narrow beam handling

[samstheman]

I ve searched and read lots of good and bad results from narrowing beam.
Many post were at extremes. My ? is if your only narrowing 2.5 in to accommodate disk brakes and drop spindles does it ride and steer bad?
Or is it better to put disks on with out drop spindles lower car on beam 2.5 or 3 in with adjuster but do not narrow beam what option is better for steering and overall handling?

[pwmcguire]

I'm sure you have read that with a stock beam and dropped spindles and discs stock wheels and tires are going to stick out further than they do now. Which means it's harder to lower the front. You'll have to search for a wheel and tire combo that will work. If your going to lower it use dropped spindles. It's always better than just adjusters. If you narrow it, use adjusters but just don't drop them. Having said that narrowling 2.5 inches dosen't make for a bad ride. It's really up to you if you think it's a stiffer ride. I would try to ride in each kind of setup if your that concerned.

[Keith]

I'm narrowed 4 1/2" and have no issues with handling and steering.
_________________
Formerly known in the forums as "OVALTEEN"

"I firmly believe that some villagers from Botswana could probably build a better road than PennDot."- Splitty

"If you do anything to your car someone will hate on you for it. People absolutely love to complain and find fault with others. Don't let it bother you. Just live and have fun."- Lind

[Keith]

I'm narrowed 4 1/2" and have no issues with handling and steering.
_________________
Formerly known in the forums as "OVALTEEN"

"I firmly believe that some villagers from Botswana could probably build a better road than PennDot."- Splitty

"If you do anything to your car someone will hate on you for it. People absolutely love to complain and find fault with others. Don't let it bother you. Just live and have fun."- Lind

[VWCOOL]

Any one who has graduated from three wheel kids' trikes will realise a vehicle with narrow track will tend to be more unstable than a wider-track car... one of the first things we do to make a car's roadholding limits higher is to pack-out the track.

Also, narrow beam destroys the Ackerman of the front end; the steering geo/arcs are simply compromised too much; one wheel ends up fighting the other during cornering. Bump steer, too, is an issue with chopped-shorter tie-rods

Some owners will insist 'Neverhaddaproblem' or it 'handles fine, bud!' but the first corner taken at decent speed reveals these owners to be often/usually delusional... fashion victims

Do it if you like the appearance :rolleyes:, but please be aware it is detrimental to vehicle limits and you will be laughed at behind your back by anyone with half a clue

[Keith]

[VWCOOL]

...and I would suggest that my highly developed - but standard width - front beam with several podiums to its credit would carry far more corner speed and be better under brakes than any narrowed beam, anywhere, anytime, because it is more stable and kinder to the tyres

Not a pissing contest, just a discussion of the facts about the geo complexities of a Beetle beam front end (any front suspension, really) and how it is just about destroyed for the reasons I mentioned above.

As long as the OP knows this, especially if he is interested in making his car's handling, grip and road-holding limits higher (as he seems to be).

Far too many owners I know of - especially newbies - have been talked into narrowed beams using the old 'it's heaps better, mate!!!!' line... when it's demonstrably - on-paper and on-road - a step backwards

[Keith]

You elude to the fact that a narrowed car can't take a corner at normal driving speeds without having major issues.

ZERO issues here and you elude to your car handling great on a track.

This isn't a track car, we are talking about normal driving speeds and conditions.

My car, which is setup correctly, drives just fine and takes corners at normal speeds perfectly with zero issues rain or shine and is driven from here to Connecticut and Virginia.

THAT'S the point here and you're comparing apples to goats.

Not denying there are guys that have their shit setup all hokey-pokey and pray for the best and are in denial the whole time they drive and claim it drives fine.

Also, I don't know anyone that just narrows their beam to get better handling on a stock height car. Narrowing the beam goes hand in hand with moderate to severe lowering or for those with disk brake setups and aftermarket rims with odd offsets that add to the track width so you still have fender clearance and to be able turn in parking lot maneuvers without the tire scraping the fender lip. It also serves its purpose for some to achieve a certain look. Nobody is narrowing their beam to take to the track and throw their car into a turn at 90mph. These are two different beasts.
_________________
Formerly known in the forums as "OVALTEEN"

"I firmly believe that some villagers from Botswana could probably build a better road than PennDot."- Splitty

"If you do anything to your car someone will hate on you for it. People absolutely love to complain and find fault with others. Don't let it bother you. Just live and have fun."- Lind

[61SNRF]

What's needed is some real back to back testing by one knowledgeable driver in stock vs narrowed through the slalom and skidpad courses like magazines do, but none have ever taken the incentive.
Unfortunately, testing of this sort would be impractical and non-scientific anyway because there is no such thing as a "Standard" 2" narrowed beam conversion either, all of them being custom one-off's or at best low production items.
Due to this, it's non-objective to report or label them all as bad or ill handling.

In theory, narrowing the beam 2" to install drop spindles and disc brakes, which depending on mfr will typically add 1"-2" back, shouldn't reduce the overall track width so much to grossly effect handling from this aspect. Add 4.5 front wheels and you'll have most all stock track width back or more.
Sure, you're still going to change the steering axis angles, but not to the extremes done on say a 6" narrowed beam.
To maintain all the handling you can, be sure to fit a 2" narrowed stabilizer bar back on.

I have driven cars with adjusters only and generally the ride sucks.
With a stock BJ beam you only have ~4-5" of suspension travel. Drop it 2" or more with adjusters and you now only have 2-3" or less of travel.
You can get an extra inch or so with shorter shocks and Thing ball joints, but it will never be anything close to stock "ride".
_________________
-Bruce

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[samstheman]

Ive read all post and see where each side is coming from. Im trying to get a certain lower look not slammed and add better stopping for LA traffic and the great stopping power of the car ahead of u with new abs brakes. The stack up off these add ons widen the track 1 in per side. Im planning on shorting the beam to accommodate for this and keep track as wide as I can. I want a nice freeway and street cruiser thats comfy to drive that looks a little lowered than stock with a little rake. tire are 145s up front and 185 75 out back on 15 5.5 rims. And I like the stock ride I just hate my front high stance and pore front brakes that are out of adjustment and scoot over while hard braking. Beam is out for rebuilding of tie rod ends and ball joints and steering box adjust not cutting till I know that the right move here or can I achieve another way?

[EVfun]

What year is your Bug and what disc brake option are you looking at? I don't think you will widen the front track much if you use the Ghia disc brakes on a ball joint front end car. The drop spindles will widen the track some, but not that much. If you want better braking I would also consider a wider tire up front, you can only get so much from a narrow 145 tire, all the brake changes in the world cannot get you past the traction limit of the tire chosen.
_________________

[txoval]

If you move forward with disk brakes and lowered spindles you will need a 3" narrowed beam to get your wheels/tires back to the stock width. With 4.5" rims and 145's you might be able to get away with a 2" beam, but your tires will be close to the edge of fender.

Just remember, a 2" beam narrows 1" per side, not 2".

Dropped spindles add 5/8" to 7/8" of width per side.

Disc brakes are a great add/modification. Anyone who says different, has never driven a bug with discs installed. I recommend you move forward with this at a minimum.

Adjustable beams if done properly, offer the same suspension travel as a stock beam, if the adjusters are installed at the proper orientation. This is why you should buy a beam from a reputable builder/supplier.

[samstheman]

Mine is 66 bug wheels are SS super speed wheels there 15x5.5 back space is 3.80 in et14. The brakes I was looking at were CB s wide five disk brakes and lowering spindle together add 7/8 in per side = 1 3/4 thats why I wanted to do 2" narrow beam. After calling to order my Air Kewld pro adjusters for beam he recommended to do 3" with stock spindles which seems like an 1 in extra and a waste if I have to add spacers behind rims to pull out after. But they have done more than me so Im going to a 3" narrowed. So now Im looking in to there brakes alone disk only and they still add 1/3/4 total. I wanted a decent disk brake with out spending to much these are in middle at 550. cheer ones at 350. at wildwood at 650 to 1000. depends on how many piston they add 3/4 total
The only pic I have is rear wheel beam out now for rebuild.

OG wheels

[samstheman]

So I decided to leave beam stock width. But I did install Air Kewld lowering adjuster replaced all ball joints and tie rod ends. And bought AC ind disk brake kit with no offset on stock spindles. Ill reply when Im driving it.

[2000typer]

I have a 3" Airkewld beam with drop spindles and Wilwood disc brake kit (also from Airkewld). Speedmaster wheels 15x5 with +13mm offset. 175/55-15 front tires. The car handles well and has the look I was going for.

_________________
1956 Ragtop
1966 Sedan
1976 Type 2 Westy
My 66 bug build
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=594924

[slalombuggy]

I won't get into the narrow beam debate, all my cars have them, but they are all highly modified cars. I will tell you that disk brakes and 145 s are a pointless combination. The tires cannot hold the extra stopping power and under sudden stops lock up instantly. I'd look for a better tire like txoval said earlier.

brad

[Airkewld]

[VWCOOL]

[Ace]

A 2" narrowed beam may not narrow overall track depending on wheel dimensions. A stock beam with dropped spindles and wider wheels may not clear the fenders. 1 opinion may not cover the gambit of archaic vw type I suspension geometry.

[andk5591]

One more to add his 2 cents - we have a 2" narrowed adjustable CB Performance beam on her 61. These come with a beefy sway bar and we got ours before they offered the softer spring pack. Front is dropped about 4" We run KYB Excels all around with 185 fronts and 205 rears. I also installed a sway away style camber compensator. Each component is equally important IMHO. .

The car handles amazingly well and I do my share of blasting through the twisties with it.

For me to say that - Let me elaborate - I have been driving Subaru WRXs for about 12 years ( and 03 and an 07). Now driving a 16 Golf with a suspension kit and aftermarket 17s with Conti extreme contacts. I know what a nice handling car should do.
_________________
D-Dubya Manx clone - 63 Short pan,1914.
Rosie 65 bug - My mostly stock daily driver.
Woodie 69 VW woodie (Hot VWs 7/12).
"John's car" 64 VW woodie - The first ever
Maxine 61 Cal-look bug - Cindy's daily driver.
Max - 73 standard Beetle hearse project - For sale
66 bug project - Real patina & Suby conversion
There's more, but not keeping them...