TCI to start new R&D Project with a C10!

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Check out their facebook page, this was posted earlier today. Looks like more options coming soon!
https://www.facebook.com/Total.Cost.Involved?ref=br_tf

[lolife99]

Nice.
Everyone is seeing the $$$ possibilities in producing C10 parts.

They have the pre-'60 trucks covered.
http://www.totalcostinvolved.com/c/2...Classic-Trucks
Surprised it took so long to get to the 60-87 trucks.

[andrewmp6]

I believe jim meyer racing was the first one and a few others came in slowly.But its not just these trucks the early mustang 10 years ago had a small aftermarket but it boomed about 5 years ago.

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Originally Posted by andrewmp6

I believe jim meyer racing was the first one and a few others came in slowly.But its not just these trucks the early mustang 10 years ago had a small aftermarket but it boomed about 5 years ago.

Yeah, I think Jim Meyer had an offering like 15 years ago, and still do. I'm surprised it is taking everyone else so long to jump on the band wagon!

[andrewmp6]

http://roadstershop.com/ has a full frame that has a irs

[SCOTI]

The 'problem' w/any of these is price. The RS chassis will set you back around 15 large w/o the trick IRS.... That's a difficult chunk to pony up.

[andrewmp6]

Yeah a full frame from anywhere is pricey now,Some places are 8k to 10k for a bare frame.

[slow4dr]

http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/1...-amp-D-Project

[68c10airstream]

A few geometry questions, how do you adjust caster and camber? Shims behind upper control arm cross shaft. If so doesn't this effect the center line that is supposed to run through the center of the cross shaft through the inner tie rod end and down through the lower cross shaft to eliminate bumpsteer? I have been curious about the factory bumpsteer values in comparison to this newer style front end. I noticed the bumpsteer gauge being used but no values. I believe the front ends on the market that have adjustable upper control arms that lengthen or shorten as needed for caster and camber would not alter the bumpsteer values. Anybody ever dig into scrub radius, what backspacing in conjunction with wheel diameter to yield a certain scrub radius value? In the early 80's as a subaru mechanic, the factory advertised zero scrub radius. This was the center of the footprint at the pavement was exactly where the SAI (steering axis inclination) imaginary centerline through the ball joints ran down to the pavement and contacted at exactly the same point as the center of the contact patch of the tire. Our dealership installed aftermarket wheel that were dished outward ( wider track width) and we battled with steering wheel shake, sensitive steering, etc. Reinstalled factory wheels and all problems gone. Obviously manual steering on this application.

[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by 68c10airstream

A few geometry questions, how do you adjust caster and camber? Shims behind upper control arm cross shaft. If so doesn't this effect the center line that is supposed to run through the center of the cross shaft through the inner tie rod end and down through the lower cross shaft to eliminate bumpsteer? I have been curious about the factory bumpsteer values in comparison to this newer style front end. I noticed the bumpsteer gauge being used but no values. I believe the front ends on the market that have adjustable upper control arms that lengthen or shorten as needed for caster and camber would not alter the bumpsteer values. Anybody ever dig into scrub radius, what backspacing in conjunction with wheel diameter to yield a certain scrub radius value? In the early 80's as a subaru mechanic, the factory advertised zero scrub radius. This was the center of the footprint at the pavement was exactly where the SAI (steering axis inclination) imaginary centerline through the ball joints ran down to the pavement and contacted at exactly the same point as the center of the contact patch of the tire. Our dealership installed aftermarket wheel that were dished outward ( wider track width) and we battled with steering wheel shake, sensitive steering, etc. Reinstalled factory wheels and all problems gone. Obviously manual steering on this application.

Sorry for the late reply, we just got back from the Street Rod Nationals today.

I forwarded your message over to Sal for a reply. Here is what he said.

"The front end was designed with the front wheel centered and 6 degrees of positive caster. This will equal .015 bump steer(Toe Out) at full compression. The upper control arm mount has 10 degrees of anti-dive. The spindle inclination is 8 degrees which I is the same as the factory spindle and the camber will be adjusted via the shims. There is .5 degree negative gain at 1 inch of bump. We purposely kept the stock track width so the scrub value would be as close to zero as possible. With a wider front wheel the value will change. With a 9.5" x 3.25" back spacing and a 27” diameter tire the scrub radius was 2.25". By eliminating the steering box we will be able to run at least an 11" wheel up front. We made the steering arms bolt on so we could test and make any changes necessary to improve the suspension even further if necessary and run a 15” wheel. -Sal"

-J

[68c10airstream]

Sal, thanks for taking the time and posting the results. I'm opting to go to about a 29" diameter tire, 20x8 rim with 4" backspace, which if my math is correct will yield just under 1" scrub radius. My next concern will be if the tire will fit inside the wheel well without rubbing. I'm currently running stock new ece coils with a ece 2 1/2" drop spindle, 72 and up thick stock rotors with 15x8 factory rallies with about 4" backspace and a 26 1/2" diameter tire. If you feel the hub face is in the same spot as what you are designing i will take my existing tire and add additional dimension to it and check for rubbing. Thanks again for your help, Brian Fuller

[aggie91]

I am following it on the pro-touring web site...looks interesting so far...

[slow4dr]

*another update*


The first articles have had a few revisions through development but we're getting close.

Here, Ed is changing the anti-dive angle to 7.5.


A quick tack weld


We also revised the crossmember. We raised it up to frame another inch and put a degree tilted back.


Ed installing the upper plate onto the frame to confirm some simulations.


-Jason

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Are you guys utilizing a CPP MOD Spindle for your front kit? Would love to see a truck kit come with truck spindles and not Mustang II's.

[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by GEARBOXGARAGE

Are you guys utilizing a CPP MOD Spindle for your front kit? Would love to see a truck kit come with truck spindles and not Mustang II's.

Yep, we are using their '73-'87 spindle on our kit so no MII spindles.

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Originally Posted by slow4dr

Yep, we are using their '73-'87 spindle on our kit so no MII spindles.

That's great! Can't wait to see the finished product.

[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by GEARBOXGARAGE

That's great! Can't wait to see the finished product.

A pretty big change of plans. In order to use the CPP spindles we wouldn't be able to use the more readily available T-Bird rack without a big compromise in turning radius. The T-Bird power rack is the same rack that most aftermarket companies use to replace a manual MII rack. This rack does not have enough travel to be used on the CPP spindle because the steering arms are too long. The factory steering box has 7" of travel whereas the T-Bird and MII racks have 6". We'd lose 14% of the turning angle if we went this route. The other major compromise is that the tie rod end needs to fit into the spindle from the bottom instead of the top in order to keep the engine in the factory location. Once the tie rod is moved it limits your ability to run 15" & 16" wheels with any sort of backspace/width.

We mocked up our Custom spindle that we use on some of our Pro-Touring builds and it would work very well in this capacity. While this spindle works well in its current applications we feel that making something even more robust would be more fitting. So we will begin designing a new spindle immediately. Should only be a few weeks delay in production.

-J

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

It's awesome that you are keeping with the ideology that 1/2 ton trucks need 1/2 ton truck rated suspension/steering components. Others seem to think MII spindles are sufficient, but let's face it, they were designed for cars that barely tipped the scale past 2,000 lbs. Not to mention the wheel bearings, which I brought up in a conversation recently with another vendor. The conversation seem to go down hill when I started mentioning L10 life for the bearings and how they are over loaded by 150% when ran on a truck weighing in close to 3k. Keep up the great engineering work, I'm quickly becoming more and more of a TCI fan!

[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by GEARBOXGARAGE

It's awesome that you are keeping with the ideology that 1/2 ton trucks need 1/2 ton truck rated suspension/steering components. Others seem to think MII spindles are sufficient, but let's face it, they were designed for cars that barely tipped the scale past 2,000 lbs. Not to mention the wheel bearings, which I brought up in a conversation recently with another vendor. The conversation seem to go down hill when I started mentioning L10 life for the bearings and how they are over loaded by 150% when ran on a truck weighing in close to 3k. Keep up the great engineering work, I'm quickly becoming more and more of a TCI fan!

Our chro-moly pins have proved themselves pretty well over the years. For instance our Road Race Camaro weighs in at 3800 lbs with driver. That car has 8 years of complete and total abuse and not so much as even basic maintenance done to it. It still has the original grease in the original bearings. We know though that the C10 is a different monster all together.

Something that struck us as odd is the OEM C10 spindle pin is smaller than the MII pin. So basically the I/D of the C10 bearing is smaller than the MII bearing. Although the C10 bearings are larger overall, both width and O/D. If GM felt the pin was suffeciently strong enough, who are we to argue? We will base our new spindle pin dimensions off the OEM pin. Ours will just be made out of Chro-Moly. This way replacement parts like rotors and bearings will also be OEM.

-J

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by slow4dr

Our chro-moly pins have proved themselves pretty well over the years. For instance our Road Race Camaro weighs in at 3800 lbs with driver. That car has 8 years of complete and total abuse and not so much as even basic maintenance done to it. It still has the original grease in the original bearings. We know though that the C10 is a different monster all together.

Something that struck us as odd is the OEM C10 spindle pin is smaller than the MII pin. So basically the I/D of the C10 bearing is smaller than the MII bearing. Although the C10 bearings are larger overall, both width and O/D. If GM felt the pin was suffeciently strong enough, who are we to argue? We will base our new spindle pin dimensions off the OEM pin. Ours will just be made out of Chro-Moly. This way replacement parts like rotors and bearings will also be OEM.

-J

While this sounds logical.... Is it?

Wouldn't GM have likely based decisions of the 'pin' design & dimensions w/the vehicles anticipated use in mind which likely wasn't near what the current trends are (autocross specifically). Just wondering out loud here. Obviously you guys put alot of thought into what you design.

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Originally Posted by slow4dr

Our chro-moly pins have proved themselves pretty well over the years. For instance our Road Race Camaro weighs in at 3800 lbs with driver. That car has 8 years of complete and total abuse and not so much as even basic maintenance done to it. It still has the original grease in the original bearings. We know though that the C10 is a different monster all together.

Something that struck us as odd is the OEM C10 spindle pin is smaller than the MII pin. So basically the I/D of the C10 bearing is smaller than the MII bearing. Although the C10 bearings are larger overall, both width and O/D. If GM felt the pin was suffeciently strong enough, who are we to argue? We will base our new spindle pin dimensions off the OEM pin. Ours will just be made out of Chro-Moly. This way replacement parts like rotors and bearings will also be OEM.

-J

Looks like I type-o'd on the weight of a pick-up. Should of been "close to 4k" not "close to 3k". But any way, you're definitely right on the trucks being a "different monster all together" with most of the weight on the front. I not so sure if the pin size on the spindle is as big of an issue as the bearing size, but using a superior material like the Chrome-moly you mentioned is a huge plus. In theory, by incorporating a smaller I.D., or smaller pin design, with the larger O.D. allowed by the truck rotor, GM could then use a bearing with either more rollers, or larger rollers, or possibly both, increasing the weight capacity of that application. The larger/higher roller count disperses the energy more efficiently. For those that may not be familiar with the L10 Life I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a mathematical equation that can predict a 90% failure mode under specific loads. This can literally narrow it down to expected hours of in-service operation, pretty accurate stuff. A few months back, the engineering team I work with had a Lunch-N-Learn seminar with Timken Bearings and the information they shared was tremendous.

Again, kudos to you TCI, for the great development going on!

[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

While this sounds logical.... Is it?

Wouldn't GM have likely based decisions of the 'pin' design & dimensions w/the vehicles anticipated use in mind which likely wasn't near what the current trends are (autocross specifically). Just wondering out loud here. Obviously you guys put alot of thought into what you design.

We are actually going to build the spindle and pin to be strong enough to handle anything a customer can throw at it. If a weakness presents itself during testing we will go a different route. The pin itself will be made form chromoly so strength won't be an issue. For selfish reasons I am pushing them to overengineer everything so I can be able to adapt a long travel set-up onto our crossmember.

Originally Posted by GEARBOXGARAGE

Looks like I type-o'd on the weight of a pick-up. Should of been "close to 4k" not "close to 3k". But any way, you're definitely right on the trucks being a "different monster all together" with most of the weight on the front. I not so sure if the pin size on the spindle is as big of an issue as the bearing size, but using a superior material like the Chrome-moly you mentioned is a huge plus. In theory, by incorporating a smaller I.D., or smaller pin design, with the larger O.D. allowed by the truck rotor, GM could then use a bearing with either more rollers, or larger rollers, or possibly both, increasing the weight capacity of that application. The larger/higher roller count disperses the energy more efficiently. For those that may not be familiar with the L10 Life I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a mathematical equation that can predict a 90% failure mode under specific loads. This can literally narrow it down to expected hours of in-service operation, pretty accurate stuff. A few months back, the engineering team I work with had a Lunch-N-Learn seminar with Timken Bearings and the information they shared was tremendous.

Again, kudos to you TCI, for the great development going on!

-J

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by slow4dr

...For selfish reasons I am pushing them to overengineer everything so I can be able to adapt a long travel set-up onto our crossmember.

-J

I like where this could go. I have a longterm desire to build an older body style 2wd pre-runner style truck with a long travel front suspension..

[slow4dr]

More mock up pieces and parts



The crossmember is now in its 3rd iteration of the original idea.







-J

[GEARBOXGARAGE]

Awesome job guys! keep it up. How much shock travel are you expecting for the front? Looks like you could get 5" with 12" springs.