really? oh I forgot Dave Morgan doesn't know anything neither does Rossler, Calverts or any other chassis/car people who use this method.I get it they are all stupid

Thanks guys for a interesting read. can we do it again in 6 months

we are probably good until next year

You do make good sweet tea, i would tell you anything you wanted to hear for some right now

Well, I don't believe anyone has been convinced to change their minds about anything they've been doing, but I enjoy a lively conversation. I always end up googling and looking at new things and usually learn something new, even if it's not directly related to the subject at hand.

i would tell you how to make it but you would stand there and argue about it.

It will be much sooner than that.


Again - If it's wrong but it works it is not wrong.

Funny how these laws of absolute physics and engineering apparently don't apply to 4 wheel drive vehicles. Do they not have driveshafts and u-joints like cars. Do they not NEED to comply with this parallel universe theory to be "right". Because I have three 4 wheel drives sitting around here right now. They all have the engine/trans combo level in the vehicle........yet not ONE of then has neither the front nor the rear pinion shaft parallel with the engine centerline. They don't shake, they don't throw joints out and they came that way from the factory. Well obviously somebody there missed the memo on proper angles..........I better get on the horn and straighten this out asap. My 75 CJ5 Jeep has 350,000 miles on it. Wonder if I can get some warranty service on it, since something was obviously done wrong at the factory...............LOL!!!

Monte

These conversations remind me of being a young boy, before any of us got laid. We'd all heard about it, read about it, and seen plenty of pictures of naked ladies.

Not ever getting any never stopped us from talking about, and being experts though

Monte…..your jeep has a CV shaft in it….do you understand what this is or how it works? My guess is no or you wouldn't have used this to push your belief.

Bottom line, OP asked a question on how to set this characteristic, there is only one correct way, then there are the wrong ways and the close enough ways. Since all require the same physical effort to accomplish, why be defiant on the correct way?

Coming from someone who is constantly in search of performance gains, why would you give up free benefits? We could probably agree that the performance loss from counteracting orbits of the drive and driven universal joints (in most cases) are immeasurable, but is it logical to ignore it?

Quick analogy…….did you spend any money on ceramic wheel bearings for your hot rod?.....if you have then revisit the drive line inefficiencies you are leaving on the table.

I apologize if I came off a little strong, but your first reply post with the cap lock emphasized phrasing kind of set me off. Let’s just give the OP facts and not preferences.

Additionally, I don’t get on here a ton, so I wasn’t aware that this subject has the mileage that is does, but it is no surprise that the outcome is as such. Sure makes one apprehensive with assisting others…..

BTW…..my or any other persons credentials are not the determining factor when it comes to credibility…..but FWIW….I have much experience with items like keyboards….and IHRA Pro Stock , NHRA Comp Eliminator, complete construction of tube chassis cars (not u weld it kits), back- half, chassis up grades and set ups…..probably have as many or more sub 8 second passes than anyone on this board – naturally aspirated BTW……all this is a product of over 38 years’ worth of hands on.

Not trying to bust your bubble…..just trying to add positive contribution to this community……so don’t be so quick to judge.

For years this argument just amazes me. The parallel driveline guys set up there leaf spring suspension in their beautiful hemi whatever and argue nonstop about that is the way it needs to be because the ends rotate at different speeds yet never once thinking about how there drivetrain is NOT parallel on the 20 mile trip to the car show. Their drivetrain may never ever see that parellel unless they are at the track and have made a nice clean pass.

I used leaf spring as an example as to how silly this arguement is. There is no way the driveline could ever be parallel under normal driving conditions except at the track. When you get to 3 and 4 link suspensions, the angles get smaller to the point of there may only be 1 degree difference in a car and because the car has a suspension that constantly changes, there is no way you can make the arguement that those of us that set up pinion angle off the driveshaft are wrong.

But for us driveshaft angle guys, we can argue that the parallel guys are wrong if they set up there drivelines with a positive angle at the rear joint. And this is the reason why we say not to use the parallel method.

Bottom line, there are too many variables for any one method to be the absolute correct answer or even possible. Cars are lowered, rears are located at different heights, engine/trans assemblies are all over the place, up, down, angled forward, backward, the distance between u-joints can vary a great deal, etc., etc. Now if you build a car ground up, you can achieve a perfect configuration. Anything else is a "do the best you can with what you got" situation 90% of the time. Keeping the operating angles of the front and rear joints as close to equal as possible is important. The only rule that needs to always be observed in a drag car is that the correct pinion angle has to be maintained and never be allowed to go positive. That's my final answer for the million dollars.

Monte tunes/built a full body door car that has run 4 teens at 2700lb. I've seen DTHemi's full body steet car spot dragsters at my local track. Yet people continue to argue with them....

I also haven't seen them beat their chest about what they've accomplished. They just share their knowledge.

Unless you cut the perches off and re-weld them every time you make a pinion adjustment, you are making other changes that affect traction. Anything that you do that effects ride height changes static/instant centers and CHANGES TRACTION. Using a shim changes rear ride height, which CHANGES TRACTION. Moving the front mount point up or down to adjust pinion angle changes ride height and CHANGES TRACTION. Simply clamping the front segment together, Cal Trac bars, slapper bars, etc. shanges the spring rate which CHANGES TRACTION. Pretty much anything that you do, other that re-welding the perches back in the same location/different angle CHANGES OTHER THINGS WHICH IS WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGES THE TRACTION.

You guys aren't the only ones that ever raced or built cars, chassis, etc. I've welded a few bars and made a few passes myself, starting in the mid 70's at Detroit Dragway, among other places. The fact that I never tried to make a living at racing doesn't mean that I never raced successfully or built cars CORRECTLY.

And as to the guys that have been doing things forever, so it must be right. Over 20 years ago I was having a driveshaft made for a car, and to make a long story short, they hand me a shaft with the u-joint grease zerks lined up. I told them that I didn't want that style joint, and they had them installed wrong, anyways. He very arrogantly informed me that was the correct way and he had been doing it that way for over 20 years. I explained to him that for 20 years he was doing it wrong - under power the joint is stronger when you are compressing the zerk hole, not opening it. I then showed him in the Spicer powertrain book where it explained the same thing. Yeah, it will work that way; most won't know the difference - but in my case I had ordered a performance shaft and it wasn't what I needed. Fast forward 20+ years - a friend manages that shop now. I had them build me a shaft for my Dakota. He hands me a shaft with the u-joints installed with the grease zerks lined up. When I mentioned it to him, his boss comes out of the office and informs me that they have been doing it that way over 40 years. I laughed and left the shaft there and ordered one from AutoZone. It came with the grease fittings correctly staggered LOL.

Morel of the story is you can show some people why they are doing something "wrong" and show them why it is "wrong" but they refuse to accept common sense logic or "textbook explanations". I may be hardheaded, but I try to learn something new every day, and I'm not so blatantly arrogant that I can't accept help from others. I take things at face value, not implied worth - I evaluate the material, instead of simply accepting opinions. I am not a sheep that can be blindly led down a blind path without reason. If that offends people or causes differences in opinion, so be it.

Monty, you are obviously an intelligent person, and believe it or not, I respect your opinion. We simply dis-agree. You may be right - I may be right, or it may be somewhere in the middle. But one area that you are dead wrong is assuming that I have no experience at racing or building cars - far from it. I've spent far more time in the shop or at the track than I have at the keyboard.

It's been FUN

For the first part. The drive shaft in cruise mode is lightly loaded and doesn't need the maximum strength that a dragstrip pass requires. And being lightly loaded the extra movement shouldn't cause excessive wear. Also, I am a firm believer that if a leaf spring car rotates the axle more than 3-4* under power, that steps need to be taken to limit that rotation. I believe the x-tra angle in the cruise mode to correct the angle under power is the lesser evil to bandage a poor suspension design. Leaf springs, by nature, are incorrect for the application - a spring is intended to store and release energy, not transmit power. Look at the "bandaids" for them - all fixes either stiffen the front segment or lock it out completely.

As to the second part. If under power you have -3* at the front and +3* in the rear. The driveshaft is parallel. The pinion is driven at a constant speed. How is the rear joint any weaker? 3* operating angle is 3* operating angle, period. The u-joint doesn't know or care - or +. Angle is angle. It has "X" strength at "X" angle - PERIOD. So please show me how the joint can be weaker simply by flipping it over?

the name of this thread should be a opinion angle

A$$ HOLE steering wheels and peanut butter

Or typing and debate 101

The Technicolor Penguin fears no condiments . . .

Seriously, you think I don't know what a CV joint is??? And NO, my CJ5 does NOT have CV joints and here is a couple pics to prove it. This is stone stock, factory suspension from AMC. Single flanges and a single trunion joint, both front and rear. Didn't bother to pull skid plate to show joint at transfer case, but it's the same as rear, all single trunion. Nor does my lifted early 80s Power Wagon have CV joints. Maybe it is just my camera angle, but these seem to be pretty damn far from parallel planes..........LOL!!!


I have had this JEEP a LONG time and have never put the first joint in it myself.

You guys are so obsessed with equal angles to keep the shaft from speeding and slowing, that you overlook one other important fact and that is which setup is easier to turn and eats less power. Less angles, eat less power. Now unfortunately, straight at one end and an angle at the other DOES vary joint speed, that I will NOT argue.......BUT obviously it is NOT a big deal as there are millions of vehicles on the road and track, this very same way. So the question is which way transfers more POWER. As with anything else, it is all about leverage. More angles, less leverage.

Monte