Make it handle

[PBFAB.COM]

The ridetech coil-overs are a great design. I have done a bunch of research to find the base for our new coil-over optioned kits... These are what we decided to go with for our foundation.
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

OK, I'm going to vent. Geometry class was offered for FREE at almost EVERY high scholl in the country. Why is it that NOBODY went to class?
Get out a piece of paper and draw a triangle. It's OK, I'll wait. . . . . .. . . .. . . good. Now we know that a tiangle has THREE sides, and ALL sides connect. So, take your pencil and make ONE side of your triangle LONGER. . . . . . . . . To get the other side to connect, you have TWO options. 1. Change the length and angle of the connecting side. - or 2. Change ALL THREE angles of the triangle. OK, my breathing is getting better. So, why is this a big deal? A-Arms ARE TRIANGLES!!!!!! I spent four hours today aligning an IFS for this poor guy. He has a great looking, and untill today, terrible driving 57 chev p/u. Whats the problem? It has a "really cool" IFS on it. and the upper A-Arm (triangle) has F$%C!N ROD ENDS in it for the alignment adjustment. So, You unscrew them to get the camber out to spec, and the center distance gets longer. I guess the manufacturer just wants you to tighten the bolts and bend the A-Arm, OK. But, as I get close to the manufacturers spec alignment (-1/2* camber, +2* caster) the rod ends are maxed out and binding as I tighten the bolts. Again, I cuss like a sailer. People buy this crap? - Oh yeah, geometry class. So, to get it in spec, (actually went to +4* caster, like a real car built after the invention of radial tires) I had to heat and bent the A-Arms to get them properly aligned, without binding. They used to be powder coated a nice silver color, but, no more. Now, the customer is thrilled, its been two years before he found someone who could properly align his truck. And, at the moment he doesn't care about the burned powder coat. Please be aware of this DESIGN FLAW. It is common to a few IFS kits. To be fair to all, I will not name names. Some of you DID go to class, and now that I have pointed this out, I'm sure it makes sense to you. If any of the manufacturers of these types of IFS kits need a private lesson, please contact me at the shop, or, make an appointment to come buy, and I'll give you private instruction on our shop chalkboard. I am doing my best to keep this professional, please do the same. I just want to help educate the members. People throw down a lot of money to play with these trucks, it's up to us to keep the quality and safety up to par. Ahh, my blood pressure is dropping. One more Fat Tire should do the trick.

[texastrendz]

dude are you bi-polar....lol just kiddin. i know the feelin. sometimes you spend top dollar for something and it is just junk. that is why i like this forum. it is usually called out here. i use the rule by nice or buy twice, but sometimes that rule is not even correct.

[skoffice]

I've seen the arms with rod ends in them but usually the arms have a kick in them so they adjust paralell to eachother. Lots of the off road long travel kits out there have it figured out. Maybe they should meet up for lunch with Camburg some day You are right though Rob, if people shell out the coin for a primo IFS it better be working like one! This is by far my favorite thread thanks for all the great info!

[N2TRUX]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

OK, I'm going to vent. Geometry class was offered for FREE at almost EVERY high scholl in the country. Why is it that NOBODY went to class?.

Sorry, bro but I was out behind the cafeteria.....

[robnolimit]

HAHAHA, got me on that one. I do agree that some off-road guys definately have it together. And, if the arms are bent to set the rod ends parallel, its a lot better. It just ticks me off to see enthusiests get screwed because of high profile advertising on low quality parts. Have a great sunday everyone, I'm going to look at a 5.3/auto take-out motor. wish me luck!

[SBTork]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

I'm going to look at a 5.3/auto take-out motor. wish me luck!

good luck man, that will be perfect for your c10 project

[gringoloco]

So, as far as the great control arm face-off is concerned, you say you like the ART, PB, and EC.

Could you please elaborate on a few things from your studies?

1) What does EC refer to? I assumed Early Classic Enterprise, but am unaware of a tube arm from them.

2) Can you expand upon the whats and the whys of these being your top picks?

3) Will you offer an explanation of the short-comings of the other 5? (without name-bashing, of course)

Thank you in advance. Even if these questions don't get answered, I've already learned a lot from your posts, so thanks for sharing...

[BossHogg69]

http://www.ridetech.com/store/suspen...ing-shock.html

Are these not the regular (non coilover) version of that RideTech coilover shock Tony sent you?

[76kcfdeng]

Rob, read through this thread several times, great info. I read mention of swapping stock A arms from side to side, does this add caster, too much or cause other problems? Uppers or lowers or both?

I am going to run a 4"/6" drop from ECE. I added a rear sway from the front of a car, just mocked up right now. I also flipped the trailing arm mounts. I plan to add cross bracing to the frame and maybe some boxing. Any thoughts on my setup, just for a nice driver. I have an EVO for going real fast around corners.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[robnolimit]

Gringoloco I've been slackin on my A-Arm testing. The ones I've mentioned are arms that I am familiar with. One thing tu understand is what a set of new A-Arms CAN, and CAN-NOT do. First of all, fabricated arms with new bushings and ball joints can reduce flex in the suspension. The ball joints can be 'tipped' to avoid ball joint binding. A set of arms can be designed to adjust the axle center-line, and to change the caster. Within reason, they CAN-NOT change the camber curve, bumpsteer, or anti-dive, as those things are determined by the suspension pivit/mounting points. To be honest, C-10's are kinda new for me, as we have focused on custom building suspensions for 47-59 chevs, and others. So, I'm doing my best to get up to speed. Also, now that we have our own 'test mule' the J.T. we sould be moving a bit faster on this.

Bosshogg69Yes those are RideTech shocks, but not their new design, with the new valve/shim. I'm sure they wil be moving in that direction, as the new units are all built in-house now. I just need to stay in touch with Tony, Brett, and the crew to make sure I can help get the length and stroke we need for our customers.

76Kcfdeng I mentioned the A-arms swap becuase I had read about it in some other threads. As of yet, I haven't tried it. But I have to think it may be too drastic. Your chassis build looks great. I like the sway bar, can you share with everyone what it came off of?

[76kcfdeng]

Thanks Rob, I have all the a arms off right now and it does look like it would be quite a lot. The sway bar was in my steel pile but I think it came off a Chevelle, (front).

I was thinking about drilling a new dimple in the lower crossbar to move the lower A arm forward a little, looks like i could get an inch with a little trimming on the A arm. Would that be worth the trouble?

[76kcfdeng]

I looked at the lower A arm crossbar and it is hardened so I would have to grind a notch in it to relocate but it still can be done. I am thinking any gain in caster is a positive, what do you think?

Started cross bracing the frame today, lots of head scratching and small amount of progress.
Thanks again for the great info, Glen

[robnolimit]

Yes, moving the lower arm forward will be a plus. As you add bracing, remember to leave room for the exhaust.

[Mechanic77]

Hey Rob, I've got a bump steer question. I realize that 0 bump steer is what you should always strive for, but is there an acceptable amount? And if so, which would be better, toe out or toe in? I've been playing with my suspension geometry in FSGP4 and I have (at max) about 2* of bump steer (toe out). Just curious on your thoughts

[robnolimit]

Good one. Most chassis designers would stick to the rule of .1 deg. of steering per 1" of travel. I prefer bump "out", but it depends on the tire & driver. We spent some time measuring our JT (72 C-10) ant the bump out is pretty bad. Also the inner pivit point is too high. For kicks, pretend you are willing to make a new center link. move the inner pivit out about 2", and down about 3/4". then play around from there. tell me what you get. We'll compare notes

[gringoloco]

Can you elaborate more on the necessity of the new steering link? I know you've stated the tie-rod angle is too extreme at positive caster, forcing a heim on the underside. What are the other proposed benefits?

Also, why pancake the crossmember, as opposed to using a simple lowering spring?

Thanks -Chris

[FnLow69]

Rob, Ive got a question about setting up universal sway bars (like the ones from welder series) with an air ride setup. Do you want the arms parrallel the the ground at ride height? Also is it better to have the link coming off the arms mount to the axle or to the lower link bars?


Thanks

Justin

[cajundragger]

depending how much travel you have you may want to set up the bars parrellel to the ground at half lift.

[Mechanic77]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Good one. Most chassis designers would stick to the rule of .1 deg. of steering per 1" of travel. I prefer bump "out", but it depends on the tire & driver. We spent some time measuring our JT (72 C-10) ant the bump out is pretty bad. Also the inner pivit point is too high. For kicks, pretend you are willing to make a new center link. move the inner pivit out about 2", and down about 3/4". then play around from there. tell me what you get. We'll compare notes

I'll have to try that. Along the same line, I was wondering what you would make a new center link out of? Is the factory link hardened or treated to make it stronger? I ask because I was considering fabricating a new center link to fix the bump steer

[robnolimit]

Our focus on the steering link has to do with the shortcomings of the stock geometry. So far, our measuring and testing has shown this to be a problem. With stock parts we see that the trucks have about 3 degrees of bumpsteer (toe out) in 3" of compression, and 4 degrees of of bump out in 3" of droop. (both starting at ride hieght) Next, the stock Caster angle is set to be in 1* to 2* range. This is great if you have a set of Tiger Paw 78 series tires. But, it's the new millenium, and low-pro radials want more caster to keep them planted. If you tip the spindle back to gain caster, the steering arm lifts, and the outer Tie Rod End pivit point raises, and the steering geometry gets even worse. If you combine that with some drop springs, bags, or a drop crossmember, the angle of the TRE will start to max out. - this thought will lead you back to the center link as a solution to many problems of handling performance.

"Pancaking" the crossmember, (sectioning off some of the bottom), Raising the crossmember, or using a dropped crossmember, such as PB Dropmember, all have one thing in common, and that is to gain ground clearance for the "Extreme-low" crowd. If you look at a stock chassis, 63-87, the bottom of the front crossmember is about 1 3/4" below the bottom of the main frame rails. this tends to be the first thing to wipe off highway reflectors as you get the truck closer to mother earth. All three mods are trying to gain clearance. Pancaking off the bottom doesn't change anything else. Raising the stock crossmember will drop the truck by the amount raised, but cam create some steering and motor mount issues. Aftermarket dropped crossmebers will get you the drop, the clearance, and help solve some of those issues, but at a price. Many ways to skin a cat.

On swaybar links, I guess yor looking at the rear bars. Getting the rab to travel int he same arc as the suspesion is a plus, so that means tring to get the swaybar arms sort of parallel with the trailing arms. Just a note here, a longer 'link' connecting the swaybar to the axle is a plus. Also, try to keep the angles of the bar-link, and link-axle (or arm) to be 90* at ride hieght, this will help ease the angle through the travel. If you need some really cool swaybar link connectors, look at the RideTech swivel-links.

For those interested in the process to raise the stock crossmember, that may be comming up on our project C-10, the JT.

[cajundragger]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

RideTech swivel-links.

aka late model mustang links.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by cajundragger

aka late model mustang links.

Good to know. Saw your cover. I saw the truck in Tx. Nice work.

[J-Rod#7]

How's it going? I'm a new guy. Its awesome that you guys have this site. Anyway, i recently acquired a 67 sidestep , and was wondering who makes the best all-around handling suspension kit for the c10? (i have springs all-around if that helps) Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[cajundragger]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Good to know. Saw your cover. I saw the truck in Tx. Nice work.

Thanks man.