Front Uprights update

It seems these are finally to market. They were teased on IG a while back but looks like they have been in validation for a while.

From the specs - the correct bump steer, roll center for track ride height setups. Also address camber loss through cornering.

Anyone on here part of the initial test group? Any experiences to share?

There is a group buy of sorts up on their site now.

For some of us that already have something like the full SPL arms up front that do roll center correction, how much does that do vs these. I'm sure these were designed around all OE arms up front so all of the correction is based on that.

So if someone has all the SPL parts are they 50% to what this achieves....is it 75%, 90%, etc?

I know the SPL fixes roll center but I'm not sure about the other details that these address. I'm going to guess the proper upright is still the superior product but like mentioned above, how much better vs someone already running the SPL parts?

Great question Steve,

I have a couple questions too:

1) If you have the SPL front arms, like the Bump Steer for example, can they be used with these Strom Front Uprights?

2) If you have the Core4 Motorsports M14 Hub upgrade, can they be paired with these Strom Front Uprights?


Thanks,
Alex

//steve\\ wrote

For some of us that already have something like the full SPL arms up front that do roll center correction, how much does that do vs these. I'm sure these were designed around all OE arms up front so all of the correction is based on that.

So if someone has all the SPL parts are they 50% to what this achieves....is it 75%, 90%, etc?

I know the SPL fixes roll center but I'm not sure about the other details that these address. I'm going to guess the proper upright is still the superior product but like mentioned above, how much better vs someone already running the SPL parts?

Hi Guys, lots of good questions on these and will update the website.
The SPL arms appear to have about 6.5mm of correction based on what I see on the tie rod listing. I don't have a set but that is what I can tell from the website. It is hard to go much further than that for a number of reasons including spacing to the rotor and length of the bolt/stud. These parts are great for a slightly lowered car or as a compliment to our uprights (minus the spacers) to be able to change the track width.

The benefits of our uprights vs the SPL parts by themselves:
1) 30mm of ride height correction vs 6.5mm (again from what I can tell - please correct me if I am wrong).
2) Move the strut inboard 5mm to fit a bigger wheel without that pesky 5mm spacer.
3) Correct the position of the thrust arm. We were finding that as the car got lowered too far (20+mm) it was getting excessive anti-dive and shocking the front tires under hard braking. This is especially true on softly sprung cars.
4) These are cnc machined out of forged billet blanks and are extremely strong. The lower outer bolt on the SPL arms takes a lot of load by spacing it out. SPL makes fantastic parts so I am thinking that may be one of the reasons they didn't provide more roll center correction is to keep the loads on that bolt within reason.

In regards to the other question from Alex these are meant to bolt up perfectly to the bearings, strut, wheel speed sensor etc. of an E9X M3 or 1M with no other modification so will work with any part meant for those cars.

Lastly these are not recommended for cars that are not lowered by at least an inch (25mm).

Thanks,
Brett

Thanks for coming in to clarify some of the details!

If there's a group buy on these count me in. I sent an inquiry to Strom Motorsport's a few weeks ago about these. Awesome stuff.

There is a group buy on their website!

//steve\\ wrote

For some of us that already have something like the full SPL arms up front that do roll center correction, how much does that do vs these. I'm sure these were designed around all OE arms up front so all of the correction is based on that.

So if someone has all the SPL parts are they 50% to what this achieves....is it 75%, 90%, etc?

I know the SPL fixes roll center but I'm not sure about the other details that these address. I'm going to guess the proper upright is still the superior product but like mentioned above, how much better vs someone already running the SPL parts?

Not sure to be honest. I dont know the data behind the SPL parts. Im sure they can get part of the way there but knowing how much stuff changes with every pickup point move - its hard to tell. This chases a bunch of corrections at the same time - so no adjusting one thing to amplify another.

reidetailing wrote

Great question Steve,

I have a couple questions too:

1) If you have the SPL front arms, like the Bump Steer for example, can they be used with these Strom Front Uprights?

2) If you have the Core4 Motorsports M14 Hub upgrade, can they be paired with these Strom Front Uprights?


Thanks,
Alex

Like any well designed aftermarket part - it should mate well with any other aftermaket designed part that attaches easily to OE component.

So in theory - yes! In practice - it would need a test. Chances if your current parts fit up to OE parts with no issues - then safe to say they should play nicely.

strommotorsports wrote

Hi Guys, lots of good questions on these and will update the website.
The SPL arms appear to have about 6.5mm of correction based on what I see on the tie rod listing. I don't have a set but that is what I can tell from the website. It is hard to go much further than that for a number of reasons including spacing to the rotor and length of the bolt/stud. These parts are great for a slightly lowered car or as a compliment to our uprights (minus the spacers) to be able to change the track width.

The benefits of our uprights vs the SPL parts by themselves:
1) 30mm of ride height correction vs 6.5mm (again from what I can tell - please correct me if I am wrong).
2) Move the strut inboard 5mm to fit a bigger wheel without that pesky 5mm spacer.
3) Correct the position of the thrust arm. We were finding that as the car got lowered too far (20+mm) it was getting excessive anti-dive and shocking the front tires under hard braking. This is especially true on softly sprung cars.
4) These are cnc machined out of forged billet blanks and are extremely strong. The lower outer bolt on the SPL arms takes a lot of load by spacing it out. SPL makes fantastic parts so I am thinking that may be one of the reasons they didn't provide more roll center correction is to keep the loads on that bolt within reason.

In regards to the other question from Alex these are meant to bolt up perfectly to the bearings, strut, wheel speed sensor etc. of an E9X M3 or 1M with no other modification so will work with any part meant for those cars.

Lastly these are not recommended for cars that are not lowered by at least an inch (25mm).

Thanks,
Brett

Shoot - didnt read far enough - but these guys addressed the questions!

Lienrocs wrote

If there's a group buy on these count me in. I sent an inquiry to Strom Motorsport's a few weeks ago about these. Awesome stuff.

We have a webpage specific to these parts and I made a more obvious link at the top of strommotorsports.com

*subscribed

Submitted info on website

strommotorsports wrote

//steve\\ wrote

For some of us that already have something like the full SPL arms up front that do roll center correction, how much does that do vs these. I'm sure these were designed around all OE arms up front so all of the correction is based on that.

So if someone has all the SPL parts are they 50% to what this achieves....is it 75%, 90%, etc?

I know the SPL fixes roll center but I'm not sure about the other details that these address. I'm going to guess the proper upright is still the superior product but like mentioned above, how much better vs someone already running the SPL parts?

Hi Guys, lots of good questions on these and will update the website.
The SPL arms appear to have about 6.5mm of correction based on what I see on the tie rod listing. I don't have a set but that is what I can tell from the website. It is hard to go much further than that for a number of reasons including spacing to the rotor and length of the bolt/stud. These parts are great for a slightly lowered car or as a compliment to our uprights (minus the spacers) to be able to change the track width.

The benefits of our uprights vs the SPL parts by themselves:
1) 30mm of ride height correction vs 6.5mm (again from what I can tell - please correct me if I am wrong).
2) Move the strut inboard 5mm to fit a bigger wheel without that pesky 5mm spacer.
3) Correct the position of the thrust arm. We were finding that as the car got lowered too far (20+mm) it was getting excessive anti-dive and shocking the front tires under hard braking. This is especially true on softly sprung cars.
4) These are cnc machined out of forged billet blanks and are extremely strong. The lower outer bolt on the SPL arms takes a lot of load by spacing it out. SPL makes fantastic parts so I am thinking that may be one of the reasons they didn't provide more roll center correction is to keep the loads on that bolt within reason.

In regards to the other question from Alex these are meant to bolt up perfectly to the bearings, strut, wheel speed sensor etc. of an E9X M3 or 1M with no other modification so will work with any part meant for those cars.

Lastly these are not recommended for cars that are not lowered by at least an inch (25mm).

Thanks,
Brett

Brett few questions
If the strut is moved inboard, (which is great for larger wheel) do you lose some camber?
I know it cam be added back on the camber plate. Just want to understand the geometry.

Considering this upgrade. Really like it's a one part solution for all geometry improvements.
Plus really like the upright being stiffer.

Pre-order submitted

Lets see these made.

Nice work

Just heard that Strom will be doing dedicated testing in Utah to show the direct impact of better geometry. They will outfit a 1M I think and do a telemetry dump to show the differences between having the uprights and not.

Will report back, or maybe Brett will come back and give an update.

dmitriyo wrote

Just heard that Strom will be doing dedicated testing in Utah to show the direct impact of better geometry. They will outfit a 1M I think and do a telemetry dump to show the differences between having the uprights and not.

Will report back, or maybe Brett will come back and give an update.

this is really good to hear.

thanks for sharing

Any more updates. Getting more excited.

So we did a back to back test of the uprights on a 1M race car at the NASA event at Utah Motorsports Campus this past weekend and had great results! Struggled a little bit with getting the same conditions for true back to back testing but still the car was faster under all conditions. We ran Hankook F200 C52 slicks with a target of 30 Psi on the UMC West Course.

As expected the car was overall quicker (by about a second), easier to drive, had better braking with less ABS intervention and achieved much better tire wear. In particular we noticed the car was much quicker in lower grip (hotter ambient) conditions.

Main result in the most similar ambient conditions was 1.6 seconds faster:
1:35.156 at 57F ambient on 6 heat cycle slicks with new parts vs 1:36.766 at 63 ambient on 2nd heat cycle slicks.

Full Data:

Friday Without Uprights
Ran test sessions on Friday and were able to get good laps with minimal traffic and low ambient temps.

Session 1- 1:38.71
Throw away session with junk tires that had run the whole previous weekend.

Session 2 - 1:35.31
Sticker Hankooks - 55 ambient with sun just hitting the track. Perfect session.

Session 3 - 1:36.76
2nd Heat Cycle Hankooks - 63 ambient

Client ran the car for the rest of the day.

Saturday With Uprights
We changed the uprights that night, took out 0.2 front camber and reset the toe.

Session 1 - 1:35.156
6th Heat Cycle Hankooks - 57 ambient. Took 8 laps to get through traffic and achieve this time. Was super impressed by how quick the car was on pretty used tires. Needs more rear grip. To take full advantage of the uprights on this car we found we really needed more rear camber but this car had stock rear upper arms and we were maxed out. Increase in front grip was substantial.

Session 2: - 1:36.511
7th Heat Cycle Hankooks - 64 Ambient. Tire shop could not get our new slicks mounted in time. Gave up after a few laps due to traffic. This was supposed to be the sticker run to try and get as close as possible to the conditions of the Friday sticker tire run. For those who haven't run slicks the very first heat cycle is worth 0.3-0.8 seconds.

Session 3: - 1:34.927
Sticker Hankooks - 73 Ambient. Fastest lap of the weekend but disappointing. The track and ambient temp came up very quickly and we way overshot on tire pressures. I came in at 34 Psi on the right front. Previous session had also dumped coolant on the track from turn 6 to 9 so made it

Session 4: 1:35.982
2nd Heat Cycle Hankooks - 83 ambient. Achieved in a 30 minute sprint race on lap 6. To me this was really where the new parts showed how good they are. Again I needed more rear camber to balance how well the front was sticking but to run 0.8 seconds faster on the same number of heat cycles in 20 degree ambient higher temp was fantastic. Unfortunately forgot to download the data after this session as I was still supporting a client and we were in a hurry to catch flights but lap times are on racehero.

Will post the Motec log files to the website tonight at strommotorsports.com/uprights

strommotorsports wrote

So we did a back to back test of the uprights on a 1M race car at the NASA event at Utah Motorsports Campus this past weekend and had great results! Struggled a little bit with getting the same conditions for true back to back testing but still the car was faster under all conditions. We ran Hankook F200 C52 slicks with a target of 30 Psi on the UMC West Course.

As expected the car was overall quicker (by about a second), easier to drive, had better braking with less ABS intervention and achieved much better tire wear. In particular we noticed the car was much quicker in lower grip (hotter ambient) conditions.

Main result in the most similar ambient conditions was 1.6 seconds faster:
1:35.156 at 57F ambient on 6 heat cycle slicks with new parts vs 1:36.766 at 63 ambient on 2nd heat cycle slicks.

Full Data:

Friday Without Uprights
Ran test sessions on Friday and were able to get good laps with minimal traffic and low ambient temps.

Session 1- 1:38.71
Throw away session with junk tires that had run the whole previous weekend.

Session 2 - 1:35.31
Sticker Hankooks - 55 ambient with sun just hitting the track. Perfect session.

Session 3 - 1:36.76
2nd Heat Cycle Hankooks - 63 ambient

Client ran the car for the rest of the day.

Saturday With Uprights
We changed the uprights that night, took out 0.2 front camber and reset the toe.

Session 1 - 1:35.156
6th Heat Cycle Hankooks - 57 ambient. Took 8 laps to get through traffic and achieve this time. Was super impressed by how quick the car was on pretty used tires. Needs more rear grip. To take full advantage of the uprights on this car we found we really needed more rear camber but this car had stock rear upper arms and we were maxed out. Increase in front grip was substantial.

Session 2: - 1:36.511
7th Heat Cycle Hankooks - 64 Ambient. Tire shop could not get our new slicks mounted in time. Gave up after a few laps due to traffic. This was supposed to be the sticker run to try and get as close as possible to the conditions of the Friday sticker tire run. For those who haven't run slicks the very first heat cycle is worth 0.3-0.8 seconds.

Session 3: - 1:34.927
Sticker Hankooks - 73 Ambient. Fastest lap of the weekend but disappointing. The track and ambient temp came up very quickly and we way overshot on tire pressures. I came in at 34 Psi on the right front. Previous session had also dumped coolant on the track from turn 6 to 9 so made it

Session 4: 1:35.982
2nd Heat Cycle Hankooks - 83 ambient. Achieved in a 30 minute sprint race on lap 6. To me this was really where the new parts showed how good they are. Again I needed more rear camber to balance how well the front was sticking but to run 0.8 seconds faster on the same number of heat cycles in 20 degree ambient higher temp was fantastic. Unfortunately forgot to download the data after this session as I was still supporting a client and we were in a hurry to catch flights but lap times are on racehero.

Will post the Motec log files to the website tonight at strommotorsports.com/uprights

Thanks for the update! Those are great results for swapping out a part with touching up the alignment.

Thank you for the update!

according to the site we have 12 pre-order.
I did a pre-order as well glad to see others see the benefit.

thanks for the update and can't to see them.