|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: Viol8r]
#1386388
03/13/13 04:05 AM
03/13/13 04:05 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 373
sandwich IL
sublimehemi
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 373
sandwich IL
|
hopefully they get the steering box angle correct for b and ebodys...here is a picture i found here on moparts....its a e body k frame in a b body notice how jacked steering angle is...i believe its a 2.5 degree angle difference between the two. somebody correct me if im wrong?
Last edited by sublimehemi; 03/13/13 04:08 AM.
70 charger ,all aluminum 528 hemi 727 cope rmvb,680hp 670 tq,full sequential holley hp efi,full hotchkis tvs,qa1 k and lowers,borgeson steering box cass viper 11.75 with cass s-trac dana 3.54
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: 74_360_Cuda]
#1386390
03/13/13 11:14 PM
03/13/13 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
67autocross
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
|
My 2 cents on it would be if they could make a tube K member with rack steering that used torsion bars they would have something new that may be of interest. I would free up some weight compared to a steering box and give extra header room.
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: 67autocross]
#1386393
03/14/13 01:57 AM
03/14/13 01:57 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
Viol8r
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
|
Quote:
My 2 cents on it would be if they could make a tube K member with rack steering that used torsion bars they would have something new that may be of interest. I would free up some weight compared to a steering box and give extra header room.
This is something they are working towards. They would like correct some of the past geometry issues. It will eventually become an option, like a Stage 2.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: Viol8r]
#1386394
04/03/13 02:21 PM
04/03/13 02:21 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 373
sandwich IL
sublimehemi
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 373
sandwich IL
|
well i just checked summit and it looks like the price is 586.99  is this accurate...it better be!
Last edited by sublimehemi; 04/03/13 02:22 PM.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: savoy64]
#1386396
04/04/13 10:11 AM
04/04/13 10:11 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
i think that if a rack and pinion is used it wants to occupy the same line that the torsion bars are in---the only sanitary thing to do is to run coilovers...bob
 unfortunately torsion bars are in the way to optimize bumpsteer.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: brads70]
#1386397
04/04/13 11:24 AM
04/04/13 11:24 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Tig welded chromoly K member would sell like crazy.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1386400
04/04/13 04:10 PM
04/04/13 04:10 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
|
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
Last edited by jcc; 04/05/13 11:34 AM.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: jcc]
#1386401
04/11/13 03:55 PM
04/11/13 03:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
Evil Spirit
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
|
Quote:
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms. This is the reason you see the outer tie rods shimmed down at the steering arms - the rack is too low, and they are trying to get the tie rod and LCA parallel. I've also seen the racks shoved so far forwards that the outside tire would over-center and start turning back out at maximum turning.
Ideally, you want the tie rods pivot points the same length as the LCA's, and the tie rods parallel to the LCA's on both planes (looking from front to rear, and from the top down). From there you can do the fine tuning to get the inside tire to turn in slightly more to account for the smaller turning radius of the inside tire during hard turns.
  
Free advice and worth every penny...
Factory trained Slinky rewinder.........
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: Evil Spirit]
#1386402
04/11/13 11:53 PM
04/11/13 11:53 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms. This is the reason you see the outer tie rods shimmed down at the steering arms - the rack is too low, and they are trying to get the tie rod and LCA parallel. I've also seen the racks shoved so far forwards that the outside tire would over-center and start turning back out at maximum turning.
Ideally, you want the tie rods pivot points the same length as the LCA's, and the tie rods parallel to the LCA's on both planes (looking from front to rear, and from the top down). From there you can do the fine tuning to get the inside tire to turn in slightly more to account for the smaller turning radius of the inside tire during hard turns.
I am not aware of any easy way to fine tune ackerman, short of bending the steering arms once built, or changing the WB, please explain. Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1386403
04/12/13 01:44 AM
04/12/13 01:44 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
Evil Spirit
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
|
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
If you read this article, you will see it's nowhere near that simple. To get the Ackerman effect, the tie rod ends need to be inside the lower ball joints on rear steer, and outside on front steer cars - this puts the tie rod mount on the spindle into the sidewall of the tire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
Free advice and worth every penny...
Factory trained Slinky rewinder.........
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: jcc]
#1386404
04/12/13 01:57 AM
04/12/13 01:57 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
Evil Spirit
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
|
Quote:
I am not aware of any easy way to fine tune ackerman, short of bending the steering arms once built, or changing the WB, please explain. Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
JCC - I don't know of an easy way to fix the Ackerman issue either. IMO 90% of the front suspension stuff out there are geared more for the drag race crowd - geared more towards weight reduction and header packaging, not strength and improving handling. And TBO, in a drag car if you have the wheel turned enough for Ackerman loss to be an issue, you usually have bigger problems.
Free advice and worth every penny...
Factory trained Slinky rewinder.........
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: Evil Spirit]
#1386405
04/12/13 02:49 AM
04/12/13 02:49 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,485
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,485
So Cal
|
Quote:
...And TBO, in a drag car if you have the wheel turned enough for Ackerman loss to be an issue, you usually have bigger problems.
Even on a road race car is not a huge deal. It's biggest purpose is for heavy sedan street cars at low speeds. At higher speeds and pushing the car to it's cornering limits, slip angles change and traditional Ackermann is out the door.
And open wheel Indy car will not have Ackermann.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1386406
04/12/13 01:26 PM
04/12/13 01:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,395
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,395
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this is one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
Yup, you missed it. You're thinking of swapping ball joints side to side, like the spindle/caliper relocation trick. I'm talking about leaving the ball joint installed on their correct side, but rotating the tie rod end forward, thus putting it outboard of the ball joint, retaining the ackerman triangle. However, this is speculation on my part because of the relative location of the tie rod mount. I have not graphed it to see how accurate it is.
Quote:
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms.
This actually is a good solution, IMO. You raise the engine, fit the rack. So now you raised the center of gravity, right, so how is that good? Well, you drop the car lower around the engine. An engine is, lets say, 500#. A car is 3400#. So you raised 500# up two inches, now lets drop 2900# 2 inches since you have increases oil pan and header clearance with the lifted engine. Which will have a greater impact on the COG, 500# or 2900#?
Quote:
If you read this article, you will see it's nowhere near that simple. To get the Ackerman effect, the tie rod ends need to be inside the lower ball joints on rear steer, and outside on front steer cars - this puts the tie rod mount on the spindle into the sidewall of the tire.
Not necessarily. It depends on rim diameter and the relationship of the tie rod end location to the rim location. With my suggestiosn above, there is no reason to think it wouldn't fit simply from rotating the end forward a similar amount forward compared to how far it is set back stock. With differing set ups, that may have some impact, but with the increasing rim diameters we see on many performance cars, it may become even less of an issue.
Quote:
Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
Quote:
Even on a road race car is not a huge deal. It's biggest purpose is for heavy sedan street cars at low speeds. At higher speeds and pushing the car to it's cornering limits, slip angles change and traditional Ackermann is out the door.
And open wheel Indy car will not have Ackermann.
Bingo! Competition cars typically do not even bother with ackerman.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1386407
04/12/13 01:52 PM
04/12/13 01:52 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,783
Bitopia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this is one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
Yup, you missed it. You're thinking of swapping ball joints side to side, like the spindle/caliper relocation trick. I'm talking about leaving the ball joint installed on their correct side, but rotating the tie rod end forward, thus putting it outboard of the ball joint, retaining the ackerman triangle. However, this is speculation on my part because of the relative location of the tie rod mount. I have not graphed it to see how accurate it is.
I think you tricked me, and I fell for it.
, but TC, weren't you the one that brought up Ackerman in the first place, and now we decide its no big deal anyway, oh well, I get to learn something anyway, big thumbs up goes here.
Anyway its an interesting idea, has this been done before? I wouldn't think it was easy to mount a lower ball joint/arm assembly from the back, but I'll have to find one and see for myself.
Regarding Evil's comment on the front rack interfering with motor height, that isn't much of an issue on my year/model of mopars because the motor seems far enough back that oil pan interference is not an issue, which is I thought the main reason for front steer rack anyway.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
|
|
