Interested in tubular, adjustable MS3 front lower control arms?

[Nliiitend1]

OK first off, no with no disrespect to jbarone, I'd like to keep THIS topic on the topic of the LCAs that I'm in communication with the Focus guy about.

If jbarone wants to discuss his product, I respectfully request that he do so in a thread of his own to keep the water from getting muddy in here.

Secondly, yes, you effectively increase the length of the LCA when you move the ball-joint out, which can cause fender clearance issues if you're already on the edge of "fitting."

I haven't talked to the guy since that last email that I posted here because I have a full-time job of my own to tend to, but I hope to be in touch with him about this at some point this weekend. I do know that he offers a variety of bushing material with his Focus arms (Rubber, Polyurethane, or Delrin if you really want to get crazy).

Stay tuned.

[JBR]

I will respect your wishes with one final comment....If a few degrees of negative camber are going to cause clearance issues because your on the "edge of fitting"; it sounds like your more in to looks than performance.

Thanks,
Jamie

[Tokay444]

Kudos to the class of Jbarone. I see that he thanked your last post.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by justint5387 The problem with the longer control arm is that it moves the wheel further out, so you may have to run a narrower tire/wheel.

Originally Posted by jbarone I will respect your wishes with one final comment....If a few degrees of negative camber are going to cause clearance issues because your on the "edge of fitting"; it sounds like your more in to looks than performance. Thanks, Jamie

This is true, yet I'm not here to make judgements about the wheel/tire choices (or the purpose of their vehicle, for that matter) of anyone who might be interested in this product.

I happen to want them because I want a good way to get reliable negative camber and I'm not at all worried about putting my car out of any particular competitive class, since my track time is sparse enough that I really just do it for my own personal enjoyment.

At any rate, thanks for respecting my wishes and observing my request.

[justint5387]

It takes an inch to get about another -1 degree of camber. Going an inch further out is quite a bit of tire restriction. I put 255s on my car to get the most front grip, going to try to run 265s for the max width allowance within the class, so get your facts right. If I have to stick my arm out an inch, I won't be able to fit those tires.

Don't be mad if i prove your theory is wrong. If you didn't even think about how this will move the wheel outwards, do you really know enough about suspension geometry to sell a product like this.

I know why some of you may want to run the arms instead of plates, but more likely these will cost more than the K-Mac plates. You can get K-Mac to send you a top hat for coilover spring as well.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by justint5387 It takes an inch to get about -1 degree of camber. Going an inch further out is quite a bit of tire restriction. I put 255s on my car to get the most front grip, going to try to run 265s for the max width allowance within the class, so get your facts right. If I have to stick my arm out an inch, I won't be able to fit those tires. Don't be mad if i prove your theory is wrong. If you didn't even think about how this will move the wheel outwards, do you really know enough about suspension geometry to sell a product like this. I know why some of you may want to run the arms instead of plates, but more likely these will cost more than the K-Mac plates. You can get K-Mac to send you a top hat for coilover spring as well.

My MS coilovers do not use a standard-diameter coilover spring, so I'd need to have custom adapters made, which will also further reduce my available suspension travel at my current ride height...not optimal. The fact that they seem to invariably bend and make noise also doesn't help their case much in my eyes.

I'm well aware that the cost of these arms will likely exceed that of the K-mac route, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in trying them out if they can give me what I want.

I'm curious as to what methods you used to come to the conclusion that you need an inch of balljoint movement to affect ~1 degree of camber. Not being an ass here, I'm just asking because personally I've been too lazy to take the measurements and do the math...

[justint5387]

I moved the top nut for the strut about 1 inch to go from -1.5 to -2.6 degrees of camber on the top. The top nut is tucking under the circle on the top, barely enough space to access the shock adjustment knob.

Everything in the suspension move relatively linear, so it will take the same amount of movement outwards on the control arm/ball joint to gain the same amount of negative camber as I did.

IIRC, the coilover hat from KMAC is made for 65mm (2.55 inch) ID springs. We grind down a little bit of it to make it work for 2.5inch (63.5 mm) ID springs. The Tein SS has 70mm springs, so the top hat was custom made by a M3F member. I am not sure what ID springs are the MS coilovers, but if you get the right top hat for your spring, you won't need an adapter.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by justint5387 I moved the top nut for the strut about 1 inch to go from -1.5 to -2.6 degrees of camber on the top. The top nut is tucking under the circle on the top, barely enough space to access the shock adjustment knob. Everything in the suspension move relatively linear, so it will take the same amount of movement outwards on the control arm/ball joint to gain the same amount of negative camber as I did.

Well since the pivot for the lower arm is inboard of the topnut, isn't there some triangulation variance that may account for differences in the camber change from moving the top vs. moving the bottom?

Again, I'm sort of just mentally theorizing at this point, but of course I'm gonna ask my guy what kind of difference these things make in terms of camber change on the Focuses (which have nearly identical geometry to the MS3) the next time I email him.

Even a degree more negative camber would be enough for me as long as the part doesn't force any compromises in structural integitry (vs. OEM)...

...and also something to remember: an inch movement outward near the bottom of the wheel doesn't move the top of the wheel/tire quite as far, no?

P.S.- I'm pretty sure my front springs are 60 mm...and this is what I was basing my knowledge from:

http://www.gofastadventure.com/?p=65

[justint5387]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 Well since the pivot for the lower arm is inboard of the topnut, isn't there some triangulation variance that may account for differences in the camber change from moving the top vs. moving the bottom? Again, I'm sort of just mentally theorizing at this point, but of course I'm gonna ask my guy what kind of difference these things make in terms of camber change on the Focuses (which have nearly identical geometry to the MS3) the next time I email him. Even a degree more negative camber would be enough for me as long as the part doesn't force any compromises in structural integitry (vs. OEM)... ...and also something to remember: an inch movement outward near the bottom of the wheel doesn't move the top of the wheel/tire quite as far, no?

I am not 100% sure on the variance without measuring it from a stock vehicle, but I would imagine the difference isn't much.

It probably doesn't move the top of the wheel outwards much, but the camber plates move the top of the wheel inwards. That's why you can fit a bigger tire without rubbing.

[hnda etr]

Bump...

[Nliiitend1]

Sorry guys, I've been pretty busy and haven't had a chance to talk to Dominic at all this week...

[Manny]

any updates?

[kwsmithphoto]

Just found this thread. Interesting. That guy can really freakin' weld!

This is the lower control arm, so as you move the lower ball joint out and the strut assembly does not move its spot, the bottom of the wheel is moved out... creating more positive camber.

I'm trying to get my head around this too. Apparently it widens the front track of the car as you add negative camber, so I don't see how it can't also restrict wheel to fender clearance. With a camber plate, you're pulling the top of the struts in, which doesn't change the track. But these parts push the whole hub/steering knuckle out to get more negative camber.

I'm also curious about their affect on scrub radius, wouldn't that be altered as well? You could solve both problems by using a wheel with more negative offset, but I don't see any other way to maintain OEM suspension geometry with these control arms...unless you adjust them to OEM spec, which renders them useless.

If I'm wrong in my thinking, please, somebody correct me!

I'd really like to see a fabricator this good make some upper strut bearings made from actual metal. I'd definitely be into those.

[Nliiitend1]

Increasing the lower control arm length does a few things (this list is not entirely comprehensive, but these are the major things):

- Gives you more negative static camber
- Reduces the overall amount of camber gain (whether it be negative or positive) for a given amount of vertical suspension movement
- Reduces clearance between the outer top of the tire and the fender

It does not really affect scrub radius, as the spatial relationship between the lower balljoint, tie rod attachment point, and wheel/tire does not change. The SAI and the tire centerline do not move closer to one another or get any further from one another.

[Dano]

Not sure I want new arms but def interested in stiffer bushings to reduce wheel hop and not tear.

Great thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kwsmithphoto]

It does not really affect scrub radius, as the spatial relationship between the lower balljoint, tie rod attachment point, and wheel/tire does not change. The SAI and the tire centerline do not move closer to one another or get any further from one another.

Gotcha, thanks. Because it's moving the steering knuckle and hub, the scrub radius doesn't change. You're just getting more negative camber and a wider track.

What about the half shafts though, wouldn't you need need longer ones since you're pushing the hubs away from the transaxle?

EDIT: Also, wouldn't this put more load on the upper strut bearing?

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by kwsmithphoto What about the half shafts though, wouldn't you need need longer ones since you're pushing the hubs away from the transaxle? EDIT: Also, wouldn't this put more load on the upper strut bearing?

I'm pretty sure there's enough "slop in the system" to take care of the miniscule amount that the small amount of outward movement at the ball joint (remember, it doesn't move as much at the drive shaft because of triangulation) will shift the hubs.

Remember, those parts already move laterally as the suspension travels throughout it's arc. Could it possibly accelerate wear? Maybe, (perhaps from slightly less of the shaft being "engaged" in the hub) but I don't think anyone is going to have to worry about their driveshafts falling out with these arms.

Regarding the upper strut bearings -

I'm pretty sure it will increase loads on the bearings to some degree, but I certainly haven't done an analysis or anything to figure out how much. The rubberized top mount will shoulder part of those aforementioned loads as well, so there's that to consider too... I doubt that it's going to accelerate their wear too terribly much, but I certainly can't prove it.

Personally this is of little concern, as I'm no longer utilizing the craptastic OEM bearings.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 I'm pretty sure there's enough "slop in the system" to take care of the miniscule amount that the small amount of outward movement at the ball joint (remember, it doesn't move as much at the drive shaft because of triangulation) will shift the hubs. Remember, those parts already move laterally as the suspension travels throughout it's arc. Could it possibly accelerate wear? Maybe, (perhaps from slightly less of the shaft being "engaged" in the hub) but I don't think anyone is going to have to worry about their driveshafts falling out with these arms. Regarding the upper strut bearings - I'm pretty sure it will increase loads on the bearings to some degree, but I certainly haven't done an analysis or anything to figure out how much. The rubberized top mount will shoulder part of those aforementioned loads as well, so there's that to consider too... I doubt that it's going to accelerate their wear too terribly much, but I certainly can't prove it. Personally this is of little concern, as I'm no longer utilizing the craptastic OEM bearings.

Are you using K-mac plates? what bearings are you using?
Regarding the added load on the bearing, I did what's pictured below which also adds more pressure to the bearing and it works so far. I just used a fat washer with an elongated hole below the nut.
I am on H&R springs and FSD 4045 and I get -1.7 camber in the front with this.
With the adjustable LCAs I should be gold.

btw I actually think the OEM bearings are not bad.

[Nliiitend1]

I'm on MS Coilovers, which come with their own bearing that you use with the stock tophat.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 I'm on MS Coilovers, which come with their own bearing that you use with the stock tophat.

oh yeah, right, from FFF.
So you can't adjust camber on top. How much camber do you have now?

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Tomas oh yeah, right, from FFF. So you can't adjust camber on top. How much camber do you have now?

-1.38º

[xcoldricex]

you can use the kmac plates with ms coils if you have a custom tophat made. that's what i have on my car now. i thought i read that kmac started to make ones that fit ms coils, but that was a long tim ago and i don't remember where i saw that. guess you could email them and ask if you're interested.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by xcoldricex you can use the kmac plates with ms coils if you have a custom tophat made. that's what i have on my car now.

how much camber are you getting?

[xcoldricex]

-2.3 both sides with driver. you can grind the plates to give you more if needed.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by xcoldricex -2.3 both sides with driver. you can grind the plates to give you more if needed.

Have yours started making noise yet?

Did they bend when you torqued everything down like most of them that I've seen?

How much height did they add the the strut/spring assembly?

[saitek]

Mine have never made any noise. xcoldricex and I both put a set of torrington bearings between the spring and top hat so the spring moves freely.

The top hat is about the same thickness as the kmac top hat for oem. Not sure how how much travel we lost. Since most other people 'slam' their ms3s, I would think this would be an issue with sticky tires under max roll rate. There isn't much travel to begin with even at stock ride height.

Yes, the plates do bend but you can pound them flat with a hammer. I don't torque mine very high but do make sure everything is snug very often.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by saitek Mine have never made any noise. xcoldricex and I both put a set of torrington bearings between the spring and top hat so the spring moves freely. The top hat is about the same thickness as the kmac top hat for oem. Not sure how how much travel we lost. Since most other people 'slam' their ms3s, I would think this would be an issue with sticky tires under max roll rate. There isn't much travel to begin with even at stock ride height. Yes, the plates do bend but you can pound them flat with a hammer. I don't torque mine very high but do make sure everything is snug very often.

So wait, did you use the Torringtons in place of the MS Coilover supplied bearings, or in addition to them? I'm just trying to visualize what your entire assembly looks like...

[saitek]

From top to bottom:
-kmac assembly
-custom top hat to fit the 60mm kw springs
-torrington bearings
-spring

The ms coil bearings weren't used at all.

[ak_spray]

Any news? Anything we can do to help this along? I'm all for it.

[TRex]

question...i dont quite understand.....so...are you saying that on the coilovers....that when you turn the wheel....the spring is not allowed to rotate and instead will just compress? so you put in these torrington bearings to allow it to rotate instead of compress?

how about on a stock like setup (non coilover with a damper and spring)....would a torrington bearing have any benefit? i was under the impression that the oem bearing/bushing allowed for rotation...........maybe i dont quite understand the oem stack up...anyone got a decent cut away?

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by TRex question...i dont quite understand.....so...are you saying that on the coilovers....that when you turn the wheel....the spring is not allowed to rotate and instead will just compress? so you put in these torrington bearings to allow it to rotate instead of compress? how about on a stock like setup (non coilover with a damper and spring)....would a torrington bearing have any benefit? i was under the impression that the oem bearing/bushing allowed for rotation...........maybe i dont quite understand the oem stack up...anyone got a decent cut away?

My coilovers have a bearing at the top. Saitek, when using the Kmac plates, used Torrington bearings instead of the coilover-supplied bearing.

You have to have some sort of bearing in there or you'd be binding your front springs every time you turned the wheel.

I can't think of any benefit of adding Torrington bearings to an otherwise OEM setup.


***

Now, as far as updates go, I have none. I personally probably won't have much time to deal with this until the summer. I apologize if I've gotten anyone's hopes up prematurely, but if I'm not moving on this fast enough I'm sure Dominic would be willing to work directly with whoever wanted to step up to the plate.

It's just that I've changed jobs recently, and my new job is sucking up all of my time and motivation for dealing with stuff like this. I'm hoping things will settle down a bit once this huge project I'm working on setting up goes live in June. Again, sorry for my recent inaction.

[TRex]

then what is the difference between the torrington and the coilover supplied bearings?

looking at the link you posted
Go Fast Adventure » Mazdaspeed3 Mazdaspeed Coilover Impression

he says he added the torrington bearing UNDER the spring...in my mind his stack up is top hat, coilover bearing, spring, torrington bearing....and this makes sense to me...because without a bearing on both ends how is the spring going to be free to rotate? if only one side of the sring is mated to a bearing then only that side can twist...the other side would be held rigid....right?

[saitek]

Yes, you can add another set of bearings underneath the springs but I wanted to start off with just one set and didn't have any binding issues.

Does it matter which end you add them to? I am not 100% sure but both my car and xcoldricex's haven't had any binding issues.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by TRex then what is the difference between the torrington and the coilover supplied bearings? looking at the link you posted Go Fast Adventure » Mazdaspeed3 Mazdaspeed Coilover Impression he says he added the torrington bearing UNDER the spring...in my mind his stack up is top hat, coilover bearing, spring, torrington bearing....and this makes sense to me...because without a bearing on both ends how is the spring going to be free to rotate? if only one side of the sring is mated to a bearing then only that side can twist...the other side would be held rigid....right?

You only need a bearing on one end. There's nothing wrong with letting the spring turn with the strut housing (which is what happens when it is at the top, like with the OEM springs).

[seige123]

Whats the guys name and is he poular on focusfantics.com

Originally Posted by 03scgt my buddy chris has alot of his parts installed on his focus and i can say first hand they are amazing.when you see the pieces in person you can actually tell they were built tough heres a piece for the rear subframe he made.its badass clear powdercoat

[TRex]

so what happens when you dont use the torrington bearing with the ms coilovers? and why would they not allow the spring to rotate like oem?

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by TRex so what happens when you dont use the torrington bearing with the ms coilovers? and why would they not allow the spring to rotate like oem?

My MS Coilovers just have a different bearing than the OEM bearing, and it is not a Torrington bearing.

It fits up into the OEM tophat.

In this pic, the OEM tophat is absent:



In this picture, you can see the OEM tophat installed on the assembly:

[TRex]

right i understand that it is a different bearing....what im trying to understand is exactly what happens to the spring when a torrington bearing is installed....it sounds like when one is installed it allows the spring to rotate when it is compressed...and not bind...decreasing spring travel....it sounded like that is also what the oem bearings allow...i was questioning why the ms coilover bearings wouldnt allow this

[Tokay444]

The ms bearing DO allow this.

[ericm979]

They also allow the strut to rotate so the wheel can turn without binding.