My new Drakart with Kings @ MX Track

[K-fab]

France

[LiveWire]

My links were never moved and my travel never limited. I have driven the cars with the altered links and would not want to do it to mine due to the degradation in handling. Each person has their own priorities though.

The 2001 car has the gear box lowered so it maintained the suspension geometry yet had reduced CV angles and reduced plunge. The gear box is between the frame rails rather than above them.

To switch out to the Audi inners would require changing the stub on the female large spline portion. I stripped the splines off one of my stubs and had to replace it. I have a few sets of the solid axles from the 2005 cars. I cut the end of one of those off. I machined a piece to fit over that and step it up to the large male spline. The chunk of axle is welded on both ends of that piece, not just one end. I then then welded the new stub to the end of the female spline. It has been holding up along with with the new inner CV I built. I made mine a little different than Drakart did. I weld the flanges on the back only filling a large V. This keeps the heat farther away from the hardened areas.

Porshe 930 joints do not provide enough angle. You would have to limit your travel quite a bit. I don't know of an off the shelf plunging axle. Everything I know of OEM uses a plunging inner joint which provides less angle.

Sunblock, those are the better axles. Your CV simply wore out. Once there is too much play, the balls can go places they shouldn't. The cup keeps turning with the balls in the wrong place and something has to give. If you rebuild them as soon as there is play, you can get several rebuilds out before they need replacing. Letting them blow requires replacement and often causes the large male spline to get chewed up from bouncing around. If you think the splines look small as in thin, thin means more. The more, the better. More splines means more surface area, less drag, less side load on the CVs.

[nofearmxer]

Livewire and K FAB what would keep me from lengthening the drag link to straighten out the axle angel from the tranny, and then using a solid axle set up like in the Tiger and Tornados? Im already wanting to re do this so i figured a solid, wider axle or would i be best overall sticking to the plunging type axle after widening it a little bit? I dont know the limit of what these Citroen CVs are.Im told more then a 930. So to be safe I figured I'd limit the axle angle to 25*. If a 930 goes to 25* then that sounds like it would work huh?. Im just holding a degree wheel on the axle so its not scientific measurements.

I put up a new thread in the suspension forum with spring length questions when adjusting the pre-load clamp up high on the shock. To me it seems like i need longer springs to get the desired lower ride height/axle angle so it seems that if that were the case it couldnt really be set up to go lower, like it was ment to ride high in the stance, which sounds opposite of what Im reading is right, but then again whose really right...its the internet.

Baisically what would you do if it was yours??

I cant post pictures. What website do you use to upload your pics from?

[K-fab]

Take a very close look at the rear link mounting location on the Tiger and Tornado. That is what Jay came up with.

Alain went out of ATV Racing ranting and biatching about how that was not what he designed, not what he liked, wrong and such and then the next model of Drak has EXACTLY what Jay'd modified on them.

[LiveWire]

Alain's focus was on handling as a race car when he built the 2000. The Tornado was built as a sand car with more focus on part life. As I said, people have their own priorities. Those car are much wider though so I don't know how they handle in comparison to the relocated links on the narrower cars. I am willing to sacrifice reduced CV life for a better handling car. I just put new ones on my car. I expect them to last two seasons.

Lengthening the lateral links will cause the tires to toe in. If I were you, I would change the inner joints to the Audi ones and lower the ride height.

If you are going to go to extreme efforts such as altering the suspension geometry, I would suggest instead to replace the gear box with an RPM. The RPM box has a smaller final gear. You can lower the output shaft centerline by 1" and move it forward by 1". By putting the box between the frame rails like the 2001 up cars, you can gain another inch or more. That will be enough to reduce axle plunge the same as if you raised the lateral link mounts without sacrificing the handling. It also reduces the CV angles the same as if you limited the travel by 2" without actually limiting the travel. Moving the box forward reduces the CV angles further since the axles would angle forward less. The Drakart box is not centered. There is a spacer then the brake disk and finally the CV on the right side. The setup could be modified such that the brake disk is mounted outside the CV. The box can then be centered. This will increase axle length a little over 1/2" further reducing CV angle. The Drakart gear box is geared too high. The car will top out around 100, but is geared for (it's been a while since I did the math) 130 with 22" tires. I believe the ratio is 4.714 off the top of my head and it not easily altered due to the design. Going to a 6:1 RPM box will maintain the same top speed, but get you out of the hole faster. If you are running 25" tires, you would want a 7:1 ratio. The down side is the brake disk will be below the frame, but if running the taller tires, should still be above ground at full bump.