Updated TCP G-Bar triangulated 4-link...

Psydwaze · Nov 21, 2007

I really don't like putting an actual "horsepower" number on a product. A 300-hp vehicle launching on slicks and a transbrake will put a rearend through more abuse than a 600-hp car on street tires. It's not really the engine torque, it's the flywheel inertia and how hard your hitting the tires that's going to break something.

The greatly simplified answer is that street tires aren't going to hurt the suspension. It comes down to how serious are you about drag racing your car. If you're planning on lifting the front wheels on launches and your sanctioning body rules let you run something besides the orignal leaf springs, a parallel four link would be a much wiser choice.

10secgoal · Nov 21, 2007

I don't think either will be ideal with a drag setup. Most of the adjustability of a 4-link that makes them so great is the ability to change "instant center" by changing the angles of the rod arms. Heidts look like it could work well since the uppers are adjustable. But the bottoms aren't. They would be better served to add a mounting point on the axle, with additional holes below the axle.
It'll probably hook pretty well with the way it is, but the IC will be really far forward. Which again isn't horrible. But it wants to lift the front of the car more and more as power goes up. (the reason you see alot of ladder bar cars sky high).
The more you lift the front, the more energy is wasted lifting, than going forward.
It could be better than leafs. But again, depends on the IC of the setup. Stock suspension on fox isn't that great. But there are trailing arms that have bracketry that makes them more adjustable also.

fastcoupe68 · Nov 21, 2007

Psydwaze said:
I really don't like putting an actual "horsepower" number on a product. A 300-hp vehicle launching on slicks and a transbrake will put a rearend through more abuse than a 600-hp car on street tires. It's not really the engine torque, it's the flywheel inertia and how hard your hitting the tires that's going to break something.

The greatly simplified answer is that street tires aren't going to hurt the suspension. It comes down to how serious are you about drag racing your car. If you're planning on lifting the front wheels on launches and your sanctioning body rules let you run something besides the orignal leaf springs, a parallel four link would be a much wiser choice.

just wanted opinions on the tcp setup, not what was better or worse then the tcp set up.

Psydwaze · Nov 21, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
Updated TCP G-Bar triangulated 4-link. Opinions on using this setup in a drag vehicle, Pros and cons??? Anyone feel free to chime in on this

Pros:

Adjustable instant center position (2-position upper cradle mount, 2-position upper housing mount, 3 or 4-position lower housing mount, fixed lower chassis mount) Total of sixteen variations before factoring in the 12-position variable ride height.
Double adjustable shocks available.
Completly assembled fabricated housing available in mild steel or 4130.
Two styles of integrated anti-roll bars are available.
Easy installation.

Cons:

Lacks adjustment range of parallel four link.
May not meet rules of drag racing sanctioning body.
Not as strong as a properly installed back-half.

g-Bar Datasheet (2.4MB)

bnickel · Nov 21, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
just wanted opinions on the tcp setup, not what was better or worse then the tcp set up.

you're talking to a TCP expert here man. he is the MAN when it come to TCP stuff and if he tells you a parallel four link is better than the TCP G-Bar for a dedicated drag car he knows what he's talking about. i'd suggest seriously looking at a Chris Alston or other 4 link for the rear if it's a dedicated drag car. the G-Bar system is mostly designed for pro-touring type cars that spend more time going around corners than 1/4 strips, that's not to say it won't work on street/strip car but it's not the best choice for a dedicated drag car.

bnickel · Nov 21, 2007

Psydwaze said:
Pros:

Adjustable instant center position (2-position upper cradle mount, 2-position upper housing mount, 3 or 4-position lower housing mount, fixed lower chassis mount) Total of sixteen variations before factoring in the 12-position variable ride height.

Double adjustable shocks available.

Completly assembled fabricated housing available in mild steel or 4130.

Two styles of integrated anti-roll bars are available.

Easy installation.

Cons:

Lacks adjustment range of parallel four link.

May not meet rules of drag racing sanctioning body.

Not as strong as a properly installed back-half.

g-Bar Datasheet (2.4MB)

hey Lino, did you see my idea up above about the possibillity of using the TCP torque link and a watt's link to convert the G-Bar to a 3 link/torque arm type suspension at some future date if i so decided? remember this will be in the Cougar not the Stang so i'll have a little more room to play with. just curious what your thoughts are on this. Thanks

fastcoupe68 · Nov 21, 2007

You could always make bolth the uppers and lowers adjustable. I should have been a little clearer and said a street/ strip car. Also, I have been in the resto/ car building thing for a long time and have back halved many cars and have used chassis works products many times and comp engineering stuff is also a very good co. as is S&W. The problem or dilema I am having is the car that this could be going in is in perfect condition and I really dont want to hack this car up and back halve it if I dont have to. This setup caught my eye because you can narrow the rear get rid of the leafsprings and run a decent size tire without going crazy with tubbing the car and you retain all the original sheet metal.
And who is the TCP expert here? And thanks again for all of your input!

10secgoal · Nov 21, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
and have back halved many cars and have used chassis works products many times and comp engineering stuff is also a very good co. as is S&W.

Hell, I didn't need to add my post if you've done this.

Psydwaze · Nov 21, 2007

bnickel said:
hey Lino, did you see my idea up above about the possibillity of using the TCP torque link and a watt's link to convert the G-Bar to a 3 link/torque arm type suspension at some future date if i so decided? remember this will be in the Cougar not the Stang so i'll have a little more room to play with. just curious what your thoughts are on this. Thanks

3-link suspensions, such as the 05-up Mustangs, pivot at both the housing and chassis. (tension/compression link)

Torque arms are fixed to the rearend housing and pivot at chassis mount. (bending arm)

Both require a lateral locating device.

I like your idea, but not sure how much of an improvement it would be over the standard g-Bar. You would have a easier roll center height adjustment with a rear mounted Watts link, and have the multi-position shock and lower control arm brackets of our system. Hmmm... Thats a good hmmm.

Since the refinement of the g-Bar/AirBar system, I have a new found respect for the triangulated four-link suspension. Torque arms are simple and predictable but still have their own set of comprimises which can be aided by using a decoupled mount. But, they also limit any range of instant center adjustment that can be made from the lower control arms; assuming we're stuck with the factory leaf-spring mount for the lower arm.

Our particular triangulated 4-link (g-Bar) allows geometry adjustments beyond the limits of a torque arm system. It also does a very good job at laterally locating the housing. I think the Fox four-links gave this type of suspension a bad reputation for binding once the bushing compliance finally ran out and your car swapped ends. A rising spring rate is unavoidable when using rubber or poly bushings, because there is always some degree of binding. Suprisingly, a correctly designed triangulated four link, with spherical bearings, moves very freely throughout a very wide range of body roll and vertical travel.

As an example, this is one of our Chassisworks billet, triangulated 4-link in roll; completely bind free. There was still misalignment travel of the pivots remaining. But a modern vehicle should never roll this much.

bnickel · Nov 21, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
You could always make bolth the uppers and lowers adjustable. I should have been a little clearer and said a street/ strip car. Also, I have been in the resto/ car building thing for a long time and have back halved many cars and have used chassis works products many times and comp engineering stuff is also a very good co. as is S&W. The problem or dilema I am having is the car that this could be going in is in perfect condition and I really dont want to hack this car up and back halve it if I dont have to. This setup caught my eye because you can narrow the rear get rid of the leafsprings and run a decent size tire without going crazy with tubbing the car and you retain all the original sheet metal.
And who is the TCP expert here? And thanks again for all of your input!

PSydwaze is the TCP expert here. i'll let him tell you why, it's not my place to do so. if the car is a street/strip car then I'd think the G-Bar will be fine for what you want

Psydwaze · Nov 21, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
... you can narrow the rear get rid of the leafsprings and run a decent size tire without going crazy with tubbing the car...

We can narrow the housing up to 2" shorter for '64-66 or 4" shorter for '67-70. However we are still working off the factory front leaf-spring mounts, so the arms are positioned 43" apart on center. This nets you about a 1/2" clearance since the lower arms are 1-1/2" OD compared to the 2-1/2" wide leaf springs. You're still looking at mini-tubs before the lower arm becomes a clearance issue.

bnickel · Nov 21, 2007

Psydwaze said:
3-link suspensions, such as the 05-up Mustangs, pivot at both the housing and chassis. (tension/compression link)

Torque arms are fixed to the rearend housing and pivot at chassis mount. (bending arm)

Both require a lateral locating device.

I like your idea, but not sure how much of an improvement it would be over the standard g-Bar. You would have a easier roll center height adjustment with a rear mounted Watts link, and have the multi-position shock and lower control arm brackets of our system. Hmmm... Thats a good hmmm.

Since the refinement of the g-Bar/AirBar system, I have a new found respect for the triangulated four-link suspension. Torque arms are simple and predictable but still have their own set of comprimises which can be aided by using a decoupled mount. But, they also limit any range of instant center adjustment that can be made from the lower control arms; assuming we're stuck with the factory leaf-spring mount for the lower arm.

Our particular triangulated 4-link (g-Bar) allows geometry adjustments beyond the limits of a torque arm system. It also does a very good job at laterally locating the housing. I think the Fox four-links gave this type of suspension a bad reputation for binding once the bushing compliance finally ran out and your car swapped ends. A rising spring rate is unavoidable when using rubber or poly bushings, because there is always some degree of binding. Suprisingly, a correctly designed triangulated four link, with spherical bearings, moves very freely throughout a very wide range of body roll and vertical travel.

As an example, this is one of our Chassisworks billet, triangulated 4-link in roll; completely bind free. There was still misalignment travel of the pivots remaining. But a modern vehicle should never roll this much.

yeah, i don't know that there would be that much improvement either just an idea that popped in my head after seeing the new system. also, i was thinking that since the Cougar has a longer distance from betwen the front spring mount and the axle housing i'd have more room for a three link or torque arm and thus better geometry (probably, this all just wanderings in my brain at this point), i've also though about the idea of deleting the 2 upper links and using their chassis mount as an upper thre link chassis mount and then just using a longer link mounted on top of the diff housing, again this all just wanderings of my overactive imagination right now, but i think there could be some benefits to this. that's one of the reasons i was so elated when you told me these were coming for the cougar a while back, that's actually when the wanderings started, BTW, and once i saw the finished actual product it really got intense, my brain hasn't shut off since

honestly, i think if did anything it would be the torque arm thing, if you guys decide to play with it any let me know and i want all the credit too

one of the reasons i thought about doing something like this other than just being different is exhaust clearance, there wouldn't be near the problem with routing the exhaust all the way out with the torque arm deal as there is with the triangulated 4 link. that brings up another question too, i've heard that you guys are planning on selling pre-bent tailpipes for the G-Bar systems and i just wanted to know if the rumor was true or not and if it is are y'all gonna have one for the cougars?

fastcoupe68 · Nov 21, 2007

PSydwaze, with much respect, what would your thoughts be on using this setup in a pretty serious street strip car. The car in question is a 68 coupe.

Psydwaze · Nov 21, 2007

bnickel said:
... one of the reasons i thought about doing something like this other than just being different is exhaust clearance... i've heard that you guys are planning on selling pre-bent tailpipes for the G-Bar systems and i just wanted to know if the rumor was true or not...?

Exhaust clearance over the housing is pretty minimal. There's a chance it could be done using an OEM 9" housing instead of our FAB9 due to the swoop (technical term ) of the center section before it meets the axle tube. Kinda iffy though. We have an exhaust section designed for the billet 4-link shown in the earlier post but nothing confirmed for the g-Bar.

I really like this setup. This is one of cleanest looking exhaust systems I've seen routed underneath the axle. Unfortunately it wouldn't work with our housing mounted anti-roll bar. Hey, but we've got another one you can use.

View attachment 346841

A prefabbed under axle exhaust, done correctly, could be nice but we still have about a 4" variation in possible ride heights to deal with. So we either have an extra 4" of clearance below the axle on a car set at the lowest ride height or ignore the ones set at the highest height to give everyone else a tighter fit.

bnickel · Nov 21, 2007

Psydwaze said:
Exhaust clearance over the housing is pretty minimal. There's a chance it could be done using an OEM 9" housing instead of our FAB9 due to the swoop (technical term ) of the center section before it meets the axle tube. Kinda iffy though. We have an exhaust section designed for the billet 4-link shown in the earlier post but nothing confirmed for the g-Bar.

I really like this setup. This is one of cleanest looking exhaust systems I've seen routed underneath the axle. Unfortunately would work with our housing mounted anti-roll bar. Hey, but we've got another one you can use.

View attachment 346833

A prefabbed under axle exhaust, done correctly, could be nice but we still have about a 4" variation in possible ride heights to deal with. So we either have an extra 4" of clearance below the axle on a car set at the lowest ride height or ignore the ones set at the highest height to give everyone else a tighter fit.

i figured it was just a rumor, but it sounded plausible considering the source it came from. well known vendor is all say though.

TurboDoctor · Nov 21, 2007

I didnt know tcp was still around

68EFIvert · Nov 22, 2007

bnickel said:
yeah, i don't know that there would be that much improvement either just an idea that popped in my head after seeing the new system. also, i was thinking that since the Cougar has a longer distance from betwen the front spring mount and the axle housing i'd have more room for a three link or torque arm and thus better geometry (probably, this all just wanderings in my brain at this point), i've also though about the idea of deleting the 2 upper links and using their chassis mount as an upper thre link chassis mount and then just using a longer link mounted on top of the diff housing, again this all just wanderings of my overactive imagination right now, but i think there could be some benefits to this. that's one of the reasons i was so elated when you told me these were coming for the cougar a while back, that's actually when the wanderings started, BTW, and once i saw the finished actual product it really got intense, my brain hasn't shut off since

honestly, i think if did anything it would be the torque arm thing, if you guys decide to play with it any let me know and i want all the credit too

one of the reasons i thought about doing something like this other than just being different is exhaust clearance, there wouldn't be near the problem with routing the exhaust all the way out with the torque arm deal as there is with the triangulated 4 link. that brings up another question too, i've heard that you guys are planning on selling pre-bent tailpipes for the G-Bar systems and i just wanted to know if the rumor was true or not and if it is are y'all gonna have one for the cougars?

I called the TCP tech line just before SEMA and they told me they were likely going to have an over the rear tail pipe available. Perhaps that was just speculation from the tech that helped me.

bnickel · Nov 23, 2007

68EFIvert said:
I called the TCP tech line just before SEMA and they told me they were likely going to have an over the rear tail pipe available. Perhaps that was just speculation from the tech that helped me.

i actually heard that from another a vendor on another forum, he's not a ford vendor though he's a GM guy and the specific thread was about the Camaro G-Bar.

Psydwaze · Nov 23, 2007

fastcoupe68 said:
PSydwaze, with much respect, what would your thoughts be on using this setup in a pretty serious street strip car. The car in question is a 68 coupe.

Can you be more specific about the goals of the project and any limitations or guidelines you need to adhere to?

Horsepower?
Drivetrain?
Tires type/size?
Target 1/4 ET?
Target 60 ft times?
Cutting, welding OK?
Is appearance important?
Will the front suspension be set up to drive well on the street or made to better transfer weight for drag racing?

Do you want a street car that you can safely run at the track? Or a drag car you can safely drive on the street? Sounds silly but there really is a very significant difference.

fastcoupe68 · Nov 23, 2007

Can you be more specific about the goals of the project and any limitations or guidelines you need to adhere to?

Horsepower?427 cid 650 hp on motor, it will also have a nitrous system
Drivetrain? 5 spd
Tires type/size? street 275/60 BFG drag radial, track 28x10.5 slick
Target 1/4 ET? 9.50
Target 60 ft times? The best possible times
Cutting, welding OK? Don't want to if not needed
Is appearance important? yes
Will the front suspension be set up to drive well on the street or made to better transfer weight for drag racing? the car has a rod and custom front suspension
with adjustable coil overs
Do you want a street car that you can safely run at the track? Or a drag car you can safely drive on the street? Sounds silly but there really is a very significant difference.
a street car that you can safely run at the track

Updated TCP G-Bar triangulated 4-link...

Psydwaze

10secgoal

Active Member

fastcoupe68

Member

Psydwaze

bnickel

bnickel

fastcoupe68

Member

10secgoal

Active Member

Psydwaze

bnickel

Psydwaze

bnickel

fastcoupe68

Member

Psydwaze

bnickel

TurboDoctor

68EFIvert

Member

bnickel

Psydwaze

fastcoupe68

Member

Similar threads

Updated TCP G-Bar triangulated 4-link...

Active Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency