looking for steering suggestions

[64rovr]

i am going to be running coil sprung rover axles in my rig. at the moment, i dont feel like figuring out link suspension designs because my chassis offers some unique challenges to designing a good all around link setup. so, i want to run these axles in a spring over configuration because it is simple, cheap, and effective (which is the goal of this truck). the only thing that is giving me a massive headache is trying to figure out what i can do for the steering on the front axle. does anybody have any ideas or suggestions for how i can route a drag link to the knuckle with a leaf spring in the way? i would like this to be as non-ghetto as possible but lets see what other people can come up with.

thanks guys

[aloharover]

Put Series flanges on the end of the coil axle housing. Then use either BCB swivels or Series swivels on Series balls. Then machine up some new stearing arms that will mount atop the housing.

What springs will you use up front?

Pete

[64rovr]

I am using YJ springs at all 4 corners. I am shying away from the series outers because of all the machine work involved. i do not have my own machine shop and i dont have enough cash to pay somebody else to do it. converting to series outers would also create another problem that would need to be rectified: converting to disk brakes.

[aloharover]

I know JL did high arms on coil swivels but was not happy with them.

Another "might work" would be to get a RHD left swivel. Move the tie rod to the front of the axle and then have the drag link Y to the tie rod. But with a spring over I think that would still be in the way.

With a spring under it will work. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375699

With out doing a BCB conversion I just can't see how you can get the stearing arms high enough so the drag link clears the springs on a spring over on coil axles.

[dmay]

Another "might work" would be to get a RHD left swivel. Move the tie rod to the front of the axle and then have the drag link Y to the tie rod. But with a spring over I think that would still be in the way.

With a spring under it will work. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375699



Bad ackerman though,

[aloharover]

Bad ackerman though,
Comparing the dual coil swivels to a stock Series swivel I don't see the difference.

[dmay]

Comparing the dual coil swivels to a stock Series swivel I don't see the difference.


Well, since I've not seen a stock series I don't know how they're engineered but from looking at the disco's and classics I know that if you connected a tie rod between the arms in front of the axle you'd get negative ackerman.The arms are closer together than the pivots of the swivel pins.To make some highsteer arms that would be far enough out to give you good angles you'd need wheels with very little backspacing.By having the tie rod behind the axle they can have the tierod ends closer together than the swivel pins pivots and get correct ackerman,there's always tradeoffs with any setup.


Edited to add suggestion for 64rovr:
Full Hydro:flipoff2: :)

[aloharover]

Well, since I've not seen a stock series I don't know how they're engineered but from looking at the disco's and classics I know that if you connected a tie rod between the arms in front of the axle you'd get negative ackerman.The arms are closer together than the pivots of the swivel pins.To make some highsteer arms that would be far enough out to give you good angles you'd need wheels with very little backspacing.By having the tie rod behind the axle they can have the tierod ends closer together than the swivel pins pivots and get correct ackerman,there's always tradeoffs with any setup.

I will try and get some measurements this weekend between the two different axles.
I know that the ackerman is negative with this set up on the coil swivels, but we aren't talking race cars. I know a couple of folks that are ruuning this set up with out issue.

I still think the best solution is to get hi steer arms, but I just cant see a way to do this with a coil housing.

[revor]

Interesting points guys... If you do the math the ackerman is actually improper when the track/tie rod is behind the axle as compared to in front of the axle centerline.. Regardless of how far in/out the arms point to the tire the difference is tremendous, Ackerman told us that the tire on the inside of the turn needs to turn more than the tire on the outside of the turn.. with #'s pulled from my ... well we won't go there the ackerman angle on the rear bar car was so far off that the old HP was getting mighty cranky... The front however fell right into the "ackerman criteria" ... Time to get some real world info and stick it into AutoCad...

Gonna be fun...

[Serious One]

Geek. :D

[SLOhybrid]

I still think the best solution is to get hi steer arms, but I just cant see a way to do this with a coil housing.[/QUOTE]

I am running Hi steer with BCB swivel housings and D90 Calipers w/ coil springs on my 11A but you can do this w/ leafs as well! it is possible now to use the Santana housings for the disc conversion if you can get them????

what's your e-mail

I will send pics

[Agrover]

We were discussing recast series swivel housings for disc brakes over lunch today, and I recalled that a few years ago when I was playing around with the even larger FC101 swivel housings I came up with a bracket that allowed a standard RangeRover caliper to be fitted to the stock swivel and still be within the confines of the stock wheel rim. Poor memory retention is beginning to kick in these days and the parts went on the scrap heap years ago, but The problem I recall was that like a 101,a Series swivel housing is so big that if you sat a stock caliper close enough to tha axle centreline so that it cleared inside of the wheel rim you couldn't physically attach the 2 bolts that hold the caliper to the caliper mounting. My solution was to fabricate a caliper mounting that was Z shaped in section and attached to 4 of the 6 spindle mounting bolts. the 2 lug holes that the caliper would normally bolt onto were spread out to a more accesible location. Now of course the mounting lugs on the caliper would not match the new mounting holes on this caliper mounting bracket so a second
adaptor bracket to which the caliper was prefitted to was bolted to the new mounting. I know this description is difficult to follow, and I never ended up converting my Landy to disc brakes because I started making my portal boxes
but I showed the idea to a friend and using it he was subsequently able to fit thick, ventilated Porshe 911 discs to the front of his series swivels.
Bill.

[revor]

Geek. :D

Jounalist!

Seriously Micheal you have to fix your avatar!!! It's killing..

I'll change mine...

[aloharover]

I am running Hi steer with BCB swivel housings and D90 Calipers w/ coil springs on my 11A but you can do this w/ leafs as well! it is possible now to use the Santana housings for the disc conversion if you can get them????

what's your e-mail

I will send pics


BCB is what I mentioned in the first post. And that is my end plan for my axles. Weld on a series flange, series ball, BCB swivels.

Pete

[revor]

Thanks Mike..

[SLOhybrid]

Better get those swivel housings now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aloharover]

Better get those swivel housings now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?? Why ??

Going up in price or are they going to stop making them?

Pete

[Serious One]

Better get those swivel housings now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

[64rovr]

After thinking over this for a few days I think I will be adapting a set of Dana 44 knuckles onto the rover housing. I will be scavenging the outers off of a 70's Dodge D44 i have sitting in the yard. I plan to cut off the inner C's leacing a few inches of tube attached so that I can weld on a flange which will match the swivel ball bolt pattern of the coil sprung axle housing. I have a plan in my head to convert the outers to the Rover bolt pattern and disk brakes but that is too hard to transfer from brain to text at the moment.

[Agrover]

Having helped maintain a friends open knuckled Dana 44 equipped CJ7 Jeep for the past few years I would never consider running that set up on a truck that is expected to operate in wet,muddy conditions. The Jeep is not a daily driver and is used about once a month on average. Deep mud and water are avoided whenever possible, but the front end is a maintenance nightmare . In stock form the inside of the axle tubes are not sealed, so they fill up with mud, sand gravel etc. A stone once scored a deep groove in an inner axle shaft causing it to break about 10 inches out from the diff which was a PITA to change. Fitting a replacement shaft usually results in pushing gravel etc into the differential. This does an ARB air locker no favors at all.
The wheel hub bearings cannot be oil lubricated without dismantling,so whatever mud, gravel etc gets in there, and boy,it does get in, chews up the wheel bearings, inner spindle bearing/bush,freewheel hub mechanism, seals etc. Further more the stock UJ's cannot be serviced in situ so they run dry and flog out about once a year on average.
Last time we pulled the front end to bits to fit the ARB we found the 6 month old UJ,s almost totally seized that we could barely articulate the shaft in a vice. It was only the over assisted power steering that allowed the truck to be drivable. 64 Rover,IMHO for all the work you will have to go to to fit d44 outers you would be miles ahead fitting complete Toyota HJ80/100 front and rear axle assemblies, assuming they are available Stateside of course.
Bill.

[aloharover]

After thinking over this for a few days I think I will be adapting a set of Dana 44 knuckles onto the rover housing. I will be scavenging the outers off of a 70's Dodge D44 i have sitting in the yard. I plan to cut off the inner C's leacing a few inches of tube attached so that I can weld on a flange which will match the swivel ball bolt pattern of the coil sprung axle housing. I have a plan in my head to convert the outers to the Rover bolt pattern and disk brakes but that is too hard to transfer from brain to text at the moment.

So you will remove the ends and weld them to the rover axle tubes?
Whats the size comparison between the two tubes?

Pete

[64rovr]

The Rover axle tubes will not be modified in any way. I will machine a flange to weld onto the D44 "stub" tube coming off the inner C that will then bolt on directly in place of the swivel ball. This probably wont happen for a few weeks though, because I can fab up my spring perches on the coil housings with the rover ends on it and then use it to roll the chassis around. Look for pics of that soon.

[Mercedesrover]

Bill is right. Open knuckles suck.

But if you're set on doing it, and you're cutting the inner "C" off the end of a Dana and welding a flange to bold to the Rover housing, why not go to a 60? If you're going through all this craziness you might as well go as big as you can.

You're going to have a tough time indexing the flange for the correct caster and camber too...You'll need to figure up some kind of jig to hold the "C" at the ball-joint holes.

And how are you going to seal the axle housing? You'll need a seal in-board by the pumpking as there will be way too much deflection in the axle towards the knuckle to ever keep a good seal, though you'll need something there as well to keep the crap out as Bill had mentioned.

Sounds like a nightmare to both build and maintain.

[revor]

I'm thinking it would be easier to weld in a Toyota.. And you can still run CV's

[revor]

I threatened Mike that I would start playing with AutoCad,,

So far with real 2D dimensions your basic stock Rover has about 1 degree of (i think) negative ackerman angle... Meaniing that at any given time in a turn the axis' of the two front spindles are within 1 degree of parallel

With the bar up front they are withing 2.5 degrees of parallel..

More on this exciting subject coming soon!!!!

[Mercedesrover]

I'm thinking it would be easier to weld in a Toyota.. And you can still run CV's

Anything would be easier!

Just for the sake of argument, has anyone run a Longfield CV in an open knuckle with a boot (like a D2)? That could be done...no?

Ackerman isn't a value really worth worrying about in these things. Positive Ackerman is ideal but at the speeds we're dealing with, I wouldn't be too concerned one way or another.

[aloharover]

Ackerman isn't a value really worth worrying about in these things. Positive Ackerman is ideal but at the speeds we're dealing with, I wouldn't be too concerned one way or another.

My point exactly. I just can't see any reason not to move the tie rod up front.

[Agrover]

Anything would be easier!

Just for the sake of argument, has anyone run a Longfield CV in an open knuckle with a boot (like a D2)? That could be done...no?

Ackerman isn't a value really worth worrying about in these things. Positive Ackerman is ideal but at the speeds we're dealing with, I wouldn't be too concerned one way or another.

Although all 4wds with independant front suspension have them
I think a booted Birfield in an open knuckle would be extremely vulnerable when the boot gets shredded after a stick,abrasive mud or similar finds its way into the knuckle.

I have and like reverse Ackerman steering at all speeds in my Series Rover. But I wonder what you mean by "at the speeds were dealing with". Surely the majority of Rover owners on this forum use their trucks regularly in all conditions both at highway speeds as well as relatively low speed off road?
Bill

[revor]

My point on the Ackermans is basically it wasn't right to begin with with nearly 0 toe out in a corner... A one degree difference would be un noticable..

Making D44 open knuckle CV joints... Hmm I'm thinking there is somthing like this in the works..

[aloharover]

I don't see why folks knock open knuckles.
Its the most common design out there.
I have had Jeeps and Scouts and have never had an issue with the open knuckle.
Pete

[roverhybrids]

any more thoughts Keith?