The Project Pad

Hopefully for Konis too with thrust bearings!

ringbearer wrote:Hopefully for Konis too with thrust bearings!

They will work for Konis too. It just requires a different sleeve for the spherical bearing to accommodate the different threaded shaft diameter. There is no need for a thrust bearing with a spherical bearing upper mount, but you can put them wherever you want if you feel the need. You can put them above or below the spring or even between the top hat and the sleeve/spacer which interfaces with the spherical bearing. Either way, I'm sure we'll be able to come up with something to avoid spring binding.

loxxrider wrote: These are geared toward suspension travel as a priority.

I like your priorities...

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Chris, I realize the goal in attempting to retain as much travel as possible, but those are no better than the 2B mounts from a safety perspective. The suspension force should be supported from UNDER the strut tower. Your design loads the corner force on 3 small bolts threaded into aluminum.

It looks like you've designed it so the hat diameter cannot fit through the lower plate, but the mount can still fail enough to cause loss of control at high speed, IMO.

Nice idea on the angled bearing mount...I like that

Here are the prototypes which have been sitting in a box for a long time. I'm going to send them to Chris - hopefully he'll be able to combine the best aspects of both designs and bring something to market

I think it looks great Chris and I am interested in the first group buy... :-)

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said I am looking into improving failure modes. I agree, failure of the top mount should at least cause the spring to be supported by the bottom mount.

However, I never said the bearing housing would be in aluminum. Also, there is no way in hell I'd ever thread a suspension component into aluminum. If I continue without modifying the failure mode, the top will be steel and the bolts will not be threaded into anything but nuts and will be high strength with a very generous safety factor.

When I have your mounts in hand, we'll see what I can come up with. Maybe there will just be two versions available.

Lol, my mind just thinks aluminum when I see light grey in a model

Regardless, designing the mount to distribute force under the strut tower will only cost you about 0.5" of travel...if you're running a car low enough for that to be an issue then 0.5" isn't gonna help much and you should do it the correct way with shortened inserts anyways (I know you did, just speaking for the general public).

My primary goals in this design were to create a bulletproof mount that could never fail and had a full range of camber/caster adjustability...while trying to retain as much travel as possible, but that is just a bonus. They're not perfect but I think I accomplished those goals.

I'm sure you'll make a badass mount regardless of which design elements are used

EDIGREG wrote:Lol, my mind just thinks aluminum when I see light grey in a model

Regardless, designing the mount to distribute force under the strut tower will only cost you about 0.5" of travel...if you're running a car low enough for that to be an issue then 0.5" isn't gonna help much and you should do it the correct way with shortened inserts anyways (I know you did, just speaking for the general public).

My primary goals in this design were to create a bulletproof mount that could never fail and had a full range of camber/caster adjustability...while trying to retain as much travel as possible, but that is just a bonus. They're not perfect but I think I accomplished those goals.

I'm sure you'll make a badass mount regardless of which design elements are used

I do like your design as well and I agree with everything you've said. Still, I like my design for it's simplicity, ease of maintenance and adjustment, and manufacturing cost, plus that extra 0.5" doesn't hurt. Only the bearing housing is a little complex, but I know I can have it all done for under $500 a pair. That said, I'm not even close to 100% happy with it.

I'll have to do some serious thinking and may need some help from you guys to get an idea of my space constraints, etc. because I won't have the time or ability to take the measurements which might be required.

Ed, what is the range of camber and castor adjustment you've getting from your mounts?

Yeah, simplicity is not an aspect of my design, that is for sure. lol. But they would be zero maintenance and easy adjustment from the top.

Just doing a quick trace on a piece of paper, the bearing center can move anywhere along or inside of an approx 1.5" diameter circle (the center slides and rotates 360*). Might be able to get some more adjustment out of it, but I was limited by the size of the opening in the strut tower (was trying to avoid having to cut that at all).

Yeah, I agree cutting the strut tower shouldn't be necessary. I really don't think many people truly need that much adjustment anyway. In fact, I doubt many here would even care to adjust castor. Camber is definitely most important, and positive adjustment is just as important as negative for those looking to just go straight and not worry about uneven tire wear.

I want to be able to make my base plate rotate instead of only translate in one direction, but that means my angled bearing housing needs to be able to rotate as well to counter this. I need to come up with a good way to do that, and maybe be able to have a different failure mode while still maintaining the suspension travel advantage.

Looks like they have a tiny bit of castor adjustment as well? minor, but its' there?
or am I seeing things

Looks really similar to 996/997 plates...wonder if you could make some work.



Or 991 GT3 has an offset in the strut mounting for more caster.

It does have castor adjustment. It's not as much as camber, but it's close actually because the direction is only one way as opposed to the camber which has to have room for adjustment both + and -.

Interesting on the Porsche parts. I will consider it!

I'll be installing my homemade coilovers this weekend, would love to get a good set of mounts eventually, let me know if you need any measurements from the chassis or anything

Still waiting for reasonable quotes :/ I'll let you guys know when I get a decent one.

Thanks for the update Chris.

I can get you dimensions of 996/997 front strut mounts or of the 991 parts (993 rears look closeish too), but the problem is those cars gain camber on the bottom control arms so the mounts aren't really designed for adjustment and the bolt circle is pretty large, the 993 are small and might fit on a plate with the bolts inside the Audi sheet metal, allow for camber adjustment and still raise the strut mount.

993 I think you'd have the best luck with: http://www.rennline.com/Rennline-Rear-M ... o/SB69.74/

If anyone is interested in buying these prototype plates, shoot me an email. They're doing no good in a box in my closet.

sold