Adjustable Rear Traction/Castor Arms

[SLY-031]

Has anyone seen these advertised anywhere or does anyone use them?

I have noticed since lowering my car that the wheel sits a long way back in the wheel arch. It is the arc of this arm that makes the wheel sit so far back when lowered.

These arms are readily available for all Skylines and Silvias. I have PM'd a trader on NissanSilvia.com to get dimensions of the Skyline/Silvia arms to see how close they will be to fitting.

If they aren't close, I am sure it will only be minor mods required to get the fitted or modified.


Has anyone even looked into these before? I may also find out about adjustable rear toe arms too to replace the stock offset bush setup. And on top of both of these, solid cradle bushes to remove any possible movement.

Traction/Castor Arm

Toe Arm
Same as above but longer.

Cradle Bushes

 

[ygoslo]

Yeah I have noticed this as well (the wheel sitting further rearward after fixing the height). What impact does it have on handling?

 

[SLY-031]

Not sure. I know I'd just rather have the wheel back in it's factory position.

According to the site, the Nissan gear does the following. True or not I am not sure...

Pillowball end allows rear traction rod adjustment. Benefits are more contact patch on the tarmac during heavy cornering adding stabilty in either Grip or Drift applications. Pillowball end eliminates rear upgright play and provides more feedback to the driver through the chassis.

 

[bradc]

I don't really see it as being a problem myself (or that this will fix anything), under cornering the camber angle will still change with these arms

 

[harry]

you can't compare the Legnum rear end with a Nissan S/R chassis IRS. They are completely different designs. Here's the Nissan S13 IRS

those Nissan 'traction' arms are one of the 2 upper arms (the front one, closest in that pic). They are really a radius arm, but I guess they got their name because alot of people tend to just buy the main 'camber' arm (the one that goes around the shock) after lowering to try to correct the excessive camber gain. That gives them terrible bump steer because they have altered the length of only 1 upper arm. The end result is no rear end grip when cornering, so they go back and buy the 'traction' arm to improve their traction out of corners. It really just corrects the bump steer problem they created by altering the length of only 1 of the 2 upper arms.

the Legnum doesn't suffer the same problem as the Nissan rear end. There is only 1 upper arm and you can correct the rear camber gain without changing the length of any of the suspension arms, so all the arms still remain the same length relative to one another and there is no nasty geometry problem to solve. Unless you were to go and fit an adjustable lower arm and change its length relative to the other arms, that is...

Before you arbitrarily decide there is a geometry problem that needs an adjustable arm to correct it, you should really be plotting camber curves and bump steer at the bare minimum. You have to know what problem you are trying to solve before you design a solution.

 

[SLY-031]

Thanks for that, Harry.

I went out on a limb and assumed that the wheel would be better off in it's "natural" centered position in the wheel arch.

So is everyone of the opinion that re-centering the wheels using a pair of arms like this is not neccesary?

I guess, going off Harry's post, that it'd be worth proving that without these arms the geometry is heavily effected and needs rectification, though I don't know how one would do this.

 

[SiliconAngel]

You have to know what problem you are trying to solve before you design a solution.

Harry, if more people thought like you the world would be a far, far better place! BTW this isn't a dig at anyone, just expressing my delight in the rare moment of reading such an enlightened, intelligent statement