# VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info?



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

Not sure exactly hat to call it, and info on it has been hard to find, i have a couple pics of replicas but wondering if anyone out there has more info/pics of it.
This is what I'm referring to:
























All of those are of the one that Franz built years back, that's now on Bryson's Helios. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
*updating dead links*


_Modified by secondgen at 12:51 PM 3-1-2009_


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

That looks cool, but looks like it can easily get caught on stuff under the car. What kind of results do you think are to be expected with this kind of setup?


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Agtronic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Agtronic* »_That looks cool, but looks like it can easily get caught on stuff under the car. What kind of results do you think are to be expected with this kind of setup?

Yeah, from what I've kinda estimated, those "towers" are like 6" tall, on the beam that i've made, mine are only 4".
It's supposed to prevent unwanted camber/toe change at the rear wheels in a real hard turn. I have no idea how the car's going to behave with the set-up, but i guess bryson would be the one to ask...as i think he's still running it.
Where are ya bryson.....


----------



## Audi_S3_ARD:CD (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't understand how it would prevent changes in toe, but I do see the camber. I think you could use traction bars and get better results with no huge carriage and no abrupt components sticking into the airstream/road area


----------



## Passenger Performance (Nov 11, 2005)

Pretty sure that the smurf is making sure nothin hits the boxes (last pic).


----------



## WackyWabbitRacer (Apr 24, 2001)

*Re: (Passenger Performance)*


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (WackyWabbitRacer)*

Nice, exactly what I'm looking for. What size rod ends did you use wacky?


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

you should talk to Shine racing in Walpole, Mass. Dick answered some questions on a similar setup a couple years back and he had mentioned that he had a customer w/ this setup on his car and by removing it they improved lap times substantally...his basic message was that it hurt performance
i do know however that pulsar racing used to make a similar setup way back when


----------



## silvervdubs99 (Oct 7, 2000)

*Re: (WackyWabbitRacer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WackyWabbitRacer* »_









fantatsic fab work
the way this prevents unwated toe changes is by keeping the beam extensions from flexing inwards and outwards http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (silvervdubs99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvervdubs99* »_
fantatsic fab work
the way this prevents unwated toe changes is by keeping the beam extensions from flexing inwards and outwards http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

it also makes the a-frame even less independant than it already is, not real desireable http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (Lysholm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lysholm* »_
it also makes the a-frame even less independant than it already is, not real desireable http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

How? The rod end's are there so that it keeps that independent action. If the bars were welded in there solidly, I can see your comment having some validity, but they're not.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (secondgen)*

even w/ the heim joints those bars need to get longer as well as swivel in order to allow the beam to twist torsionally, if those were two piece and from the static position could get longer as the beam twisted but still acted as a strut when they were on the outside of a corner you may have something there http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Audi_S3_ARD:CD (Nov 2, 2006)

And again I say... traction bars haha


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (Audi_S3_ARD:CD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Audi_S3_ARD:CD* »_And again I say... traction bars haha

And how would you go about setting those up on a VW style rear? I just can't picture it.


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

you guys thinck this will work on my mk2 jetta,weld those bars together.


----------



## WackyWabbitRacer (Apr 24, 2001)

*Re: (zexxx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zexxx* »_you guys thinck this will work on my mk2 jetta,weld those bars together.

No...


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (WackyWabbitRacer)*

and why's that.CAN you explan please.


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (zexxx)*

Gas tank is in the way!








Plus, the idea is to keep the ends of the bars from spreading away from each other, without hindering the twisting of the main axle beam. You need to retain some flexability.


_Modified by Agtronic at 1:58 PM 1-16-2007_


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (Agtronic)*

ok so what do i need to modifie on my drawing?


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (zexxx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zexxx* »_ok so what do i need to modifie on my drawing?

Why do you want to modify it from what the others have posted? I think just the tie bars like in the original can help slightly, but I don't really see the point, other than having some fun fabbing something up. 
What are your goals?


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (Agtronic)*

i just thought that it would be cheaper to do this then if i buy a lower sway-bar.but if you guys thinck its useless whell ill just buy a real lower sway-bar


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (zexxx)*

The designs you are seeing above do not have an anti-sway effect. In fact, they are designed to NOT affect roll-resistance at all. What they are trying to do is control toe and camber changes under hard cornering. The tall towers help the bars clear the tank and give them more leverage to control camber.
If you want more rear roll-resistance, you should definitely be looking at an anti-sway bar.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (Agtronic)*

Well said. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## WackyWabbitRacer (Apr 24, 2001)

*Re: (secondgen)*

In regard to my triangulated rear beam axle, the axle beam is on a SCCA H-Production road race Wabbit with high spring rates and double-adjustable Koni shocks.








I only raced one weekend with the "stayrods" on the rear beam, and the jury is still out if they actually helped with the handling. 
Even though I used heim joints, my feeling is that the stayrods may possibly bind the trailing arms as they move individually up and down. 
Consequently I don't know without more testing if they are the right way or not.
Since then, I have sold the race Wabbit, and I will let the new owner decide if the "stayrods" are beneficial to handling.
Regards, WWR.


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (WackyWabbitRacer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WackyWabbitRacer* »_Even though I used heim joints, my feeling is that the stayrods may possibly bind the trailing arms as they move individually up and down. 

You know, I was really starting to wonder about this. When the axle beam twists, the distance between the ends of the trailing bars and the center of the axle beam must increase. Right? That would mean that the "stayrods" would actually "lock" the trailing arms together, would they not?


----------



## Fast2.0L (Oct 12, 1999)

*Re: (Agtronic)*

http://www.bildon.com/catalog/...av=10
What about something more like the weld on supports the VWMS uses on the Mk4? You should be able to fab something up to weld to the trailing arms.


----------



## 1.9..16vTurbo (Jan 25, 2004)

*Re: (Fast2.0L)*

You guys are bashing set up you have never seen in person. Dick is a great guy but some of his views are a little distorted. The beam was on the champion scirroco's in the early 90's and greatly improved lap times. Also the set up I have from franz STILL ALLOWS for torsional twist of the rear trailing arm. The set up prevents bump steer, camber and toe flex. You want the twist of the arm, that's the "independent" part waht you don't want is toe and camber changes and bump steer in mid turn. 
Look closer at this pic








The hiwm joints still allow for twist but the bars keep the arm from pulling or pushing towards aor way from each other.
Neupseed, Auto Tech any "sway" bar (don't get confused mine is NOT a sway bar) that mounts all the way by the stub axles HINDER your beams twist.








Here's where I like Shine, Bildon and BSI. there sways mount inside the beam and allow for twist.








See the difference? I run no sway up front and just the custom arm in the rear. The car has tons of grip or of you want just go deep and lift and you can rotate! 
Don;t hate on the setup if you have never seen it in person. Some of you guys are off base with saying it hinders and you are taking it from what others have said. I've tried them all and this works and works VERY well. Works good enough for the VW factory team to have used them and they designed the car. As much as I like Dick you don;t see any SRS brand cars with any kind of brand model. he builds on what VW did. VW added to what they designed. 
How many of you posting have lowered your car? Dick does not believe in lowering your car and says it hurts performance. That only true if your arms go past paralell. There are raised pick ups out there that allow you to lower your properly and loew w/o hurting but IMPROVING handling.








But what do i know. I just hate VR's in MK2's and can't spell for crap.



_Modified by 1.9..16vTurbo at 8:49 AM 1-21-2007_


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (1.9..16vTurbo)*

How can you confirm that the faster lap times are not caused by the bars binding the rear axle beam. As mentioned above, the tie bars would have to get longer as the axle beam twists. It's just basic geometry. If you got better lap times from this tie bar, it was probably because of the modified twisting behavior. (Maybe that's what it was originally designed for).
I suspect that the faster lap times are a result of a "locked" rear axle beam. Seeing that everything is made of steel, and there is some give, it probably binds-up once it is loaded (twist).


_Modified by Agtronic at 1:04 PM 1-21-2007_


----------



## 4 (Apr 8, 2006)

*Re: (Agtronic)*

Who gives a crap, spend your time designing a fully independent rear suspension rather than trying to glorify a piece of crap.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (1.9..16vTurbo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.9..16vTurbo* »_You guys are bashing set up you have never seen in person. Dick is a great guy but some of his views are a little distorted. The beam was on the champion scirroco's in the early 90's and greatly improved lap times. Also the set up I have from franz STILL ALLOWS for torsional twist of the rear trailing arm. The set up prevents bump steer, camber and toe flex. You want the twist of the arm, that's the "independent" part waht you don't want is toe and camber changes and bump steer in mid turn. 
Look closer at this pic








The hiwm joints still allow for twist but the bars keep the arm from pulling or pushing towards aor way from each other.
Neupseed, Auto Tech any "sway" bar (don't get confused mine is NOT a sway bar) that mounts all the way by the stub axles HINDER your beams twist.








Here's where I like Shine, Bildon and BSI. there sways mount inside the beam and allow for twist.








See the difference? I run no sway up front and just the custom arm in the rear. The car has tons of grip or of you want just go deep and lift and you can rotate! 
Don;t hate on the setup if you have never seen it in person. Some of you guys are off base with saying it hinders and you are taking it from what others have said. I've tried them all and this works and works VERY well. Works good enough for the VW factory team to have used them and they designed the car. As much as I like Dick you don;t see any SRS brand cars with any kind of brand model. he builds on what VW did. VW added to what they designed. 
How many of you posting have lowered your car? Dick does not believe in lowering your car and says it hurts performance. That only true if your arms go past paralell. There are raised pick ups out there that allow you to lower your properly and loew w/o hurting but IMPROVING handling.








But what do i know. I just hate VR's in MK2's and can't spell for crap.
_Modified by 1.9..16vTurbo at 8:49 AM 1-21-2007_

well i'm willing to try it


----------



## Jetta2dr (Feb 19, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

VWMS used rear beams like that in the mk3 kit car. In a rally car it works well to prevent unwanted toe changes from foreign objects (rocks, logs, banks.) The vw rear beam has a reputation for being notoriously weak and frequently bend. There are pictures and documentation on the beam buried on http://www.vwmotorsport.com If I ever pick up an rear beam I want to make up one, shouldnt be too hard, really. I'm just worried about gas tank clearance.


----------



## MorpheusMac (Jan 6, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Jetta2dr)*

We are working on one for our rabbit, I really do think the main reason to go with this setup is for the anti-bend factor....that and it DOES clear the std fuel tank http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (MorpheusMac)*

I'm so stoked to be done with this, so don't crap on my parade to hard.
Got my replica finished tonight, let me know what you guy's think. I know some of the welds are crap, my welder was out of gas so i had to use someone else's. Very unfamiliar with his welder, so they aren't perfect. I also haven't TIG'd in over 2 years. The TIG'd joints were V-notched to get better penetration.
Used Sch. 40 tube ~.875 OD. 3/8" 24 LH & RH rod ends. Made the ends that the rod ends thread into on a lathe, center tapped for the LH & RH rod ends. Then TIG welded to the roundbar. center plate is welded to the beam then drilled & tapped 3/8" 24. Towers are made of 3/16 plate (way overkill in hindsight, but rugged as &^*#) and the tops of the towers were also turned on a lathe then welded into the tops of the towers. And i know that im missing 2 locknuts, my supplier send me 4 RH and no LH ones.















All mild steel, with exception of the stainless hardware.









































































































































































































Total build cost was around $30 and that was mainly for hardware and the rod ends.








*updated all dead links and in one post*


_Modified by secondgen at 12:53 PM 3-1-2009_


----------



## Alex g (Apr 20, 2005)

looks great
i have just recently stiffed strengthened my mk1 trailing arm


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *secondgen* »_I'm so stoked to be done with this, so don't crap on my parade to hard.
Got my replica finished tonight, let me know what you guy's think. I know some of the welds are crap, my welder was out of gas so i had to use someone else's. Very unfamiliar with his welder, so they aren't perfect. I also haven't TIG'd in over 2 years. The TIG'd joints were V-notched to get better penetration.


that doesn't look bad, the mig welds are a little lumpy but the w/ full welds that thing should be all kinds of durable http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Jetta2dr (Feb 19, 2001)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *secondgen* »_I'm so stoked to be done with this, so don't crap on my parade to hard. 

Awesome work, dude! Its nice when people get off their butts and make stuff! I want to do one for a new rally car my friend is building. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Lysholm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lysholm* »_
that doesn't look bad, the mig welds are a little lumpy but the w/ full welds that thing should be all kinds of durable http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif









I went from a 220 Snap-on mig to a mIller 440 mig welder.....WAY different settings.....i couldn't adjust quickly enough.


----------



## Scrubbs (Mar 14, 2006)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Lysholm)*

Who makes those front control arms inthe pics above? And whats the price?


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

Glad to help you out anytime Jeremy. Looks good, better get that on your coupe soon








Noah @ Decker Machine Works


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

secondgen:dude your work is awsome.i have a question.how tall is the towers and where did you find the info on how to build one .thers a thread somewhere ?


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (zexxx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zexxx* »_secondgen:dude your work is awsome.i have a question.how tall is the towers and where did you find the info on how to build one .thers a thread somewhere ?

Thanks, and it's far from perfect, tower's are 4" tall, there are no instructions but the ones in my head. I built it from guessing and looking at the few pictures i could find of one that existed already.


----------



## zexxx (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

ao 4 inches is enought to clear the tank and not to much to hit the floors


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (zexxx)*

It's upside down, those hang down, but they have to be built to clear the inner part of the wheel.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

Cleaned up for the most part, and painted with the first 3 coats of Semi-gloss rustoleum black. Debating on whether or not to paint the bars black as well or one of the ideas i have floating around in my head.
























Better pic of the TIG'd ends:








I left the welds as is, it's not meant to be pretty; just functional. And i kinda like the rugged fabricated look....








The sperical bearings I'd ordered for it through Bildon are going to be a bit, as they are out of stock and don't know when they'll get around to making more, and I can't afford the ones that Shine sells, so i wait.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (Lysholm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lysholm* »_even w/ the heim joints those bars need to get longer as well as swivel in order to allow the beam to twist torsionally, if those were two piece and from the static position could get longer as the beam twisted but still acted as a strut when they were on the outside of a corner you may have something there http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I can't really see how that would be. To the best of my visualizing abilities, when the stay rods have their inner pickup points in the dead centre of the torsion beam (or as close to it as possible), they should rotate in an arc along with each "leg" of the rear axle, not compromising the independence of each wheel at all. Each half of the torsion beam becomes effectively a triangle. 
If someone can model this in Solidworks or show me some kind of geometry that proves me wrong I'll eat my words, but otherwise I can't see the limitation. I'd like to Dick Shine's explanation for why these make lap times slower.


----------



## dsmguy94 (Oct 8, 2006)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
I can't really see how that would be. To the best of my visualizing abilities, when the stay rods have their inner pickup points in the dead centre of the torsion beam (or as close to it as possible), they should rotate in an arc along with each "leg" of the rear axle, not compromising the independence of each wheel at all. Each half of the torsion beam becomes effectively a triangle. 
If someone can model this in Solidworks or show me some kind of geometry that proves me wrong I'll eat my words, but otherwise I can't see the limitation. I'd like to Dick Shine's explanation for why these make lap times slower. 

I agree Vauxhall racing did something simalar on the btcc cars execpt without the heim-joints it worked perfectly there was an artical in Racecar engineering a while back (december 04) about it


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
I can't really see how that would be. To the best of my visualizing abilities, when the stay rods have their inner pickup points in the dead center of the torsion beam (or as close to it as possible), they should rotate in an arc along with each "leg" of the rear axle, not compromising the independence of each wheel at all. Each half of the torsion beam becomes effectively a triangle. 
If someone can model this in Solidworks or show me some kind of geometry that proves me wrong I'll eat my words, but otherwise I can't see the limitation. I'd like to Dick Shine's explanation for why these make lap times slower. 

if the beam only deflected between the heim joints you'd be right, but it twists about its entire length, when that occurs what you are referring to as dead center(consider a imaginary chalk line drawn down the length of the beam when the axle is not loaded) becomes a candy cane stripe(excuse the exaggeration), at this point its best to visualize the someone pushing down on the trailing arm on the other side, it becomes easier to visualize that as the beam begins to torsion-ally deflect the heim joint mounts on it begin to twist down towards the ground following the downward motion of the 'unloaded' trailing arm that you are pushing down on, while the other side is restrained by the ground, which of course brings us to a changing length between the heim pivots of the beam and corresponding trailing arm...








however, after having more time to digest this design, it is possible that because of the tower on the arm, this deflection could theoretically cause a dynamic increase in negative camber, depending on how much the the beam mount moves down in relationship to how much deflection the rest of the beam and trailing arm on the loaded side experience...if beam heim joint mount moves very very little, and the rest deflects a lot the distance between the stay rod points w/ the tower is greater than the distance had the stay rod been mounted to the trailing arm w/ no tower...







...wouldn't that be cool








i don't want to speak for someone else, but i think Dick's experience is w/ the version of this setup that Pulsar racing built back in the day that just mounted a stay rod from the bottom of the strut to the center of the beam w/ no towers...which now seems to be a different animal upon closer inspection









_Modified by Lysholm at 6:52 AM 2-10-2007_

_Modified by Lysholm at 6:54 AM 2-10-2007_


_Modified by Lysholm at 6:55 AM 2-10-2007_


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (dsmguy94)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dsmguy94* »_
I agree Vauxhall racing did something simalar on the btcc cars execpt without the heim-joints it worked perfectly there was an artical in Racecar engineering a while back (december 04) about it

do you have the article?... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and a scanner


----------



## dsmguy94 (Oct 8, 2006)

*Re: (Lysholm)*

I cant seem to find that issue ,I know I have it around here somewere . ill look for it tonight


----------



## 130_R (May 24, 2001)

*Re: (Lysholm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lysholm* »_do you have the article?... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and a scanner









I've read the article, but the thing people fail to see is that these bars work on super stiff professional race cars and don't work on lightly modified SCCA race cars. 
If people really wanted to make their street cars handle, they would be installing cam action x-bars like citroen and peugeot used in WRC.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (130_R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *130_R* »_If people really wanted to make their street cars handle, they would be installing cam action x-bars like citroen and peugeot used in WRC.

Have any pictures etc. of what you're talking about here? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

*Re: (secondgen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *secondgen* »_
Have any pictures etc. of what you're talking about here? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

x2


----------



## WackyWabbitRacer (Apr 24, 2001)

*Re: (secondgen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *secondgen* »_
Have any pictures etc. of what you're talking about here? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

x3


----------



## Jetta2dr (Feb 19, 2001)

*Re: (130_R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *130_R* »_
If people really wanted to make their street cars handle, they would be installing cam action x-bars like citroen and peugeot used in WRC.

Is this the stuff you're refering to? I think these were the guys that designed the system the peugeots used.
http://www.kinetic.au.com/x.html
And I remember how pissed marcus got whenever something went wrong with the hydraulic system


----------



## X K R O M X (Jan 19, 2006)

*Re: (Jetta2dr)*

I will watch this cause I have some info on it.


----------



## 1.9..16vTurbo (Jan 25, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Scrubbs)*

Funny how only Franz and I (as for Vortex users) have tried this set up and we both admit that it handles remarkably better but yet people who hae never even seen this setup in person says it won't. Just doesn't add up but I guess that's the internet. 
No my feelings aren't hurt (first thing people go for on here). In fact I find it humorus how things like this always turn out. SecondGen... get it done and on the car. The whole gas tank and road clearance thing is BS. Common sense tells you the front of the car is STILL LOWER then the rear and I'm sure as hell not gonna rip my lip and I/C off and I'm def not going drive over anything that may f' up my hard work. I'ld be worried about the 90psi of fuel in the external pump then the bars. Over a year on my car and have yet to hit anything. Front lip is still there too.


----------



## mozerman (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (Jetta2dr)*

Jetta2dr, aren't you going to be worried about rocks and stuff smashing that off? I can imagine harsh stages will just catch that and slow you guys down, if not tear it off.


_Modified by mozerman at 6:57 PM 2-15-2007_


----------



## 1.9..16vTurbo (Jan 25, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (mozerman)*

I don't rallye so i'm not worried about that but that brings up another side. I'ld still be more worried about the fuel pump then the bars


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (Jetta2dr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jetta2dr* »_
Is this the stuff you're refering to? I think these were the guys that designed the system the peugeots used.
http://www.kinetic.au.com/x.html
And I remember how pissed marcus got whenever something went wrong with the hydraulic system









That's so damn complex looking and i'd think intricate hydraulics like that'd be a pain to route #1 and more complex than it'd be worth of a street car. A bit over the top for a street car doncha think!?

_Quote, originally posted by *X K R O M X* »_I will watch this cause I have some info on it.

Don't just watch, lol, share the info.









_Quote, originally posted by *1.9..16vTurbo* »_Funny how only Franz and I (as for Vortex users) have tried this set up and we both admit that it handles remarkably better but yet people who have never even seen this setup in person says it won't. Just doesn't add up but I guess that's the internet. 
No my feelings aren't hurt (first thing people go for on here). In fact I find it humorous how things like this always turn out. 

Add my name to the vortex users here shortly, I've never even actually seen the set-up in person, my copy's been made solely based off the pics i have from Franz, and you, on your helios.

_Quote, originally posted by *1.9..16vTurbo* »_SecondGen... get it done and on the car. The whole gas tank and road clearance thing is BS. Common sense tells you the front of the car is STILL LOWER then the rear and I'm sure as hell not gonna rip my lip and I/C off and I'm def not going drive over anything that may f' up my hard work. I'ld be worried about the 90psi of fuel in the external pump then the bars. Over a year on my car and have yet to hit anything. Front lip is still there too.

I'm not worried about clearances at all, my oilpan will hit before anything else. And even with the way it's set-up I don't know how anyone can even think it'd hit the tank....I'll dig up the pic of your helios from straight on in the back, maybe people will see what's going on then....
Also, if anything hits the towers, I'd be more concerned with whatever it is rather than the towers themselves; at least on my unit, the tower's are damn rugged as all hell.

_Quote, originally posted by *mozerman* »_Aren't you going to be worried about rocks and stuff smashing that off? I can imagine harsh stages will just catch that and slow you guys down, if not tear it off.

My car won't be rallied, at least not the car that this is going onto, i may make a few more, put one on my daily (that gets rallied and abused in every way). We'll see...


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (secondgen)*

All freshly painted up, new mk4 calipers, rotors, new wheel bearings, SS lines. Still waiting on Bildon to get me my sphericals....















































Still need a set of pads too.


----------



## Jetta2dr (Feb 19, 2001)

*Re: (secondgen)*

Awesome. Love the knurling on the bars for adjustment. I'm going to be making a couple of these for me and my friend's rally cars. He bent two last weekend at a rally! One thing that I noticed on the VWMS mk3 kit car rear beam that differs from the ones that other people have made is that they mount the inner joints in a double shear mounting, instead of the single shear like you have.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (Jetta2dr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jetta2dr* »_Awesome. Love the knurling on the bars for adjustment. I'm going to be making a couple of these for me and my friend's rally cars. He bent two last weekend at a rally! One thing that I noticed on the VWMS mk3 kit car rear beam that differs from the ones that other people have made is that they mount the inner joints in a double shear mounting, instead of the single shear like you have.

Yeah, i considered a double shear mount on the inners but for what I'll be using it for, it'd be a bit overkill i think. If i were to build another for a rallye spec car, it'd get doubled. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vader_black (Mar 30, 2009)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (secondgen)*

i fraking love this build, it is a thing of beauty, the rigidity of the factory design coupled with just a bit more denial to the roll, just by taking some of the force out, it makes the base that much stronger, it will reduce changes to both camber and toe, because toe can only go so far and since toe now is on a leach the toe will stay in line, im worried about the transferance of vibration now that there is more rigidity, you most definatelly should use polyurethane bushings, so it keeps in line where it conects to the body, im having a problem with mine where i drive over an obstacle it crabs left, and squats then a few meters it inlifts my rear, i know my rear suspension is fried, and prolly forcing drifts has eaten my rear axle's toe and camber, how much would some one charge me to make this same kind of build for me?


----------



## Capt.Dreadz (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (vader_black)*

Holy old thread Batman









Good to see people using the search function. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: VWMS Rear toe/camber prevention beam info? (vader_black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vader_black* »_i fraking love this build, it is a thing of beauty, the rigidity of the factory design coupled with just a bit more denial to the roll, just by taking some of the force out, it makes the base that much stronger, it will reduce changes to both camber and toe, because toe can only go so far and since toe now is on a leach the toe will stay in line, im worried about the transferance of vibration now that there is more rigidity, you most definatelly should use polyurethane bushings, so it keeps in line where it conects to the body, im having a problem with mine where i drive over an obstacle it crabs left, and squats then a few meters it inlifts my rear, i know my rear suspension is fried, and prolly forcing drifts has eaten my rear axle's toe and camber, how much would some one charge me to make this same kind of build for me?

PM me.


----------



## idrivemyself (Mar 7, 2003)

We're still waiting for Jarod to chime in...


----------



## X K R O M X (Jan 19, 2006)

*Re: (idrivemyself)*


_Quote, originally posted by *idrivemyself* »_We're still waiting for Jarod to chime in...









what do I have to say?......the original pictures are from a friends car from 6+ years ago....and apparently my prices are way to much for anyone to really care about my info except maybe to take it and use it one there own.
~Jarod.


_Modified by X K R O M X at 4:16 PM 6-2-2009_


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

*Re: (X K R O M X)*

so do you have any more pictures? maybe some measurements too??


----------



## X K R O M X (Jan 19, 2006)

*Re: (speed51133!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *speed51133!* »_so do you have any more pictures? maybe some measurements too??









I will post the CAD and Solid Works images with all the details this evening.
`Jarod.


----------



## 16vmk1spy (Feb 26, 2009)

Check out this thread for it.... http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4330238


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

*FV-QR*

great thread i'll be making my own here soon


----------



## choochoo (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Daskoupe)*

Bump for some great custom fab work!


----------



## Rabbit6 (Dec 16, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (choochoo)*

I've only skimmed the posts in this thread, so please excuse any redundancy here.
I'm thinking that in a hard corner, the inside rear wheel is airborn, and need not apply. 
Focusing on the outside rear wheel, you'd have forces trying to bend the trailing arm inwards 
(toe out), and forces trying to tip the top of the wheel outwards. (positive camber)
Toe out, would kinda be like four wheel steering, helping the car to make the corner. In my book, (and i'm thinking autocrossing, and road courses, NOT Rallye) this would be a good thing.
I suspect that the second case, twisting the trailing arm so the wheel gains positive camber, is the lesser of the two. Based solely on the moment arm (trying to sound smart here) of the first case being longer than the second case, and, in the first case, you're bending a T section (in MKI) where the arm meets the lateral beam which would be significantly easier than twisting a tube the diameter and wall thickness of the trailing arm.
Regardless, even if you gain positive camber on the outside rear wheel, perhaps lifting some of the inner tread patch off the pavement, would this not also serve to help the rear end around come around and to some degree eliminate the natural understeering tendancy?
Thoughts?
Great thread, BTW


_Modified by Rabbit6 at 9:41 PM 3-1-2010_


----------



## Rabbit6 (Dec 16, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (Rabbit6)*

no thoughts for you!


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

*FV-QR*

still making mine!I have a rear beam,just gotta go pull it one slow day!


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

bumping for actually starting mine...


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

i was dragging ass lol 

Got these boys ready for some tig welding tomorrow.Towers gonna get done tuesday:thumbup:


----------



## Eganx (Apr 30, 2004)

Keep us updated.....I was interested in doing this a while back and never got around to it....


----------



## franz (Jan 30, 2000)

it is a shame looking at all of these that everyone is missing a very simple concept when trying to reproduce this...

and this was orignially a Bill Scott Racing piece used in the early 80's in SCCA... i simply changed the design to work with a later trailing arm where the beam was no longer located at the pivot.


----------



## Eganx (Apr 30, 2004)

franz said:


> it is a shame looking at all of these that everyone is missing a very simple concept when trying to reproduce this...
> 
> and this was orignially a Bill Scott Racing piece used in the early 80's in SCCA... i simply changed the design to work with a later trailing arm where the beam was no longer located at the pivot.


If its a shame then why don't you offer up this concept Mr. smug.


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

towers are cut..:thumbup:


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

franz said:


> it is a shame looking at all of these that everyone is missing a very simple concept when trying to reproduce this...
> 
> and this was orignially a Bill Scott Racing piece used in the early 80's in SCCA... i simply changed the design to work with a later trailing arm where the beam was no longer located at the pivot.


Do you mind sharing what you are talking about? Not really following what you are talking about, we're going to keep reinventing the wheel till we know about what was done in the past.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

franz said:


> it is a shame looking at all of these that everyone is missing a very simple concept when trying to reproduce this...
> 
> and this was orignially a Bill Scott Racing piece used in the early 80's in SCCA... i simply changed the design to work with a later trailing arm where the beam was no longer located at the pivot.


 What an enlightening post. 

Regardless, it was a fun project for me when I was fresh out of school and itching to fab something up. And as a bonus, I enjoy how it makes my car feel on the road, all that matters to me.eace:


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

This thread is full of people i though where dead and gone. 

My towers are done!should install all parts on to the beam this weekend:thumbup: I'm stoked:laugh:


----------



## Eganx (Apr 30, 2004)

Where are the pics?


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

pre paint


----------



## Eganx (Apr 30, 2004)

nice.....are those 3/4" hiems?


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

Well I got them on










But It hits the gas tank:banghead: Thinking about making new towers that are 2 inches taller.










How low are your cars? I'm not against raising it more if I have to


----------



## Brian.G (May 8, 2010)

You should have put the rose joints in centre of beam in double shear. 

But, other than that, looks good, apart from tank issue

Brian,


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

Brian.G said:


> You should have put the rose joints in centre of beam in double shear.
> 
> But, other than that, looks good, apart from tank issue
> 
> Brian,


Thanks I got the car up like an inch threads from that pic still hits. I think I need like another 2 inches. So I am building taller towers instead:thumbup:


----------



## Bobby_ (Apr 21, 2008)

after few years..... nobody tell us what happens......


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

Bobby_ said:


> after few years..... nobody tell us what happens......


I never tried again. I'll be doing it right here soon. I know frequent Sebring a lot and am doing a Tarmac rally this weekend.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

Bobby_ said:


> after few years..... nobody tell us what happens......


What do you want to know? My setup is still in my car, I still love it. Never had any problems. Acts like a big rear sway bar. Takes some getting used to if you're used to driving a stock mk2.

Mine doesn't hit the tank, even if the car is lower than optimum. The beam mount ends aren't mounted double-shear like would have liked, but the beam is gusseted/reinforced with 1/4" plate, threaded, and then nutted on the back side. I've never had any issues. grade 10.9 bolts. The offset and height of my towers don't interfere with wheel fitment, regardless of the size/width. Wide wheels would hit the beam before the towers ever became an issue.


----------



## Bobby_ (Apr 21, 2008)

Hello,
everything i want to know is what happening with the behavior of the car on the track.
Does anyone have any information on what happens with the temperature of the tires ?? tire wear?
Does anyone tried to "tensioned" bar to see what happens with the geometry?
That is all....

I use the bridge because of mk3 GTI is 2cm wider than OE mk2

Now I'm about to do this and on my car and I'm interested in what happens as the feeling and is it better and improved standing on the track at the expense of the tires or ...... saving tire wear


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

My car hasn't been tracked, but compared to a big rear sway bar on a mk2/mk3, the beam setup behaves very similarly.

I can't speak to the tire life portion either because in the time I've had it on my car there's been multiple sets of wheels and none on long enough to tell if the beam made a notable difference. Bryson is the only other person i know that has run one on the street and track, and he tracked his car quite a bit so he'd have better on track info. If you could still get a hold of him.

You can pre-load the bars, but it will change the rear alignment. My car was setup with the bars "neutral" and the alignment set to as close to vertical (0* camber) and .5* toe in, IIRC. It's been so long I don't recall if those alignment specs are accurate though.


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

bobby check out nigels car man. He has all the sorta info you could want


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...jOBhJIKnWGKPrFXhM-5idg&bvm=bv.113034660,d.dmo


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

Daskoupe said:


> bobby check out nigels car man. He has all the sorta info you could want
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...jOBhJIKnWGKPrFXhM-5idg&bvm=bv.113034660,d.dmo


Nige's car doesn't appear to be running one of these rear beams on his car. Lots of other fun stuff though. Unless I missed it somewhere in those 54 pages. :what:


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

secondgen said:


> Nige's car doesn't appear to be running one of these rear beams on his car. Lots of other fun stuff though. Unless I missed it somewhere in those 54 pages. :what:


I think he stopped running any sway bar on the rear


----------



## ZeeuwVW (Nov 30, 2001)

I built one. Just waiting for the shell to be completed.


----------



## secondgen (Jan 9, 2004)

ZeeuwVW said:


> I built one. Just waiting for the shell to be completed.


Very nice! That looks like it came out great! How did you build the towers and how tall are they? And the supports are aluminum I'm assuming for weight?

And OT, but do you work for a transmission rebuilder? Looks like one of the transmission holding fixtures I used back when I worked at a trans. shop. :thumbup:


----------



## ZeeuwVW (Nov 30, 2001)

secondgen said:


> Very nice! That looks like it came out great! How did you build the towers and how tall are they? And the supports are aluminum I'm assuming for weight?
> 
> And OT, but do you work for a transmission rebuilder? Looks like one of the transmission holding fixtures I used back when I worked at a trans. shop. :thumbup:


Thanks man. I finished this part of the project a while back but I believe the towers were about 4". My hope is that the aluminum supports will be lighter. I am a little concerned that the threads I cut inside them might not hold but we'll see. If there is any issues I can fab some steel supports without too much trouble.

I own an import shop www.germanautoltd.com. That fixture is actually used for a strut holding tool. 

Here are some more pics just for fun.


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

I dont think 4 inches is enough


----------



## ZeeuwVW (Nov 30, 2001)

Daskoupe said:


> I dont think 4 inches is enough


Enough for what? I'm curious because I haven't actually installed on the car yet.

Edit: I see yours hit the fuel tank. I'm assuming that's what you are referring to? Not an issue for me as we are running a fuel cell.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

How do you like that fuel cell?'what are your measurements and Henry for the rear bar? Have you tracked it?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm running an old vwms 31mm solid rear sway but would like to do this


----------



## ZeeuwVW (Nov 30, 2001)

Vegeta Gti said:


> How do you like that fuel cell?'what are your measurements and Henry for the rear bar? Have you tracked it?


The car is still a work in progress so I don't have much feedback yet. The tank seems to be of good quality. 

I don't have any drawings for the bar setup anymore. If there is a specific dimension you had in mind I could check it for you.


----------

