School me on drop spindles...

[cam.man67]

Thinking about working on the stance of my Dart this year; I like the idea of making a nod towards traditionally lowered mild customs. I'm not in it for the handling, though I have already upgraded the torsion bars with .92"s and threw on some new Monroe shocks.

My question is twofold:

1. Has anybody experienced bumpsteer issues with 2" drop spindles? If so, has this been positively or negatively affected by a softer suspension? I've heard of guys running into is with 1" and up bars, but since I'm running softer, will that help?

2. I seriously doubt this will be an issue, but do you think I'll run into tire rub on 205 70 14s?

 

[72bluNblu]

1. Bumpsteer is not related to the size of the torsion bar, it has only to do with the angle of the tie rod in relation to the suspension throughout its travel. So, any bumpsteer encountered by folks with 1" or larger torsion bars would be exactly the same with smaller torsion bars if the ride height was set up equally. If anything, using smaller bars might make the bumpsteer effect worse, because the larger bars would tend to limit the amount of suspension travel. But, within the same amount of travel, the size of the bar makes no difference.

2. Whether or not the tires will rub with 205/70/14's will be entirely up to the backspacing on the rims and how much you choose to lower your car.

 

[Darter6]

I know it is hard to notice but I had 2'' drop spindles on this 63 Valiant.Those are 15'' rims on it. I noticed no ill effect with ride,handling, tire wear etc. I ran 26'' tall tires on it and did have tire rub in turns,even after rolling the fender lip.I changed to a smaller 24'' tire and cured the problem. This was with the factory Mopar 73 up "A" front disc brake setup.

 

[/6 Matt]

Drop spindles, as far as I'm concerned, is the only way to drop the front of the car.

 

[70Duster440]

Drop spindles, while crazy expensive, would be the best way to lower the front and retain handling vs. dialing down the torsion bars. Lowering via the torsion bars changes the spring rate, making for a mushier front end. Also closes the distance between bump stops.

Like 72bluNblu said, the drop spindles change the spindle position, not where the end of the tie rods are. Lowering via torsion bars would have that affect however.

Your combination of .92 bars, shocks, and possibly a front roll bar will make for a pretty firm front end, IMO. Your closest point of tire contact will be the fender mounting tab at the rear of the wheel opening on turns.

 

[abodyjoe]

contact GMachineDartGT (pete) about it. he was running them on his dart for a while. i believe he took them off for some reason though.. he uses the hell out of his car so i'm sure you would get some good info from him..

guess you could contact him here also.. http://www.bergmanautocraft.com/ or https://www.facebook.com/BergmanAutoCraft

 

[72bluNblu]

Drop spindles, while crazy expensive, would be the best way to lower the front and retain handling vs. dialing down the torsion bars. Lowering via the torsion bars changes the spring rate, making for a mushier front end. Also closes the distance between bump stops.

This isn't true.

Lowering your car with the torsion bar adjusters does not change the spring rate. In fact, it has NO effect on your spring rate whatsoever. Torsion bars are linear springs, and nothing you can do to them short of taking a torch to them will change your spring rate.

If you look at how the LCA and torsion bar adjusters work, you'll see that what happens when you turn the torsion bar adjusting bolt is that the angle between the LCA and the torsion bar socket changes. That lowers the car by changing the angle of the LCA with respect to the frame. The weight applied to the torsion bar by the car doesn't change, it just lowers the point at which the weight is applied.

Drop spindles are completely and totally unnecessary if you increase the size of your torsion bars. The only problem that comes about with lowering the car using the torsion bar adjusters is that it reduces the amount of available travel your suspension has. If you have stock torsion bars, that's a problem because you need all of that travel. That's why stock suspension feels worse when you lower the car with the horribly weak stock torsion bars, its because you're bottoming the suspension while driving. Or maybe even sitting on the bump stops.

But, if you have larger torsion bars than stock (1" or more) you won't use all of that travel anyway. The 1.12" bars on my Duster have a spring rate of 300 lb/in, which is almost 3x the rate of stock V8 bars. Which means I only need about 1/3 of the travel I needed with stock torsion bars. Probably less, because the larger bars "react" faster to suspension inputs.

The drop spindles also introduce some bump steer. Not enough to cause problems for street driven cars, but they do add some bump steer. They also eliminate the benefit of going to 18" rims to clear the outer tie rod. Because they "lower" the outer tie rod end with respect to the suspension, 18's no longer clear the outer tie rod. So you're limited to ~5.6" of backspace again, just like 17's or smaller.

Drop spindles are not the only "right" way to lower one of our cars. You're better off buying the right size torsion bars and lowering the car with the adjusters. You'll not only pick up the lower center of gravity, you won't add bump steer, and you'll handle better without the horrible stock torsion bars. For about the same price.

I ran my Challenger with Magnumforce's 2" drop spindles for years. I swapped them out when I realized I could get the same overall ride height without them. I kept everything else the same, including the 1.12" torsion bars I'd had on the car the entire time. There was NO change whatsoever in the quality of the ride of the car. None. And I haven't bottomed out the suspension even once, in about 10k miles of driving daily.

 

[70Duster440]

Well, then I stand corrected! My apologies. I coulda' saved $500. My experience with mushier front ends can be attributed to other factors.

 

[72bluNblu]

Well, then I stand corrected! My apologies. I coulda' saved $500. My experience with mushier front ends can be attributed to other factors.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound rude! ops:

Torsion bar suspensions are pretty easy to misunderstand. I know I didn't get them for YEARS. Which is why I ran drop spindles for so long. But the whole concept of pre-load doesn't really apply to torsion bar suspensions in the same way that it does to coil spring or strut type suspensions, so there ends up being a lot of misconceptions, especially about the torsion bar adjusters and what role they play.

On a coil spring or strut type suspension, ride height is tied directly to how much the spring is, or isn't, compressed. On a torsion bar suspension, ride height is almost entirely separated from spring loading. Which is why it's so easy to change the ride height on torsion bar suspended cars. The only problem we run into with the old mopars is that they're too undersprung to reduce the amount of travel very much. But with a larger set of bars, you can do almost anything you like with the ride height as long as you can still get the car into the correct alignment specs, because lowering/raising the car does change your camber, caster, and toe. That's another reason why you can end up with negative effects from lowering the car with the bars. If you don't correct the alignment once its lowered, it won't handle right.

 

[swifter]

Great way to explain--72--First hand experience too !!!!!!!! Steve

 

[70Duster440]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound rude! ops:

No, I get it, and appreciate your explanation. I just had to take time and think back when I did it on a big car many years ago and just why the front seemed Jello-y afterwards. It's tough when you're proved ignorant and $500 poorer at the same time.

I mourn the days of relatively inexpensive torsion bar sets too...

 

[HemiDenny]

I must be confused.....

How does the drop spindle change the front end geometry? As long as everything else (tosion bar size/tire size / ect.) stays the same......doesn't the 2" drop spindle essentially just raise the actual spindle position 2" with EVERYTHING else (lower ball joint / steering arm) remaining the same, thereby dropping the front 2"?

the big advantage I see is that the geometry remains the SAME as factory (with factory ride height) ....except the front is appox 2"lower.....without the suspension resting on the bump stops.

The downside being that because the outer rim is now is higher on the spindle, it is also closer, perhaps in contact with the outer tie rod. I have personally never seen this....but I rarely run a 14" rim.

just askin?

 

[ntsqd]

Lowering your car with the torsion bar adjusters does not change the spring rate. In fact, it has NO effect on your spring rate whatsoever. Torsion bars are linear springs, and nothing you can do to them short of taking a torch to them will change your spring rate.

Eh, no. While it may be true that the bar itself is linear in spring rate, the lever is traveling thru an arc. Because we're dealing with gravity the force is always in the same direction, straight up and down. Since the LCA is a lever and it's BJ end is traveling in arc the effective lever length is always changing because the effective lever length is always the perpendicular distance from the force to the rotational axis. That means that the spring system is no longer linear. If the distance traveled by the lower BJ is small enough then you may be able to treat it as being linear because the delta in lever length is so small, but it isn't truly linear and this can bite you. Particularly when you're dealing with something like a VW rear torsion bar suspension in off road racing. There the wheel travel can be nearly 2 feet and the non-linearity of the torsion bar suspension (too high of a rise in the rising rate) makes getting the damping right an impressively large PITA. Granted this isn't off road racing and we're not dealing with 2' of wheel travel, but you still can't say that a torsion bar suspension is perfectly linear. Due to the small travel distance you *might* be OK in treating it as linear, but it isn't linear and this shouldn't be forgotten.
FWIW coil springs are in torsion too. The basic formula (not the simplified and adapted coil formula) for the spring rate of each is the same.

But, if you have larger torsion bars than stock (1" or more) you won't use all of that travel anyway. The 1.12" bars on my Duster have a spring rate of 300 lb/in, which is almost 3x the rate of stock V8 bars. Which means I only need about 1/3 of the travel I needed with stock torsion bars. Probably less, because the larger bars "react" faster to suspension inputs.

I suspect that its a definition of terms thing, but stiffer springs are by nature less responsive to any stimulus. They exhibit an inertia in that it takes more force to make them do anything as compared to a lower rate spring. In my mind that makes them less reactive, not more.
And fwiw I think that you should hit the bump-stops on occasion. It is unsettling to the car, so you don't want to be doing it in the middle of a comp of some sort, but once in a while a truly exceptional pothole or something should having you hitting the stops. If you're not you're probably too stiff and giving away some cornering power and/or ride quality.

The drop spindles also introduce some bump steer. Not enough to cause problems for street driven cars, but they do add some bump steer. They also eliminate the benefit of going to 18" rims to clear the outer tie rod. Because they "lower" the outer tie rod end with respect to the suspension, 18's no longer clear the outer tie rod. So you're limited to ~5.6" of backspace again, just like 17's or smaller.

I'm perplexed by what you're calling "bump-steer." What I call bump-steer is a change in toe due to the cycling of the suspension. Unless all of the drop spindles are categorically bad in this regard (& I can't see how they might be) I'm not seeing how any drop spindle will have more or less bump-steer than an OE spindle. Given how the steering arm is part of the lower BJ I can see people saying "avoid brand X lower BJ's because their forging/machining is off and they have excessive bump-steer", but not any spindles.

 

[72bluNblu]

I must be confused.....

How does the drop spindle change the front end geometry? As long as everything else (tosion bar size/tire size / ect.) stays the same......doesn't the 2" drop spindle essentially just raise the actual spindle position 2" with EVERYTHING else (lower ball joint / steering arm) remaining the same, thereby dropping the front 2"?

the big advantage I see is that the geometry remains the SAME as factory (with factory ride height) ....except the front is appox 2"lower.....without the suspension resting on the bump stops.

The downside being that because the outer rim is now is higher on the spindle, it is also closer, perhaps in contact with the outer tie rod. I have personally never seen this....but I rarely run a 14" rim.

just askin?

That 2" is added between the spindle and the lower ball joint, which is also the outer tie rod attachment point.

So, another way to think about it is that you lowered your outer tie rod end by 2" with regard to the steering axis. Which is where the bump steer comes from, the angle of the tie rods is changed significantly. Because the tie rods are not parallel to the UCA's and LCA's, you end up with more toe change throughout the suspension travel than with OE spindles.

It also effectively raises the roll center of the car, because of the change in the UCA and LCA angle. That's for a given height though, ie, comparing the roll center with the car at the same ride height lowered with the torsion bars vs. lowered with the drop spindles.

 

[bighammer]

This is all very interesting to me...:happy1:

It seems there may be some differences of opinions here, but they all make sense to me, even though everyone can't be right!

Subscribed

 

[72BBSwinger]

Geometry is unchanged mostly but what is changed is less caster from the "new" suspension ride hight,more angle of tierod at new ride height and from what Peter said the 2" drop models raised his roll center more than he liked so they came back off. Dr. Diff wants to make some 1" drop spindles if the demand is there for them he would pull the trigger. Roll center back to a managable height as well get suspension back to a reasonable height to get camber gain back and have good caster along with an 1" more up travel to play with would nice. Problem is wheel selection still needs to be looked at closely, I would just run 19x10's at all 4 corners fuckit,,,,

 

[72bluNblu]

Eh, no. While it may be true that the bar itself is linear in spring rate, the lever is traveling thru an arc. Because we're dealing with gravity the force is always in the same direction, straight up and down. Since the LCA is a lever and it's BJ end is traveling in arc the effective lever length is always changing because the effective lever length is always the perpendicular distance from the force to the rotational axis. That means that the spring system is no longer linear. If the distance traveled by the lower BJ is small enough then you may be able to treat it as being linear because the delta in lever length is so small, but it isn't truly linear and this can bite you. Particularly when you're dealing with something like a VW rear torsion bar suspension in off road racing. There the wheel travel can be nearly 2 feet and the non-linearity of the torsion bar suspension (too high of a rise in the rising rate) makes getting the damping right an impressively large PITA. Granted this isn't off road racing and we're not dealing with 2' of wheel travel, but you still can't say that a torsion bar suspension is perfectly linear. Due to the small travel distance you *might* be OK in treating it as linear, but it isn't linear and this shouldn't be forgotten.
FWIW coil springs are in torsion too. The basic formula (not the simplified and adapted coil formula) for the spring rate of each is the same.

What you're talking about is the difference between the spring rate of the bar and the wheel rate of the car. The amount of resistance provided by the bar, its spring constant, never changes. But, the rate that the wheel sees can, because of the change in the lever arm. Sure, that's right on.

But, this isn't off road racing. The amount of travel for a bone stock car with factory bars at the factory height is in the neighborhood of 4". On a modified car like mine, its less than 2". So, does the wheel rate change over that 2" arc? Maybe a little, but not enough to be concerned about. More importantly, there's nothing you can do to change that unless you start changing UCA and LCA lengths. The suspension moves in an arc, the torsion bar reacts with a constant resistance, and the wheel rate varies slightly because of the change in the lever arm.

And that wasn't my point anyway. There's a misconception out there that lowering your car with the torsion bar adjusters changes your spring rate. This isn't true. The wheel rate isn't effected enough by that change to be significant. The resulting poor ride that most people encounter has nothing to do with that, but instead has to do with hitting/riding on the bump stops because they didn't increase the size of their torsion bars, or because of changes in camber, toe, and caster brought on by lowering the car.

I suspect that its a definition of terms thing, but stiffer springs are by nature less responsive to any stimulus. They exhibit an inertia in that it takes more force to make them do anything as compared to a lower rate spring. In my mind that makes them less reactive, not more.
And fwiw I think that you should hit the bump-stops on occasion. It is unsettling to the car, so you don't want to be doing it in the middle of a comp of some sort, but once in a while a truly exceptional pothole or something should having you hitting the stops. If you're not you're probably too stiff and giving away some cornering power and/or ride quality.

It is a definition of terms thing. The stiffer spring moves less in response to a given input. But I'm talking about the impulse curve of the suspension input. If you put a 400 lb impulse on a spring with a 100 lb/in rate, your suspension needs to move through 4" of travel. That takes time. If you put the same 400lb impulse on a spring with a 300 lb/in rate, the suspension only needs to move through about 1.3". That takes less time. A lot less. The spring moves less, but the suspension reacts faster to the input.

As far as hitting the bump stops, that's not ideal. Obviously, you want to soak up as many bumps as you can, because that keeps your wheels on the ground. But its a trade off. You also want to stay flat in the corners to keep load from transferring. So you have to balance that out. With extra sticky, wide modern tires, you need a lot of rate to keep the load from transferring. Which means you also like smoother tracks.

Autoxcuda has a pretty interesting idea of using his bump stops. I'm guessing he never hits his...

 

[72bluNblu]

This is info from another forum where a member there used my suspension geometry, with drop spindles, to do an analysis using a suspension program to figure out the advantages/disadvantages to running drop spindles. As you can see from the data, the bump steer was increased using drop spindles, as was the roll center. The bump steer change is relatively minor, but its still in the wrong direction. And the change in roll center was significant.

Okay, I think I've got enough of this down to finally share some results. Please keep in mind I'm still learning my way around this, so I won't say these a guaranted results, but I think I've got a jump on it for the moment.

First up, a typical stock suspension mopar cranked down quite a bit. I took these from my car which is running a 26" tall front tire on a 15x8 rim, 4.5" back space. Alignment is 3.22 caster, -.5 camber, 0 toe, RC height is 5.53.

Here is a corner shot with 3" of shock travel. That is a significant amount of movement. Note teh caster, camber, and toe changes. RC height changed only .03" up.

Now here is a look at bump steer. This is only one side, but since the set up is symetrical, both sides are the same in this example. In 2" of travel, 1" jounce to 1" rebound, bump changes .2", or slightly less than a quarter inch.

Next up are using 72b&b measurements provided earlier in the tread. Since the plots for this are three dimesional, I did make some assumptions about fore/aft locations and centerline to outboard measurements using the numbers from my car. These should all be very close in cars using stock style components. What I wanted to capture was the change in control arm vertical locations.

First up is the static measurements. Tried to get caster, camber, and toe as close to the previous example as possible with 3.48 caster, -.5 camber and 0 toe. RC height is at 8.25".

Next up is the corner simulation. Similar types of movements in most locations. Toe changes are greater.

Here is a bump steer snap shot. I didn't get the scale the same, so it appears really bad, but you need to look more closely at the actual points in the similar range. Looking at +1 to -1 in range, we have roughly .15" per side for a total of almost .3" of bump through the range, or about .05" more than movement than a lowered stock set up.

 

[Old Man Mopar]

That 2" is added between the spindle and the lower ball joint, which is also the outer tie rod attachment point.

So, another way to think about it is that you lowered your outer tie rod end by 2" with regard to the steering axis. Which is where the bump steer comes from, the angle of the tie rods is changed significantly. Because the tie rods are not parallel to the UCA's and LCA's, you end up with more toe change throughout the suspension travel than with OE spindles.

It also effectively raises the roll center of the car, because of the change in the UCA and LCA angle. That's for a given height though, ie, comparing the roll center with the car at the same ride height lowered with the torsion bars vs. lowered with the drop spindles.

I disagree.....the ONLY thing that changes is....

the car height is lowered 2"......the geometry angles stay the same.....the instant center remains the same. spindle height has NOTHING to do with instant center.

unless you are putting the car back at the ride height you had, but then why would you install a 2" drop spindle?....they are to DROP your nose 2"

the drop spindles (PST) I have had leaves everything the same, just places the actual spindle 2" higher....to lower the car height.

 

[HemiDenny]

I disagree.....the ONLY thing that changes is....

the car height is lowered 2"......the geometry angles stay the same.....the instant center remains the same. spindle height has NOTHING to do with instant center.

unless you are putting the car back at the ride height you had, but then why would you install a 2" drop spindle?....they are to DROP your nose 2"

the drop spindles (PST) I have had leaves everything the same, just places the actual spindle 2" higher....to lower the car height.

I concur....please point to where the spindle height comes into play on ANY of the graphs..... a drop spindle is designed to drop the ride height (2") by raising the spindle pin height 2".......leaving everything else the same.

place the spindle pin on your graph with stock suspension.....now move it up (2")....what changes?
answer....nothing , other than your front is lower to the ground 2".

I realize lowering the car effectively lowers the instant center 2", because the ground has moved closer to the instant center point by 2" ....but that is only due to lowering the entire front of the car, not changing the suspension angles.

 

[DR HEMI]

Duhuhaa....What are you guys trying to do? Install drop spindles
and then crank the front bumper back to where it started?

The whole purpose of moving the spindle/hub/wheel up 2" is so that
the rest of the car can go down 2" WITH NOTHING ELSE CHANGING
WHATSOEVER.

If you had 2 cars on the jacks, side-by-side (one w/std spindle & one
w/2" drops), and then sawed the spindles off.....they should be the same.

The idea is to lower the car down WITHOUT changing the rest of the
suspenson.

The arc that the wheel moves in is the same and would be no different
than changing from a 205/70-17 to a 205/70-13 (effectively moving the
spindle 2" closer to the ground with no other changes) and I don't see
anybody reseting their alignment for that.

 

[crvtec90]

I have a lowered mini truck with drop spindles. The reason for the drop spindles instead of lowering springs was to maintain adjustability of camber and caster. When the front end is lowered the top of the tire likes to lean inwards making a negative camber change. In order to get the camber back into specs you have to remove shims which brings the top of the tire back outwards. The problem you run into is that even if you take out all the shims it still isnt enough. A bodies use eccentric bolts at the upper control arm instead of shims. I am not overly familiar with how much travel they have but the principal I believe is still the same. Depending on what camber / caster values you are trying to achieve you might not have enough adjustment with just lowering the torsion bars.

 

[ntsqd]

What you're talking about is the difference between the spring rate of the bar and the wheel rate of the car. The amount of resistance provided by the bar, its spring constant, never changes. But, the rate that the wheel sees can, because of the change in the lever arm. Sure, that's right on.

And it's the "Wheel rate" that is really most important, not the spring's rate. The tire doesn't care what the spring rate is because it doesn't know what the linkage between is like. All it knows and all that it cares about is the wheel rate.

But, this isn't off road racing. The amount of travel for a bone stock car with factory bars at the factory height is in the neighborhood of 4". On a modified car like mine, its less than 2". So, does the wheel rate change over that 2" arc? Maybe a little, but not enough to be concerned about. More importantly, there's nothing you can do to change that unless you start changing UCA and LCA lengths. The suspension moves in an arc, the torsion bar reacts with a constant resistance, and the wheel rate varies slightly because of the change in the lever arm.

How much it changes really depends on where it's starting from. A little down from horizontal to a little up from horizontal, not much length change. 2" down from horizontal to horizontal is, percentage-wise, a large change given the total range of motion.

And that wasn't my point anyway. There's a misconception out there that lowering your car with the torsion bar adjusters changes your spring rate. This isn't true. The wheel rate isn't effected enough by that change to be significant. The resulting poor ride that most people encounter has nothing to do with that, but instead has to do with hitting/riding on the bump stops because they didn't increase the size of their torsion bars, or because of changes in camber, toe, and caster brought on by lowering the car.

Simply lowering the car with the adjuster changes the LCA's angle. That angle change effectively lengthens the lever length, which reduces the wheel rate. So yeah the spring rate hasn't changed, but the wheel rate has. The length change doesn't seem like its much, but it obviously is if the effect is a reduced "spring rate" as reported by many.

It is a definition of terms thing. The stiffer spring moves less in response to a given input. But I'm talking about the impulse curve of the suspension input. If you put a 400 lb impulse on a spring with a 100 lb/in rate, your suspension needs to move through 4" of travel. That takes time. If you put the same 400lb impulse on a spring with a 300 lb/in rate, the suspension only needs to move through about 1.3". That takes less time. A lot less. The spring moves less, but the suspension reacts faster to the input.

No, it does not react faster. The duration of the impulse event may or may not be shorter depending on damping, but this isn't reaction time. The reaction time is increased due to the force level needing to rise to the point where it over-comes the stiff wheel rate. A lower wheel rate begins to move at a lower force, an increase in reaction speed. By the time a high wheel rate is starting to move the lower wheel rate has already moved and the damping is starting to work to keep the tire in contact with the ground.

As far as hitting the bump stops, that's not ideal. Obviously, you want to soak up as many bumps as you can, because that keeps your wheels on the ground. But its a trade off. You also want to stay flat in the corners to keep load from transferring. So you have to balance that out. With extra sticky, wide modern tires, you need a lot of rate to keep the load from transferring. Which means you also like smoother tracks.

I contend that it is ideal, in moderation. You want the very serious bumps to use the limiters. Hitting them is very disrupting the chassis, so you shouldn't be hitting or even touching in normal use (even if "normal use" means racing), just at the extreme. You can go too stiff with roll wheel rate, your corner speeds will be indicative of this as they'll fall off. A supple and compliant suspension does a better job of keeping the tire in contact with the ground than does a ridiculously stiff suspension. Soft (relatively speaking) wheel rate to deal with surface irregularities coupled with a high roll rate for the corners.

Autoxcuda has a pretty interesting idea of using his bump stops. I'm guessing he never hits his...

Seriously bad idea there. The point of a bump-stop is to provide some deceleration to the suspension before maxing out in bump travel. The mount should be remade so that the bump net travel is the same, but metal to metal contact does not happen. Metal to metal contact in that location, especially in a highly leveraged situation like this one, is very hard on all of the parts involved - from the tire to the driver.

I'm not really sure what is going on in those graphs, but nothing that I see there is evidence to conclude that all dropped spindles have bump-steer. Given the separation of the steering arm from the spindle I can not see how a spindle of this design can have any influence on bump-steer unless they also change the KIA or possibly the BJ spacing. Then, maybe.

 

[DTMRacing]

I think one of the points missed and that the suspension data shows is that in a handling application, our suspension geometry is better when its lower. By adding the 2" drop spindles, you are negating the effects and putting the suspension on the "wrong" side of the curve.

 

[HemiDenny]

I think one of the points missed and that the suspension data shows is that in a handling application, our suspension geometry is better when its lower. By adding the 2" drop spindles, you are negating the effects and putting the suspension on the "wrong" side of the curve.

Help me out....by using drop spindles (on a factory suspension) for the purpose they are intended, to drop the nose/ whole care, are not you ...

A) lowering the center of gravity ( a plus for handling)

B) lowering the instant center 2" ( a plus for handling)

C) getting a bad-*** stance....which is the main purpose for some....not all ( look doesn't effect handling....but can make you feel faster)

Just spitballin'