CRUNCH TIME...this one starts out UGLY

[Snoopy]

Well, I may not be MJ, but its crunch time and my efforts to get Snoopy back to running condition is in full-swing...

Now this picture may be a bit graphic, so please, hide any innocent eyes... GONE are Snoop's Glory Days ~ 9 months without use, axles, or TLC has taken it's turn on him.
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/7.jpg
In order to get him to the shop, I threw on some stock 800 axles w/ some dinky tires...needless to say, they got Snoop here ~ but it sure didn't look pretty.
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/6.jpg
But now he's safe inside for "THE OPERATION" (Throwing klinched fists into the air, raising head to the sky and giving best evil laugh!)
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/8.jpg
(lightning strikes building.....sparks...then darkness...more evil laughs...the roll-up door closes with a sharp CRASH!) "BOOO ahha ahaha ha ahah!".

Anyway, I figure that if I don't "bare it all" I won't get Snoop finished by RMIHR, so this thread is serving as a - up to date reminder to me to 'get it done!' I'm even changing my sig to make represent the digraded state of affairs...as I get things rolling, I'll update this post as well as my sig.

[Cliffy [JD]]

Good luck snoop. I'm starting to wonder now if I could have had mine done in time for RMIHR, but I didn't register so ........


:beer: :beer: :beer: :nuke:

[SSGTWC]

Am I seeing this right?

WTF?!

[SSGTWC]

Am I seeing this right? Stock 800 axles?

WTF?!

[TERRA-IZER]

Tim in Ks, he only put a set of stock axles under it to get it from his house to his shop since he sold the scout 2 axles that where under it, the 800 axles where only to move it ,they will be removed for full width axles 44 front and 60 rear i believe. Good luck Snoop hope to see it at the RMIHR, And Cliffy you can still Register there.

[tsm1mt]

Originally posted by TERRA-IZER
Tim in Ks, he only put a set of stock axles under it to get it from his house to his shop since he sold the scout 2 axles that where under it, the 800 axles where only to move it ,they will be removed for full width axles 44 front and 60 rear i believe. Good luck Snoop hope to see it at the RMIHR, And Cliffy you can still Register there.

Uh.. Chris.. when was the last time you saw STOCK SCOUT 800 AXLES with a *DRIVER'S SIDE DIFF*?

Unless, for some reason, Damian mirror-imaged the post.. I can't make out the steering wheel or any other distinguishing marks to tell which side the driver sits on..

But that's a driver's side diff, not a stock 800 pass diff front end under there - according the view from where I'm sitting. :D

-Tom <-- back outside to heave-ho the Dana 20 into the racer..

[ol John Henry]

that WARN sticker seems to stay on the same side of the windshiels in all the pics.... Snoop's up to sumpthin here:question: :question: ..............spill the beans Snoopy

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by cornfedred
.... Snoop's up to sumpthin here:question: :question: ..............spill the beans Snoopy

Those are 100% stock Scout 800 axles. ....[techless padfest]..........To put it simply,....[techless padfest]..........I took the stock axles and turned them upside-down, then I swap'd the driver side for the passenger side so that the pinion/yoke didn't get in the way when steering it by hand...(which gives the appearance of a driver-side pig. :D :D :D

....[techless padfest]..........Sounded easy to me!

[Cliffy [JD]]

Good thinkin' snoop.

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Snoopy


Those are 100% stock Scout 800 axles. Why does it have a driver side pumkin? No, it isn't image manipulation... To put it simply, I didn't see the need to do any work to a couple axles that ONLY need to go from my house the the shop...so I...well...I did the easiest thing I could. I took the stock axles and turned them upside-down, then I swap'd the driver side for the passenger side so that the pinion/yoke didn't get in the way when steering it by hand...(which gives the appearance of a driver-side pig. :D :D :D

I mean, the spring perches were already set right, why re-invent the wheel when a simple flip job would allow me to set the stockers under it for towing it in... Sounded easy to me!


There you go getting all logical on us.

[SSGTWC]

OH OK now that explains it

[Snoopy]

Well came in and started grinding the *new* axle today...got the D60 under the back end (dang that this is wide...the lugs are out to the fenders...)
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/14.jpg
....[techless padfest].....
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/12.jpg
....[techless padfest].....
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/13.jpg

....[techless padfest]..... Already got an email to HighAngle for some 1-ton shafts w/ 1350 joints and new yokes. Front shaft will be nothing short of one of Jesse's 1-ton CV-style 12" RockCrawler slip shafts. (Now I'm pimpin' JEsse's stuff, does this count as tech?...)
:D :D ;) ;) :p :p

[Second Mouse]

Snoopy, how do you find time to work on your own rig when you have all those customer commitments? Or is that why it took me 2 weeks to get the stuff I ordered?

Have fun on the build-up

:smokin:

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Second Mouse
....when you have all those customer commitments? Or is that why it took me 2 weeks to get the stuff I ordered?

....[techless padfest]..... :rolleyes: .

....[techless padfest].....

[RustoleumWhite]

oh, so now your just liek the rst of us... other than you have a full shop to deal with....






HAA HAA HAAA!!!!

white coller boy!!

HAA HAA HAA HAA!!

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite

HAA HAA HAAA!!!!

white coller boy!!

HAA HAA HAA HAA!!
THATS the ticket :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I REALLY need to take a picture of my 'suit' at the end of the day...see if your's can match it.;)

[RustoleumWhite]

BRING IT ON!!!


you know, you *are* the boss, and you *can*, pay your self to have your employies work on YOUR rig...

all depends on how fast you want it done....

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite
you know, you *are* the boss, and you *can*, pay your self to have your employies work on YOUR rig...all depends on how fast you want it done....
....[techless padfest].....

....[techless padfest]......

But I'll be the first to admit, it is tempting. ....[techless padfest]..... Just the choices we make in life...

[Snoopy]

Well, I started considering some coils up front. I've decided that the 6" 78-79 Bronco coils from SuperLift were tooo stiff and I'd like something a little softer. I'm going to turn my attention to SkyJacker EB coils (since I already have the mounts). The big thing is weather I'm going to be able to get it to RMIHR.

Its kinda a toss up right now. ....[techless padfest].....

But back to the updates. I picked up this throttle cable (....[techless padfest].....).
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/15.jpg
Its a trick little cable. The knob at the end twists (like a screw) and for every complete turn, the cable sucks in 1/4". ....[techless padfest]...... This little cable allows you to dial-in the precise RPM without sudden or harsh changes.
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/17.jpg
Its freakin sweet!....[techless padfest].....

SCORE! :D

[Snoopy]

http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/16.jpg
Got our new-style Cross-Over arms in ~ the difference is that they suck inward (away from the tire) to allow more clearance in case the tire comes inward when its air'd down.

I haven't put the taper into the arms yet since I'm still deciding between 3/4" Hiems and 1.25" TRE (talk about 1-ton). I may go with the TREs to get a little more flex out the the stuff, but honestly........[techless padfest].....- since the joints don't flex at all with that configuration.

....[techless padfest]..........:D :p

[jdjanda]

Originally posted by Snoopy
Well, I started considering some coils up front. I've decided that the 6" 78-79 Bronco coils from SuperLift were tooo stiff and I'd like something a little softer. I'm going to turn my attention to SkyJacker EB coils (since I already have the mounts). The big thing is weather I'm going to be able to get it to RMIHR.

Its kinda a toss up right now. Do I just get it running, or do I take the time to do the coils up front...Man, the things we go through...Its just not fair! The two choices are simply SOA the front end and add the coils and stuff later, or 3-link the front, and put the coils on now... HUM... I would like to go trail riding some day...

But back to the updates. I picked up this throttle cable (I'm trying in out to see if I want to carry them).
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/15.jpg
Its a trick little cable. The knob at the end twists (like a screw) and for every complete turn, the cable sucks in 1/4". Its freaking trick and only costs $25. The problem with regular thumb throttles is that you have to be very gentle with them, if you pull them to quick, your engine will go to full-throttle. This little cable allows you to dial-in the precise RPM without sudden or harsh changes.
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/17.jpg
Its freakin sweet! I got this one for the meger price of 3 shop t-shirts and shipping.

SCORE! :D

Send a cable my way, I'll install and do a write up for yah. I need something to get the revs up for the OBA.

Joe

[tsm1mt]

How can I mount this to my shifter so I can get throttle happy with my trigger finger? :D

I have a bicycle shifter to install still.. in addition to the T-handle lockable hand-throttle already mounted to the dash.

It's not hard to adjust or set.

I apply throttle to where I want it, pull the cable out until I meet resistance, and then take my foot off the go-pedal..

[Ben W]

Originally posted by Snoopy
http://www.dandcextreme.com/snoopy/16.jpg


Look alot like rockstomper arms, with a little extra kick in. I take it you have no concern for ackerman angle?

http://www.rockstomper.com/images/products/steering/highsteer/dana44/d44arms.jpg

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Ben W
Look alot like rockstomper arms, with a little extra kick in.

....[techless padfest].....

RockStomper and I have the EXACT SAME supplier. ....[techless padfest].....
GET IT!
http://www.netbdigital.com/dandc/images/categoryimages/cat_bonz.jpg

I take it you have no concern for ackerman angle?
....[techless padfest].....

Nope I guess not :rolleyes:

....[techless padfest].....

[Snoopy]

I forgot to say....[techless padfest].....

[jdjanda]

Originally posted by Snoopy
I forgot to say...I LOVE THIS JOB!

Hey you've got a customer form the hand throttle, what's the deal, I want that thing!! Or point me to the supplier.

Dam, guy now that he's the boss, forgets about the little people.

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by jdjanda
Dam, guy now that he's the boss, forgets about the little people.
....[techless padfest].....

[Ben W]

Originally posted by Snoopy


I don't know WTF I'm talking about, I just sell stuff that looks cool.



Ok, that's what I thought, glad you admitted it.

At least when Scott@Rockstomper posts he can defend his products, and talk Tech.

If you're not going to talk Tech, quit pimping your shit.

[ol John Henry]

Originally posted by jdjanda


Hey you've got a customer form the hand throttle, what's the deal, I want that thing!! Or point me to the supplier.

Dam, guy now that he's the boss, forgets about the little people.

I guess you haven't tried the local tractor shop yet...... or even the International dealer.... they have them

[Scout Dude]

Originally posted by cornfedred


I guess you haven't tried the local tractor shop yet...... or even the International dealer.... they have them

WTF is a tractor?:flipoff2: ...we live in a CITY!:smokin:

[ol John Henry]

Originally posted by Scout Dude


WTF is a tractor?

check your avitar:flipoff2:


Originally posted by Scout Dude


We live in a city

sounds like a personal problem


edit=Oh crap .. sucked into the techless padfest

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Ben W
At least when Scott@Rockstomper posts he can defend his products, and talk Tech.

If you're not going to talk Tech, quit pimping your shit.

OH, pissed that I didn't answer your question about the ankerman angle?

Well "Lord Moderator"

If you take some time and look at the Chevy knuckles that your tapping you'll notice that there is substatial material found where you (or your machinist) is drilling. Well, instead of costly setups and expensive arms, why not just ANGLE THE KNUCKLE to correct the steering geometry?!?! I mean, you are plaining the knuckle down to get a perfect fit right? Then why not cut the angle in while you plane the knuckle? Some simple physic lessons also confirms there is plenty of material left in the knuckle to be sufficiently strong...since your only taking very little off the actual flat-top'd face.

Yeah...that's the ticket, and when you do that you can have the machining done for like Next-to-NOTHING more than what your doing already. There is some extra setup, but if you don't know what your doing and only want it to look cool, like me, you don't have to buy the expensive arms since all your going for is looks...Oh wait, wouldn't those expensive arms look cooler? I could even get the powdercoated avalanche ones...that would be 'dope'. Man, I just keep defeating my purpose to be a pimp of all the good stuff... Oh well, at least it looks cool anyway

:rolleyes: :smokin:

Now, Ben ~ if you could have held your horses, then I would have posted pictures of the modified knuckle...but I wouldn't want to pimp my [stuff] ~ oh wait...ANYONE CAN DO IT...Dang, there I go agian.

Oh, I went through all my posts and changed them so that there was more tech per square inch in the posts...:D :D :D :D

[Ben W]

So you're saying that you are milling the top of the knuckle perpendicular to the spindle mounting surface. This does not affect the ackerman angle AT ALL. It does address the issue of static misalignment angle on the TRE's or SRE's. If you mill the knuckle rather than beveling the arms, you eliminate the use of the stock Chevy driver's side knuckles with your arms, because they are already milled, drilled, and tapped with the studs & mounting surface parallel to the kingpin (balljoint) inclination angle, rather than perpendicular to the spindle surface.

So, what are your thoughts on ackerman angle?

[fugly 2]

Originally posted by jdjanda


Hey you've got a customer form the hand throttle, what's the deal, I want that thing!! Or point me to the supplier.




Looks like any old hand throttle out of a jap diesel car/truck .

[RustoleumWhite]

Originally posted by Ben W
So you're saying that you are milling the top of the knuckle perpendicular to the spindle mounting surface. This does not affect the ackerman angle AT ALL. It does address the issue of static misalignment angle on the TRE's or SRE's. If you mill the knuckle rather than beveling the arms, you eliminate the use of the stock Chevy driver's side knuckles with your arms, because they are already milled, drilled, and tapped with the studs & mounting surface parallel to the kingpin (balljoint) inclination angle, rather than perpendicular to the spindle surface.

So, what are your thoughts on ackerman angle?

hee hee.... my thoughts exsactly..... Snoop, better read up on what ACKERMAN ANGLE is..... give you a hint, it a basic automotive design principal..

[Lama]

This is almost as bad as when the TJ gurls start bitch-slapping each other on who makes a better bung-hole skidplate:eek: Wonder how many search engines have been queryed for ackerman angle lately:question: Purple powdercoat...tee hee, that shit cracks me up......:D

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Ben W
So, what are your thoughts on ackerman angle?
Still pissed that I didn't answer your question about ackerman angle? I thought it was a good tech-related padding job, even got you to comment and write a paragraph on it :laughing: But anyway...

Man your persistant....Must have something to prove...Ok, I'll ablige.

I think that if a manufacture of steering components knows what he's doing they won't put the tie-rod holes to far away, but at the same time, not to close to the knuckle such that the steering geometry is the same from lock to lock....Hence keeping the tires turning in proper radii and maximizing tight steering radius' ~ for that is what ackerman angle is. I guess I could have clearified this in the previous post, you know me and padding.....

OH, you think...he just read about the Ackerman angle from doing a quick Google search... Well, lets put it this way...We ran into this problem with our 1st gen X-over steering (I'm sure you remember the spam fest). Our first problem is that we couldn't use the stock CJ and chevy arms since they were so short, and when under compression, the tie-rod would hit the oil pan, but if we made the arm long enough to clear the oil pan, the tires wouldn't been in perfect alignment (ackerman angle was affected)..this is why, when you see Snoopy's arms, they are the shorter style (like every other arm out there) ~ its just that we haven't had time to perfect the longer ones yet.... Or as lord Moderator would say, Snoops arms are shorter so that the "ackerman" angle is correct.... (others use "steering geometry")

Our cheaper x-over steering doesn't bother with any of this since it uses the stock tie-rod holes...which were designed from the factory to have proper geometry (or does it? ~ hum...), we just simply put the DragLink to the passenger side top knuckle. and keep the tie-rod stock length.

By the way, for those of you who don't know what we are *padding* about (or more to the point, what Ben is attempting to use to discredit me with) its the idea that if you are turning, your inside tire must turn sharper than the outside tire...if the tires are not properly aligned, then your steering binds up, tires wear, and the over-all performance of your steering suffers (since the front tires are fighting each other, causing a some loss in traction).

Ben, I started with Porsches. My specialty was suspensions (including steering) and interior design/layout. I also was pretty fair at road racing ~ the best in the little group. I'm not talking about drag racing like the 'Fast and the Funniest", I'm talking about full-on, through the mountains, uneven paved, jumping the little bumps road racing. Needless to say, that road racing has a little more to do with a properly tuned and adjusted suspension/steering system than our 4x4s do...

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a wiz at engines, but, hands down, I've got everything from the frame downward licked (and a half). This is why my Scouts take 1st on the poser ramps, and why driver skill is their only limitation off-road (depending on the setup). Getting the little things perfect is why my suspension (and steering) systems are designed with CAD technology and then tested in the real world before they get space on my site. This is why I use guys like Paul and RMQM who have a tested/proven steering system instead of 'building' my own.

Sorry your attempt didn't work out... try asking me about engine stuff...no, I'm pretty decent with those...oh, better yet, try manual transmissions or my spelling and grammar...I hate those things...and still get queezy thinkin' about them... But then again, this is why I have a team, I have my specialties, and no doubt you've got yours...

BTW ~ What are your thoughts about ackerman angle when swapping full-widths under a Scout (or a either an EB or Jeep)? Hum?....

Better luck next time :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
~ Your humble servant.:D
D

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by fugly 2
Looks like any old hand throttle out of a jap diesel car/truck .
Not old, and a Jap diesel...yes. They also use them in planes (too big for my tastes) and big rigs.....and anything with a hydraulic system (dump trucks, flat beds, tow trucks, etc). Most of the new stuff is digital...or electronic (like ford carrier vans).

[Ben W]

Quit being so defensive. My query's have nothign to do with trying to discredit anyone. Everyone has a differing opinion on whether "proper" ackerman angle is beneficial or irrelevant on a purpose built offroad vehicle. All I wanted was a straight answer on how you felt on the issue. I still haven't gotten one. If you would stop the posturing and the attempts to look cool, you might learn a thing or two, just like I'm attempting to do. I'm constantly seeking technical knowledge and experience as it relates to our hobby so I can improve my own designs and vehicles.

I originally thought mimicking stock ackerman angle was the ideal way to setup highsteer arms. I soon learned that it is nearly impossible to clear the tires with standard backspacing and any outers other than 8-lugs. Since then I've built arms with less ackerman angle, purely for tire clearance reasons. I think on the arms I build for my next rig I will try a setup w/ 0 ackerman angle. That is, the tierod attachment points will be directly in front of the balljoint. This lets both tires turn at an equal angle, and makes the outside tire turn sharper than w/ stock ackerman. I think this will lend itself to a tighter turning radius off road on loose surfaces.

The question was spurred because based on the picture you posted, it looks like the TRE may actually end up inboard of the balljoint. This may or may not be accurate, it is impossible to be sure from the picture. I think this would be BAD because it would make the outside tire turn sharper than the inside tire. On a D44, the steering stop is on the inside knuckle, and if the stop is adjusted to prevent binding of the u-joint at that knuckle, and the outer knuckle turns sharper it would bind the u-joint on the outer wheel.

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Ben W
Quit being so defensive.
My defensiveness is not just in my head. On this board, situations require it...particularly your quiestion... But either way...

Everyone has a differing opinion on whether "proper" ackerman angle is beneficial or irrelevant on a purpose built offroad vehicle. All I wanted was a straight answer on how you felt on the issue.
I think that the proper amount of ackerman angle is critical for any off-road vehicle, purpose built or not. Without the tires 'turning together' one will be fighting the other...This leads to the following (in my mind, whether you agree or not is up to you):
* If the steering geometry is wrong, one tire will be pulled off its natural course...which leads to loss of traction. Normally, without slipping, your tires have the most traction (using Static friction), if one is slipping, your traction becomes Kenetic Friction, which means your not getting everything you could. Off-road isn't as critical as road racing, for in road racing you always lift a tire, and if it's not pointed in the same direction the car is moving when it touches down (at racing speeds), you better be good at correcting a spin. Offroad the speed doesn't make the tire lifting so critical...but the need for traction is critical. The tires should work together.
* Incorrect steering geometry will also cause pre-mature failure of the tie-rod ends as well as ball joints. Since the tires aren't properly alligned, there is stress in the system - sometimes great stress. This stress kills components and kills tire wear (for those with dual purpose rigs)

There are other factors, but these are the most important to me...which makes the proper steering geometry very important in my book. We have a sang here, it goes:
"Power and Testosterone don't mean SQUAT if you can't get it up" (I've been thinking of finding the best picture I can of a rig crawling and climbing up something and make a t-shirt with that in the background) Traction, gearing, supsension travel, and steering are to me, what helps me 'get it up'.

I'm constantly seeking technical knowledge and experience as it relates to our hobby so I can improve my own designs and vehicles.
I don't doubt it, but I think your way of posing questions is what sparked my defensivenes.. If you start out with "you dont know crap and only do things that look cool" you can hardly expect a non-defensive answer. Reguardless...I shouldn't have taken the bait...

I originally thought mimicking stock ackerman angle was the ideal way to setup highsteer arms. I soon learned that it is nearly impossible to clear the tires with standard backspacing and any outers other than 8-lugs. Since then I've built arms with less ackerman angle, purely for tire clearance reasons..(snip)..The question was spurred because based on the picture you posted, it looks like the TRE may actually end up inboard of the balljoint. This may or may not be accurate, it is impossible to be sure from the picture. I think this would be BAD because it would make the outside tire turn sharper than the inside tire.

You are correct, the arms do move the TRE inward (towards each other)...I see, and I can agree with your wanting to clear standard offset rims...but I'm not sure I see it as you do. For instance....I don't believe ackerman angle is effected much by Pauls arms, meaning, I don't care how far in the TRE are...I care how far OUT the TREs are.

I'm not concerned about the inwardness of the TREs, I'm looking out for the distance they are from the pivot points. To me, if I wanted the wheels to turn and be perfectly parrallel, I'd make the steering arms LONG and put the TieRod as far out as I could. If I wanted to exagerate the different angle, I'd move the TieRod as close to the pivot as I could.

The entire system dictates the ackerman angle ~ by virtue of the axle mounting (ball joints) and thier position, combine with both (a) the position and shape or the knuckle and (b) the tie-rod placement is what yeilds the amount of ackerman angle..or gives the correct geometry, not whether the TREs are in front of the ball joints...

For instance, forget the fact that the tie-rod is directly in front of the ball joint. In a stock scout steering system, the TRE are slightly inward...as you know the knuckles on a scout stick out CONSIDERABLY more than a jeep or chevy...and to clear the tires, IH moved the TREs inward ~ its actually molded into the knuckle. Sure it may not be very much, but its there.

For this reason I think that these arms I use are fine and don't upset the whole steering geometry... But I wouldn't want to over-do it....

This all begs the question: Is it all worth the trouble? With all the things we deal with ~ front lockers, larger tires, off-set rims and custom steering ~ its hard to keep your tires working together ~ particularly in a turn. It's also equally hard to get the steering geometry perfect (or ackerman angle)...but I believe that I should make every effort to make it correct even if its off a little. So even tho we could technically discount the whole endevour since a locker would keep one tire spinning (or wanting to) ~ I think its worth the efforts.

So then the question is, what is enough and when are we going too far? My rule of thumb is this: If I had the front hubs unlocked, and were on a street, I would want the ability to make a u-turn without tearing up my tires/steering parts. Or it shouldn't bind or cause a tire to bind. And, I would want the steering geometry to be such that I could make this type of turn regardless of wether its a street/dual-purpose/purpose-built rig.

If I didn't have a steering system that could perform a meaningless task without binding, how can I expect it to perform in hard/difficult tasks... Simply put, I couldn't. Luckily, all of RMQR's arms have worked as promised and there is minimal or no binding on or off road. That, I have to say, is good enough for me (law of diminishing returns). The only way to get it perfect is to spend millions and redesign the entire thing...which, I believe, is going too far...

There, you now have a straight answer. Agree with it or not, thats the way I see it.

You know, I'll have to re-read this later, my eyes are going blury...

[Ben W]

Originally posted by Snoopy

You are correct, the arms do move the TRE inward (towards each other)...I see, and I can agree with your wanting to clear standard offset rims...but I'm not sure I see it as you do. For instance....I don't believe ackerman angle is effected much by Pauls arms, meaning, I don't care how far in the TRE are...I care how far OUT the TREs are.


Ackerman angle IS affected by how far inboard or outboard of the balljoint the TRE is located. So called "proper" ackerman angle is when imaginary lines drawn through each end of the tie rod and its corresponding steering axis (balljoint) intersect in the center of the rear axle. Moving the ends of the tie rod closer to the center of the vehicle changes ackerman angle. Moving the tie rod closer to or farther from the axle housing also changes the angle. As you move the tie rod away from the axle housing you would need to move the ends of the tie rod farther to the outside of the vehicle to maintain proper ackerman.

[Mechanos]

...or should I say: If anybody gives a shit....

[filmstrip narrator vioce]
Anyway, as far as Ackerman angle goes, I have always subscribed to the theory that if you were to draw 'imaginary' lines through the tie rod end connection point on the steering arm and through the line defining the kingpin inclination angle on both sides of the vehicle, the lines should intersect at the center point of the rear axle. At least, that is how we set up the StadiumLites and SuperLites for off road racing.

OK, now lets look at a stock Dana 44 flattop knuckle. The stock steering arm is cast into the knuckle such that it is pretty much in line (vertically) with the center of the axle. This just happens to be the radius of the wheel. This provides the designer with opportunity to move TRE connection point further outboard (side to side) to allow for proper Ackerman angle without conflict with the tire/wheel. Now if we move the steering arm upwards as in the 'high steer' setup and keep it the same length to maintain overall geometry, the TRE connection point now extends beyond the edge of the rim and a conflict occurs with tire as it bulges out over the wheel. So, as a result, the TRE connection point gets moved inward to clear the tire.

Now if we look back at my original definition of the Ackerman angle, the intent was for the imaginary line to pass through a point on the kingpin inclination angle line. A typical inclination angle is 10*. So, as you move up the inclination angle line, you are moving inward. If you move the TRE connection point upward, it would also have to move inward to continue to satisfy the original definition for Ackerman angle.

So, if any of this makes sense, it would stand to reason that if you raised the steering arm, you could also move the TRE inboard a little and still maintain proper Ackerman. Whether or not the physical deminsions actullay allow this is the left for us to determine:flipoff2:
[/filmstrip narrator voice]

For these reasons, I personally liked Eric Ruhl's solution (here are some pics (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29603)) he posted in the General Section a while back. He moved the tie rod behind the axle, so the steering arms angle inwards to maintain Ackerman and tire/wheel clearance is not an issue. It also moves the tie rod pretty much completely out of harms way.

[Mechanos]

Originally posted by Ben W


Ackerman angle IS affected by how far inboard or outboard of the balljoint the TRE is located. So called "proper" ackerman angle is when imaginary lines drawn through each end of the tie rod and its corresponding steering axis (balljoint) intersect in the center of the rear axle. Moving the ends of the tie rod closer to the center of the vehicle changes ackerman angle. Moving the tie rod closer to or farther from the axle housing also changes the angle. As you move the tie rod away from the axle housing you would need to move the ends of the tie rod farther to the outside of the vehicle to maintain proper ackerman.
Took me too long to type that... LOL

[Hammerlock]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Snoopy, instead of all those BS padding posts why didn't you just come out with your thoughts on ackerman from the start?
Torc, real nice post dude. Thanks I learned a lot from that.

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by TORC
For these reasons, I personally liked Eric Ruhl's solution (here are some pics (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29603)) he posted in the General Section a while back. He moved the tie rod behind the axle, so the steering arms angle inwards to maintain Ackerman and tire/wheel clearance is not an issue. It also moves the tie rod pretty much completely out of harms way.

:laughing: < Boahahahahah! Man, I see Pauls arms everywhere...I could have got a set of those instead of these plain janes. Thats just too funny. I was actually thinking of using these arms in the future....when I get the Howe system in, I'm going to keep the TR up front, and mount the ram off the back Just like this guy but possibly without the TR back there... just mount the ram directly to the rear arm.

Man hadn't seen that post (or don't remember it)...

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Hammerlock
.... why didn't you just come out with your thoughts on ackerman from the start?

I think I was playing off the 'I don't know squat' trip... Like I said, shouldn't have taken the bait...I guess I can change my sig back....

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by TORC
So, if any of this makes sense, it would stand to reason that if you raised the steering arm, you could also move the TRE inboard a little and still maintain proper Ackerman. Whether or not the physical deminsions actullay allow this is the left for us to determine:flipoff2:
[/filmstrip narrator voice]

BINGO! You know..I think the best part is ~ that is works in real life. I'm not sure if you remember the CJ7 I built for my ma ~ lets just say that the inward shot of the arms (a) doesn't effect Ackerman angle (since it improved steering radius as well as keeps both tires turning perfect w/out slip or bindage) and (b) clears 15x10 (3.75" offset w/ 35x12s) rims with about an inch to spare.

Believe it or not this has been a great vacation from the normal everyday stuff...you can kinda get lost in all the concepts and how they meet reality.

I think to boil this down to the bare nuts of it ~ Bolt it on, it works....go wheeling (all of which I'll be doing VERY soon).

Oh, one last thing ~ Ben brought up something that I didn't answer. He said something to the effect that you can't angle Chevy flat tops since one side is already tapped to the wrong degree (driver side to be exact). The answer is yes...but Waggy flat tops aren't tapped on either side...making them perfect candidates for the conversion....:D

[tsm1mt]

Originally posted by Snoopy
(depending on the setup). Getting the little things perfect is why my suspension (and steering) systems are designed with CAD technology and then tested in the real world before they get space on my site. This is why I use guys like Paul and RMQM who have a tested/proven steering system instead of 'building' my own.

Speaking of CAD and such.. where's that CAD designed "perfect" rear 4-link kit that was "Coming Real Soon" a year or so ago?




together ~ particularly in a turn. It's also equally hard to get the steering geometry perfect (or ackerman angle)...but I believe that I should make every effort to make it correct even if its off a little. So even tho we could technically discount the whole endevour since a locker would keep one tire spinning (or wanting to) ~ I think its worth the efforts.



If you really are so concerned with everything working perfectly together for maximum traction and no dragging of tires around a turn.. why would you settle for a spool? It's ALWAYS dragging a tire around a turn..





are we going too far? My rule of thumb is this: If I had the front hubs unlocked, and were on a street, I would want the ability to make a u-turn without tearing up my tires/steering parts. Or it shouldn't bind or cause a tire to bind. And, I would want the steering geometry to be such that I could make this type of turn regardless of wether its a street/dual-purpose/purpose-built rig.


So how much does your "improved" Ackerman set up scrub when making a turn at full lock on pavement?

FWIW, IH didn't get the Ackerman right from the factory. You can tell just by noting that they used the SAME knuckles on a 100" Traveltop Scout II as they did on a 118" Traveler. NO WAY the Ackerman is right on both rigs.

My Scout with stock knuckles will scrub tires when turning. Everyone I've owned from day 1 has done this - and yet it'll still filp a U-turn on a one-lane street.

Just to add more fuel for the fire.. my stock Travelall scrubs the front tires at hard turns. At idle in a parking lot I can make the front tires HOWL and get plenty of ugly stares when I'm slowly pulling into a parking spot.. thanks to the stock Ackerman.

My 2wd IFS Travelette doesn't scrub.. but then it doesn't turn very sharply, either, and needs 40 acres to flip the b*tch... unless you get on the gas hard and slide it. :D

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by tsm1mt
Speaking of CAD and such.. where's that CAD designed "perfect" rear 4-link kit that was "Coming Real Soon" a year or so ago?
Its done. We've built a few of them with great results...the one on the 1/4 elliptic Scout we did a few months ago was one of them... Why no kit yet? Becuase we want to make sure we can make it fool-proof for other people.

If you really are so concerned with everything working perfectly together for maximum traction and no dragging of tires around a turn.. why would you settle for a spool? It's ALWAYS dragging a tire around a turn..
The difference is in one, the tire is moving/dragging in the direction it is designed to have traction, and the other the tires are slidding in a direction that they aren't.

So how much does your "improved" Ackerman set up scrub when making a turn at full lock on pavement?
Believe it or not, no. It doesn't scrub, at least not on a 97.25" WB. It seems to be working rather well. That was the note about my ma's CJ7...It flips a U-turn very nicely, and I haven't noticed any problems with the steering geometry.

FWIW, IH didn't get the Ackerman right from the factory. You can tell just by noting that they used the SAME knuckles on a 100" Traveltop Scout II as they did on a 118" Traveler. NO WAY the Ackerman is right on both rigs.
Gotta love Scouts...ya, I know what you mean. Since proper steering geometry is a function of wheelbase, it goes to show that there is no way the same setup would work on two different WB's.

[tsm1mt]

So.. what did you manage to get done to your rig over the weekend? Should be done by now, right? No more weekends to wrench before RMIHR. :D

[jdjanda]

Originally posted by Snoopy

Gotta love Scouts...ya, I know what you mean. Since proper steering geometry is a function of wheelbase, it goes to show that there is no way the same setup would work on two different WB's.

We'll there is the problem, you'd have to build custom arms for each install. WB, backspacing, tire width, etc all effect the angle.

Did you read the old post on Ackerman angles a while back in the gen section? Lots of good information in that post as well.

I'm running Ben W specials on the Scout, the arms I'm using have more turn-in to clear the tires, thus not perfect, but what can you do? Run less backspacing, no then you'll drag the tires through the turning arc, verse pivot w/less strain on the components.

Snoopy I did like your point on allowing the front tires to both maintain traction through a turn, but it's a moot point on locked rigs. Hell, the problem is worse with the spooled rear as it wants to push the rig straight at all times (guess another argument for ARB's). When all tires are locked, there will always be three tires that are scrubbing some amount of traction away, even in a straight line. Will running open in the front w/ideal Ack angles result in a more capable rig, NO! I'd rather have three tires slipping at all times and needing only one tire to have traction for forward motion.

Moral of the story: only real world testing will determine what is the ideal steering geometry for each rig

[Ben W]

Holy crap this actually turned into a tech thread. :cool:

See Snoopy, if you had actually addressed my question initially instead of the silly BS you posted you could have avoided the 'you don't know WTF you're talking about' comment and all the ensuing drama. ;)

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by jdjanda
Snoopy I did like your point on allowing the front tires to both maintain traction through a turn, but it's a moot point on locked rigs. Hell, the problem is worse with the spooled rear as it wants to push the rig straight at all times

Moral of the story: only real world testing will determine what is the ideal steering geometry for each rig

All true... its not a perfect world...but we can try to get it as close as we can...