August FVAHC Meeting Minutes

[Bill Bonow]

I'm not a big fan of the FV board (mostly in operational limitations), and it seems that Apexspeed seems to get a very large audience, so I have copied the FVAHC meeting minutes for August to help spread the word.

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on August 28

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Barret Hendricks, Alex Bertolucci, Bruce Livermore, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

As a result of a letter sent by a member to the CRB, the Ad Hoc Committee was asked to formulate a recommendation on how to allow disc brakes in FV and to submit the letter to SCCA for their discussions.
Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee continued the discussion regarding the transition to a ball joint beam and disc brakes. Several questions arose with varying opinions but in the end, the Committee agreed that a recommendation will be sent to SCCA for their consideration as requested.

Briefly, the letter being drafted will recommend that BJ beams be allowed in FV for those competitors who feel that there is a need to make the conversion to disc brakes. The recommendation will also recommend allowing disc brakes front and rear, using stock front VW Type 1 calipers ( no lightening) both front and rear and requiring the use of, stock 4 bolt steel wheels with any disc brake conversion. The letter will also recommend that when using the ball joint beam, removal of the shock tower would be allowed along with relocating the upper shock mount to a location above the top tube of the beam. As far as possible, specific minimum weights would be required for specific conversion components.

The Committee also discussed an appropriate minimum weight increase for cars incorporating disc brakes. Based on the weights of components we are familiar with, the Committee feels that just switching to the required ball joint and disc brake components will increase the weight of an FV. The Committee as a whole agreed upon a MINIMUM weight increase to 1050 pounds for cars that convert to disc brakes with the understanding that if needed, this weight “penalty” could and should be adjusted once it is determined if there is an advantage or disadvantage switching to the alternate configuration.

The letter will be formulated and sent to SCCA. If accepted, we assume that it will be put out for member input.

No other topics were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for Sept 25

[Bill Bonow]

A question that I would have: If using the BJ beam option with VW disc brakes, would rear disc be an additional option? Or when converting to disc, must be all 4 wheels?

If anyone would like photos posted of BJ beam specifics, I have a couple for reference (see photo). Conversion from LP to BJ is not terrible project. The biggest potential hassle is bodywork, A) if you hate bodywork and B) if you have beam farings.

[Bill Bonow]

Here is a few photos of brand new VW of Mexico ball joint beams. Most buying new prefer the VW of M beams as they are VW quality and they are very available. The first few are the brackets that are typically removed (in the other class). I would assume that if used, FV would allow similar.

The other photos are one method of making a simple outboard shock mount from the "moose antlers". The lower mount is pretty much the Ron Chuck style bolt extension that screws onto the lower turkey leg shock stud. Puts the shock directly behind the shock tower uprights (last photo).

[BLS]

A question that I would have: If using the BJ beam option with VW disc brakes, would rear disc be an additional option? Or when converting to disc, must be all 4 wheels?

The recommendation will also recommend allowing disc brakes front and rear, using stock front VW Type 1 calipers ( no lightening) both front and rear and requiring the use of, stock 4 bolt steel wheels with any disc brake conversion.

The recommendation is for front and rear being allowed. I would hope the rear is not required if the front is done. My personal opinion is the front *might* be an advantage with respect to camber change during cornering forces that will make up for the higher weight and rotating mass. I doubt there will be any increased braking performance over a good drum setup. Watching video's of FV and FST cars I can clearly see the camber change on FV cars but it does not appear as bad on the FST cars. However, the skinnier FV front tires may just make this more apparent...

Thanks for the photo's.
Barry

[Bill Bonow]

Had to prep a beam today. That included removal of various VW brackets and shock moose antlers. This one used the RGU style plates that allow any height/type/size shock tower fabrication to be fitted. Gives maximum shock mounting flexibility. Last item is the ride height adjuster install, but from stock to full prep (including rattle can black) takes about 4 hours.

[jhenn4716]

When it comes time to put disc brakes on my car, you'll be the first person I'm calling Bill.

[S Lathrop]

What are you using for rear disk brakes?

I have done rear disk brakes on the Z10 FF, Z11 FSV and Z14 FSV using VW parts. The last I checked, the rear hub that I used were not acceptable for use on a race car. These was poor quality castings from Latin America.

Doing rear disks was not an inexpensive conversion as I did it. But it can be done and it can be a bolt on change.

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

They are aftermarket one piece rotor/hat with splines. Very available, low cost, but very heavy in comparison to what you're likely use to building.

CB Performance has them undrilled for $59.00 each

[S Lathrop]

There is an Audi 100LS rotor that is exactly the same dimensions as the VW front disk. It is setup for a 4 bolt pattern that is maybe 100 mm. The hat section was short fairly short. I would machine the back of the rear hub so that I could bolt the rotor to the back of the hub.

Given that I can't find decent hubs, I have been machining Brembo VW rear brake drums in place of the original VW Hub.

But if you are allowing a non-VW parts for the rear disk setup, why can't I make my own hub? ICP owns the broach to do the FV drums, we can make the hub as easily as a drum. The rotor would be a VW part.

Years ago, Lola made an aluminum casting that replaced the bearing retainer (same as FV) to mount the VW caliper with the 4 bolts that hole the bearing retainer in place.

[Bill Bonow]

But if you are allowing a non-VW parts for the rear disk setup, why can't I make my own hub?

No reason in the world you can't. It's still all just ideas for possibilities at this point, but I'd bet the rear rotor rules will likely be identical to the FST rules:

GCR 9.1.1.3.5. Rear brake drum assemblies must be removed and replaced with one-piece cast iron rear brake rotors with machined-in rear axle splines. Caliper mounting is free. Min. rotor weight: 15.0 lbs each, without wheel mounting studs.

If the rule is used, that would limit construction and the standardized aftermarket components become very attractive.

If the rules is not used, then the possibilities are limitless.

[S Lathrop]

No reason in the world you can't. It's still all just ideas for possibilities at this point, but I'd bet the rear rotor rules will likely be identical to the FST rules:

GCR 9.1.1.3.5. Rear brake drum assemblies must be removed and replaced with one-piece cast iron rear brake rotors with machined-in rear axle splines. Caliper mounting is free. Min. rotor weight: 15.0 lbs each, without wheel mounting studs.

If the rule is used, that would limit construction and the standardized aftermarket components become very attractive.

If the rules is not used, then the possibilities are limitless.

That rule would not allow the use of VW made parts. And the one piece definitely jacks the cost.

In Super Vee days, we had to use VW parts. The first approach was to machine a front disk/hub into a rear disk/hat. That is when I found the Audi part. Being VW it was way cheaper and legal.

[rgu]

There is no VW part made for Beetle rear ends but there is this aftermarket part. In five years in FST there is zero failures even in bad rear end hits of either the caliper or the disk. This is a total no-brainer—no machining and el cheapo alternative.

Of course you could spend more money but in my opinion this has been figured out.

[Bill Bonow]

That rule would not allow the use of VW made parts.

True, as VW never designed or made rear disc brakes for the type 1. However, these employ an idea you have talked about for years. A standardized aftermarket part with enough production and various manufactures building to the same design to keep costs to a minimum with availability for a good number of years.

And the one piece definitely jacks the cost.

Not true, read post #8 above. $59.00 each does not sound "jacked" to me.

I looked around for the '70 through '73 Audi 100LS rotors on the internet. Not easy to locate other than NOS on eBay. They were cheap at $30.00 each, but future availability for a 40 year old Audi may be an issue.

[S Lathrop]

I looked around for the '70 through '73 Audi 100LS rotors on the internet. Not easy to locate other than NOS on eBay. They were cheap at $30.00 each, but future availability for a 40 year old Audi may be an issue.

I brought this point up because I think that with the 15# min weight, you don't need to restrict this to 1 piece unit. You are married to a single supplier right now. Availability might get to be an issue at any time in the future.

ICP already makes VW rear drums and brake rotors. Making a 2 piece rotor hub assembly might be cost effective. Especially when you think about people thinning the rotors to get to minimum weight and then having to replace the entire unit when the rotor wears and resurfacing will take the assembly under weight.

Where did the 15# come from?

[Bill Bonow]

I brought this point up because I think that with the 15# min weight, you don't need to restrict this to 1 piece unit. You are married to a single supplier right now. Availability might get to be an issue at any time in the future.

Not true, In my post above this one I had pointed out that multiple manufacturers build these rotors to a single standard design. No single supplier.

ICP already makes VW rear drums and brake rotors. Making a 2 piece rotor hub assembly might be cost effective. Especially when you think about people thinning the rotors to get to minimum weight and then having to replace the entire unit when the rotor wears and resurfacing will take the assembly under weight.

The rule is manufactures min. thickness (8 mm). If using FST as a test bed, the rotors have been in use for 12 years at this point. I cannot think of one rotor replaced due to wear/thinning of the friction surface.

Where did the 15# come from?

We weighed some +30 rotors from various manufacturers and found 15 lbs. to be the lightest.

Steve, please remember that this is a giant hypothetical we are discussing. We in FST are happy as a lark with our rules a they have been for the past 10 years. This is a discussion about the ideas of the potential changes that possibly could be happening in FV. I think it would be wise that if changed, to keep the rules as common as possible when applicable. It's silly enough that SCCA has (2) ACVW junior non-winged open wheels classes. It would be even sillier to start rule changes that moved those classes further apart rather than closer together.

These are just my opinions about ideas of potential rules. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

[S Lathrop]

Bill

I am concerned that if you start changing FV, you may loose more cars than you gain. How you change FV will be very critical to the future of FV or FST. I agree that having 2 classes occupying the same space does not make a lot of sense. I think that we actually have 4 classes vying for the same market, non-winged, under 100 hp. formula cars. There was a day when there was only one class and fields of nearly 100 cars.

Among the championships my cars have won is a British FV championship with one of three car I built and shipped to the UK. Those car used the BJ front beams and were similar to a FST decades earlier. So I have some familiarity with the ball joint front ends.

Further, given that we are grouping so many different cars in the same race groups, the hazards of widely different performance potential combined with variations in driving skills, we courting a potential disaster. This race group situation is one of the driving forces behind the success of the F2000 and F1600 series.

FV is one of the top SCCA classes. Will any change improve the FV fields or the quality to the racing for the FV participants? Is it not just a matter of time before FST faces the same parts situation that FV faces today?

Look, I really like FV as a class. I am still involved in FV racing with a new car that we are just starting the development process. I hope to add another national championship in FV some day. And I am very concerned for the future of FV as I am about formula car racing in general.

[sracing]

FV is one of the top SCCA classes.

Yes. Due to parts availability and stable rules. Note that the vast majority of drivers are the same drivers from 20 years ago. While it is near the top, it certainly has dropped and is continuing to do so. We are well passed the top of the curve.

Will any change improve the FV fields or the quality to the racing for the FV participants?

The suggested changes (and possible FST conversions) at least keep a path going for existing cars to live on via conversion.

Is it not just a matter of time before FST faces the same parts situation that FV faces today?

Of course, just like any class. But given FAR more BJ beams, 1600 engines, etc. were made (and are still being made) than the early FV stuff, it could easily stretch the life another 20+ years. (Assuming popularity of a entry level open wheel class.)

And I am very concerned for the future of FV as I am about formula car racing in general.

Me too. Exactly why we attempted the FST concept in the US. Cheaper, faster, more reliable, and probably most important, it doesn't eliminate the utility of existing FV's.

One can certainly poo poo the FST disc brake technology etc. (front or rear), as to whether it is "race" part but by any definition it is a step forward. I would hardly call the FV a "race" car either. Of course we could go to lots of other "better" parts aftermarket of special fabricated. We will lose simple conversion and overall costs.

All open wheel classes are having a problem with popularity. (probably all grassroots racing) I don't know if any changes will help that. But at least, an FST like package keep a few hundred cars viable for many more years.

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

I'm going to have to assume that when the term "you" is used in your post, you're really thinking CRB, FVAHC and the FV competitors that started the BJ beam and disc brakes discussion. Myself, I only offer info as to the results in FST of the past 12 years using the components that the CRB, FVAHC and FV competitors seem to be focused on.

I will add one opinion. If change is to take place, it should be inline with FST or no change at all. The last thing needed is a third set of rules (think about it, that's really what will be required) to regulate another direction. So much for simplification

BTW, I left FV in 2000, 13 years ago after 20 years of competition in the class.

[Purple Frog]

As a member of the FSRAC (but not on the air cooled sub-committee) I have some interest in this discussion.

One discussion that has come to fore in recent months is safety related. As time passes these cars continue to get faster. Because the cars are for the most part employing zero-roll stiffness technology, there has not been much emphasis on chassis stiffness. In other formula classes there has been great emphasis on chassis stiffness with resulting very strong driver capsules.

FV and FST cars look rather fragile by comparison. Many times being basically just two square tubes running along the bottom of the car. I am concerned about lower extremity injury when a front wheel hits something at 100 mph and it is attached to two long steel fulcrums that might want to twist the chassis severely ahead of the dash hoop. Other formula classes have suspensions that tend to break away expending energy in the process.

Not meant to be inflamatory, just looking for discussion points in regard to front corner impact safety.

[S Lathrop]

I sure don't have any answers about what should be done. I am raising questions because I think they should be considered. I am not arguing for or against these changes to FV. Just be sure that it is done right.

I think that FF and FC have proved that there can be different packages that can race competitively against one another and all benefit.

Maybe allowing disk brakes and ball joint beams is the way to go. If it is done right, FV will only benefit. Maybe we should dump the VW steering box as well.

In the cases of the Fit and Zetec engines in FF and FC, the edge is very slightly in favor of the traditional configuration but the effort and cost of maintaining that edge is not deemed worth it by many competitors. Both new engines have reduced the cost of racing by reducing engine maintenance costs and improving reliability.

[sracing]

Frog,

A good point. One that we thought about when doing the engine stuff. Our package currently limits the FST to maybe 4 MPH faster than an FV. Our lap times are due to the low end torque. The 34 Bocar and restrictor sees heavy pumping losses at above 6200 RPM. So safety was a design criteria. With some further development we may see slightly faster speeds, but not much.

But what top speeds are the F600s etc. Seeing?

[S Lathrop]

As a member of the FSRAC (but not on the air cooled sub-committee) I have some interest in this discussion.

One discussion that has come to fore in recent months is safety related. As time passes these cars continue to get faster. Because the cars are for the most part employing zero-roll stiffness technology, there has not been much emphasis on chassis stiffness. In other formula classes there has been great emphasis on chassis stiffness with resulting very strong driver capsules.

FV and FST cars look rather fragile by comparison. Many times being basically just two square tubes running along the bottom of the car. I am concerned about lower extremity injury when a front wheel hits something at 100 mph and it is attached to two long steel fulcrums that might want to twist the chassis severely ahead of the dash hoop. Other formula classes have suspensions that tend to break away expending energy in the process.

Not meant to be inflamatory, just looking for discussion points in regard to front corner impact safety.

Mike,

The only saving grace is that the FV chassis material tends to be very heavy wall. Frequently .125in. thick. There are instances of the front beam folding back onto the drivers legs and ankles with unpleasant results. The minimum weight of FV is high relative to what the cars could be built to. Thus there is not a lot of pressure to build as light as possible.

The beam does provide good protection if it does not collapse rearward. It also makes the front of an FV broad and blunt compared to other cars. The safety issue of other cars against FVs gives me more concern.

[Purple Frog]

100 mph is 100 mph. That is why i used that speed in my example, because I'm sure both FV and FST are capable of that speed.

F600/500 are probably approaching 130+. They have break-away suspensions at the front. I have some concern about 500/600 wheelbases causing drivers to be really poured into those cars with tight foot clearances. But, this is a FV/FST thread. Think we should stay in that class discussion.

[sracing]

.. I am raising questions because I think they should be considered. I am not arguing for or against these changes to FV. Just be sure that it is done right.

100% agreed.

I think that FF and FC have proved that there can be different packages that can race competitively against one another and all benefit.

Arguably true. But one thing we have found in the FFDA/FST series: Seldom does anyone go home before the end of the weekend broken. We can swap out almost all parts across all cars (and have.) All part of the continuing camaraderie of FV.

Maybe we should dump the VW steering box as well.

IMO, leave it. They (boxes) are not great, but racks offer no advantage other than weight and rack conversion geometry can be tough.

[Bill Bonow]

Mike,

Can't speak for FV, but the new design FST's are much more robust in side protection. That was one of the reason for increase in min. weight.

Here is a new Evolution chassis as an example. I'm sure Jim Nash's Mission is just as stout

[Matt King]

If any brake rule change for FV ever materializes, I like the idea of a BJ beam with front discs and retaining the rear drums. This would put FV on a partial course to FST rules and wouldn't require anyone contemplating a future conversion to head down a dead end.

[Jim Nash]

Not quite like a current FF etc. but more protection than your average FV.


Jim

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

The number one issue I have had with FV over the years has been the minimum weight. It is difficult to build a strong car, with what I feel is proper protection, with a 200-230 lb driver and still make minimum weight. FST allows me to do this because of the higher weight limit.

Below is a picture of my new FST chassis that I built with additional side impact protection.

[Mark Filip]

Why are most of the posts coming from FST guys about a FV proposal rule?

Just saying

[Bill Bonow]

Mark,

I think it is in large part due to the potential idea of a future rule change is looking very much like an alignment with the rules currently used in FST. Being that FST guys have a good 10 years of using the possible proposed components, they may be helpful to explain their experience with the components as it is highly probible that the FV guys are not very familiar with the BJ beam.

Does that sound reasonable?

[Mark Filip]

Mark,

I think it is in large part due to the potential idea of a future rule change is looking very much like an alignment with the rules currently used in FST. Being that FST guys have a good 10 years of using the possible proposed components, they may be helpful to explain their experience with the components as it is highly probible that the FV guys are not very familiar with the BJ beam.

Does that sound reasonable?

:-/ I guess but it started without anyone asking a question.

Lets talk about what it takes to install the proposed beam to cars currently using a link pin beam. I think this would be very useful information so that when it comes time for member input people will be clear on what they are voting for. I know some of use can install a BJ beam easily and it's no big deal but what about the guy who pays for service? The person that just does not have time or know how to make sure a beam is installed and working correctly. Paying someone to do this is another added cost for some and may push them away.

Don't get me wrong Bill I have no problem with the current proposal of a BJ beam in fact I have stated in several posts before that disc brakes should only be allowed if it was the same beam the FST car uses. My problem is this gets pushed through without people understanding its not a simple bolt on conversion and in the end we may loose some drivers because they will think its a must to have disc brakes. Also some cars will have a major task to put a BJ on

The other item I would like information on and I believe neither group FV or FST can comment on is the use of the 4 bolt VW steel wheel. Will they flex more than the current wide 5 wheel? Will it break or bend? Who knows the bolts are closer to the center and has a smaller mounting surface.

[Tiago Santos]

It's up to us to make sure it is not a must do conversion. The rules, as far as I can tell from what the committee has told us, have enough leeway to adjust the weight either way to make sure the BJ beam/disc brake setup is not entirely desirable from a pure performance point of view.

This should and has to play out like the Fit motor for FF. Those who were tired of the kent motors or wanted a change, got their wish, and paid for it with their $$$ and the slight lap time hit, compared to the hot kents of the time.

It'll be easier and preferable to start with a higher than necessary weight penalty and adjust down, than to let the cat out of the bag too early.

As far as cost, I'm anticipating the front end to cost around $1000 end to end, wheels excluded. Jim sells his full prepped beams for "around $1100", lots of options up or down, it seems. My LP beam sits against two pads on top of the frame, so the lower tube is constrained to that position. The BJ beam's lower tube will have to sit in exactly the same spot, putting the upper tube higher by a few inches. The bodywork changes on my car are luckily very minor.

Lastly, wheels and flex.. Our cars get up to 1.7g of lateral cornering force. On 1025, that's a little under 1750lbs of force (let's say 1800). A late VW bug was 1850lbs, add 4 adults at 175 each and that's 2550lbs. Considering 'zee germans' are known for building their parts with significant safety margins (other than front spindles and rear drums, I guess!), I think we'll be fine!

[Bill Bonow]

Mark,

Fair enough question. I'll try to cover as much of a LP to BJ beam switch process as possible.

Disclaimer: Some cars are just not going to be easy. The D-13 comes to mind. Soon enough, they will be vintage eligable and should be left with the LP beam and drums.

A key point, the beam mounting bolt spacing from chassis centerline is the same (LP to BJ). The horizontal spacing is about 1" wider.

Considering that various levels of "tinkering" are out there, is hard to say the level of beam prep to list. For the sake of this review, SR offers disc to disc prepped beams, so we'll leave the beam building out of this for the moment.

The FV steering box will clamp directly to the beam tube (if location is employed), so that is an R & R application.

The LP beam is unbolted (typically 4 bolts) and the BJ beam can be positioned. Most keep the BJ lower tube in the same location as the LP beam and the upper tube will locate higher. Most times, the upper vertical mounting bracket hole is re-drilled to accept the LP beam pattern (about 1" lower than BJ). Reinstall 4 bolts.

Tie rods will need to be length corrected.

Bodywork: If you have a car without beam fairings (Mysterian, Womer, ect), no biggie. Notch out the two upper beam tubes a little larger (location move up about 1") and your good to go. If you have beam fairings (Caracal, Protoform, ect) it gets a little more complicated if you wish to continue to use them. In simple term, to relocate the upper beam fairings, cut them off and reinstall them 1" higher. For a Citation type beam fairing, it's more work as you have to split and widen them. Again, depends on what you want the end result to appear. We've got a Citation conversion with the typical fairings. He simply has the upper beam tube "bump up" by 1" and the car runs fine.

There are certainly more details than this, but then we are geting into tuning more than installation.

As for the wheels, beyond being ugly as sin, they will be plenty strong.

[Mark Filip]

Lastly, wheels and flex.. Our cars get up to 1.7g of lateral cornering force. On 1025, that's a little under 1750lbs of force (let's say 1800). A late VW bug was 1850lbs, add 4 adults at 175 each and that's 2550lbs. Considering 'zee germans' are known for building their parts with significant safety margins (other than front spindles and rear drums, I guess!), I think we'll be fine!

Santos I understand but it is still different have you seen pictures of FVs in corners the wheels look like there made out of rubber. How many times have you taken off 4 lug bolts and the rim is only touching where the remaining bolt is left? It's scary sometimes. It was just a concern I think worth looking into before someone gets hurt.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

For what it's worth, when I started looking in a little more detail at what it would take to properly but the BJ beam on my car, I figure it would take me a rough estimate of 100 hours work, perhaps that's even on the low side.

It sounds to keep the ride height the same and the turkey legs at the same angle, I would have to keep the lower tube in the same place. The top tube of the BJ beam would then be above the chassis. To make it have the same structure as with the current LP beam, it would require re-making the front part of the chassis.

Then I have the steering box mounted in front of the beam, so a new box mount would be required. Not sure on how all the tie-rod geometry works out, so new tie rods and steering blocks might be needed.

I would have to make new plugs, molds, and body pieces for the front fairings.

Point being, I'm not sure it's as simple as just drilling two new holes to properly convert to a BJ beam. It's one thing to throw it on there and go, it's another to do it right and end up with the same performance level with the LP beam.

[Bill Bonow]

I figure it would take me a rough estimate of 100 hours work, perhaps that's even on the low side.

Mike,

Considering that you're likely to have 100,000+ hours in your car already over the past 20 years, what's another 100?

[Mark Filip]

For what it's worth, when I started looking in a little more detail at what it would take to properly but the BJ beam on my car, I figure it would take me a rough estimate of 100 hours work, perhaps that's even on the low side.

It sounds to keep the ride height the same and the turkey legs at the same angle, I would have to keep the lower tube in the same place. The top tube of the BJ beam would then be above the chassis. To make it have the same structure as with the current LP beam, it would require re-making the front part of the chassis.

Then I have the steering box mounted in front of the beam, so a new box mount would be required. Not sure on how all the tie-rod geometry works out, so new tie rods and steering blocks might be needed.

I would have to make new plugs, molds, and body pieces for the front fairings.

Point being, I'm not sure it's as simple as just drilling two new holes to properly convert to a BJ beam. It's one thing to throw it on there and go, it's another to do it right and end up with the same performance level with the LP beam.

That's what I was getting at. Some may not care and slap it on but others will refuse to do it unless its correctly done to the way they want it.

[Tiago Santos]

But that's ok, isn't it? That's exactly the way it is now. Some will bolt on junkyard beams with very little work other than cleaning them up, others will spend plenty of time getting them 'just right'. I remember seeing the price of a "new" prepped beam from one of the major engine builders and being very impressed with how expensive it was. It mentioned having all the "latest tricks". I wouldn't know what those are, as I can't imagine a beam being that expensive no matter what I could think to do to it.

What you get out of something is directly related to what you put into it, that's not gonna change. I'm sure Mike will spend +100 hours doing his front end, I'll hopefully spend less. The same way he spends proportionally more time optimizing any given part of his car than I (or just about anyone, I bet!) do.

[BLS]

Perhaps it has been mentioned -

It appears the shock mount on the BJ beam torsion arms would increase the shock motion by something close to double. So, if you want to reuse existing shocks would they need to be re-valved?

[Steve Davis]

Barry
I doubt they would need to be revalved, but the mounts would have to be customized for length. I don't really thing there is much difference vertically - just that there is a bit wider spacing horizontally if the shock towers are cut off.
Steve, FV80