody Mallory had alot to contribute to the speed they found this year.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Batavia, OH
    Posts
    11,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgy9991 View Post
    Id venture to say Cody Mallory had alot to contribute to the speed they found this year.
    I hear he helps Rumley with physics equations.
    Droop isn't the problem.

    Arizona Speedway - 2

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    I hear he helps Rumley with physics equations.
    He's the guy that tells him where the decimal goes lol

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    I think chemistry is Codys expertise! lol

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.