Make it handle

[ItsRandy]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Todays conversation, Can a sway bar be too big? Well yes. When a swaybar becomes so big that it starts to take pressure OFF of the inside tire, due to the forces of gravity acting on the CG (forced body roll), then it's too big. You may see impressive looking pictures of racecars with one wheel off the ground, but think about it. If one tire is off, then three have to do the work of four, and the tire loads go up. The chance of a 1G turn goes down. There is a balance between springs, shocks and swaybars. If you go too stiff, you might as well install some tubing inplace of the shock, and lock the suspension, but we all know that would handle like the old red wagon. Keep that thought in mind when choosing bar sizes.

Rob, I have a 69 C10 long bed trailing arms, 500 hp big block, 4/6 drop (springs/spindles) mostly street driven, some drag race. I've been looking at NASCAR style sway bar for the rear, what would you recommend?

[robnolimit]

First off, choose the right bar diameter. I'd start with a 1 1/4" .090 wall bar. With a 1 1/4" 48 spline bar, you can change to a different bar wall thickness, and all the other hardware will stay the same. Try mounting the bar over the top of the frame, in front of the axle. You'll have to pull the bed. Use a 12 to 13" arm length, and try to keep the connecting link 6 to 7" long

[Grimee]

Originally Posted by Rstone1

Didn't expect 550on the rear. I was think more like 450. I guess the 2 to 1 make a difference on the spring selection. I've always been a little to conservative on doing rates I think. On my first blazer I put 3/4 ton suburban spring on it thinking they were going to be stiff and ended up being just about right once I cut them to size. What do you have on the front if you don't mind me asking. I was thinking 600's for the front of my blazer just because of the weight. Laetrile I weighted my blazer it was about 4500lbs but it was still a 4x4at that time.
Posted via Mobile Device

sorry for the delayed response .its kinda embarissing I do not know what we ended up with on the front i was working with a company that sponsored the coilovers the first batch did not fit so we took it out to their factory and they re did them and i have not had the time too pull them off and check the rates or length .I took theirs off the rear when I did the cantilever set up .this paticular brand uses a spring rated bump stop so the ride quality suffers a bit I will be changing the fronts to match what ever I end up with permanantly on the rear I still have allot of tuning to do to get to handle the way I hope it should The upper and lower control arms are built by choppin block , they were built to work with the coil overs .it weighs almost 4200 lbs so i think your in thr ball park and yes it was very cool to get to quiz Rob about all the things I could think to ask and IT WAS AWSOME TO SEE HIM RUN ONLY ABOUT A HALF SECOND SLOWER THAN THE FASTEST CAR THERE A PURPOSE BUILT MUSTANG WITH 700 HP AND STRAIGHT CUT GEARS IN THE TRANNY TRIPLE DISC CLUTCH AND A BUNCH OF OTHER COOL STUFF DID I MENTION ROB WAS DRIVING HIS TRUCK ! VERY COOL TO SEE

[nds1968]

Any info on those modified front A-arms (post 218) http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...436621&page=9? Do you think you'll produce them to sell? Do you think you could design them to work with 15" Rims? I am looking for a way to get the front wheels centered. Thanks, Nate

[CSGAS]

Page 32 is very nice in this month's Hot Rod Magazine, Rob

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by nds1968

Any info on those modified front A-arms (post 218) http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...436621&page=9? Do you think you'll produce them to sell? Do you think you could design them to work with 15" Rims? I am looking for a way to get the front wheels centered. Thanks, Nate

This is the quick way to test the idea. We are happy with the results. If we go into production on an arm like this, it would be a fabbed arm. Are we going to do it? yes, but it will be in the fall. Testing, you know.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by CSGAS

Page 32 is very nice in this month's Hot Rod Magazine, Rob

Thanks. It's very flattering, and puts an even bigger target on our backs. Hope we can live up to the hype.

[slow4dr]

Rob, did you sign up for the NMCA autocross @ Fontana in July? Or are you going to Columbus that weekend?

[robnolimit]

It looks like a cool event, but we'l be in Columbus. Make sure you friend us on facebook and you'll get live updates during tha show.

[robnolimit]

Some thoughts about Acremen. This is the word, to describe the relationship of a component of steering geometry that deals with the turning rates of the two front tires. When a car/truck goes around a corner, the INSIDE front tire is making a slightly sharper turn than the OUTSIDE front tire. The sharper the turn, the more the difference is in the two turning rates. In simple terms, if a line was drwn from the center of the rear axle, forward and through the lower ball joint, and continue on that line, the Outer Tie Rod Pivit point should be on that line. That means that a rear steer set up should have the pivit 'inboard' of the ball joint, and a front steer set up should have the pivit 'outboard' of the ball joint.
What can you do to change it? Not much, unless you want to cut up and modify some spindles. The key players in Acremen are the spindles, the wheel base, and the track width.

[Scot_Douglas]

Rob - I am NOT picking on you, but I thought I'd post up the proper spelling of "Ackerman" in case anyone wants to research more on it.

I realize you have near zero free time to post here, but still do because you like to help people out. Sometimes a function of that is fast typing and not having time to proof-read what you write before you fly off to take care of all your other responsibilities.

Thank you for all your thoughts and sharing!

Scot

[robnolimit]

OOPS, right you are. Sorry about that one

[robnolimit]

Des Moines - Columbus GoodGuys Looks like we're heading to the mid-west for these two shows. We'd like to meet some of the forum members if your going. Most of the time we'll be in the Autocross area, so stop by and say hi. If your not going, click 'like' on our facebook page, No Limit Engineering, and get live updates, picts, and video of the events.

[robnolimit]

Here goes. There are a bunch of chassis and suspension builders out there who claim to have great handling products. I CHALLENGE YOU to show up to Des Moines and/or Columbus and PROVE IT. The truck class needs more hard chargers. Lets show everyone that a well built truck CAN out handle a muscle car. Hope to see you there!

[robnolimit]

Wow, no response? Hmm, anyway, todays topic, Wheelbase long, short, modified, .... We had a long talk with a guy wanting to build a track killer C10 today. This truck may be the end of our riegn on the track, and it looks like we're going to build it. While a long bed or x-cab may ride a bit better, they have tougher time in the corners. Short beds, and or Blazers have the upper hand. Even so, a short bed at 115" is at a dis-advantage to the 106" Camaro, or the 104" Mustang. My Effie is 110 1/2". Remember too that it matters WHERE the wheel centers are. C10's are nose heavy, and the front wheel isn't centered in the wheel opening. Moving it forward helps with wieght balance and looks, but makes it 116 1/2" or so. My suggestion was, center up the front, then move the rear forward. How, well maybe, cut 4 1/4" off the front of the bed, then 2" off the back. It helps balance the look. move everything forward to get a 111"-112" wheelbase. We tried it in photoshop real quick, and it looks like you need a 2" chop to have a regular looking truck. My notes show an average ft wt of 57% for these trucks. Changing the wheel base, and pushing an aluminum LS back should bring it down close to 53% ('Bullit is 57%) I'm still looking for a 108" wheel base, but the cutomer is not so into moving the wheel openings around. This looks to be starting soon, I'll keep you posted.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Wow, no response? Hmm, anyway, todays topic, Wheelbase long, short, modified, .... We had a long talk with a guy wanting to build a track killer C10 today. This truck may be the end of our riegn on the track, and it looks like we're going to build it. While a long bed or x-cab may ride a bit better, they have tougher time in the corners. Short beds, and or Blazers have the upper hand. Even so, a short bed at 115" is at a dis-advantage to the 106" Camaro, or the 104" Mustang. My Effie is 110 1/2". Remember too that it matters WHERE the wheel centers are. C10's are nose heavy, and the front wheel isn't centered in the wheel opening. Moving it forward helps with wieght balance and looks, but makes it 116 1/2" or so. My suggestion was, center up the front, then move the rear forward. How, well maybe, cut 4 1/4" off the front of the bed, then 2" off the back. It helps balance the look. move everything forward to get a 111"-112" wheelbase. We tried it in photoshop real quick, and it looks like you need a 2" chop to have a regular looking truck. My notes show an average ft wt of 57% for these trucks. Changing the wheel base, and pushing an aluminum LS back should bring it down close to 53% ('Bullit is 57%) I'm still looking for a 108" wheel base, but the cutomer is not so into moving the wheel openings around. This looks to be starting soon, I'll keep you posted.

I'd accept your challange if I had a bank accout that would match my enthusiasm level !

[Rstone1]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Wow, no response? Hmm, anyway, todays topic, Wheelbase long, short, modified, .... We had a long talk with a guy wanting to build a track killer C10 today. This truck may be the end of our riegn on the track, and it looks like we're going to build it. While a long bed or x-cab may ride a bit better, they have tougher time in the corners. Short beds, and or Blazers have the upper hand. Even so, a short bed at 115" is at a dis-advantage to the 106" Camaro, or the 104" Mustang. My Effie is 110 1/2". Remember too that it matters WHERE the wheel centers are. C10's are nose heavy, and the front wheel isn't centered in the wheel opening. Moving it forward helps with wieght balance and looks, but makes it 116 1/2" or so. My suggestion was, center up the front, then move the rear forward. How, well maybe, cut 4 1/4" off the front of the bed, then 2" off the back. It helps balance the look. move everything forward to get a 111"-112" wheelbase. We tried it in photoshop real quick, and it looks like you need a 2" chop to have a regular looking truck. My notes show an average ft wt of 57% for these trucks

Changing the wheel base, and pushing an aluminum LS back should bring it
down close to 53% ('Bullit is 57%) I'm still looking for a 108" wheel base, but
the cutomer is not so into moving the wheel openings around. This looks to be
starting soon, I'll keep you posted.

This sounds like a really cool build. I'm really looking forward to see what you do. Will this be a clean slate build or use what's already there?
I really have no budget but I do have a 79 Blazer body and frame that I bought a few years ago with the intention of building an all out handling truck. I have all the fabrication skills just no money to buy the major parts. Plus as most of us I have to many projects (68 pickup, 84 Blazer to be my daily driver) no including the honey do list that's never ending.

Sorry no response on the ackerman I'm not sure I understand the benefits of messing with it?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Rstone1]

Ron I do have a question for you about king pin inclination on a spindle. What is a good number to shoot for if you were to build your own spindle. Seen alot of people starting to build there own lately.
Posted via Mobile Device

[bobbo]

Any ideas on a stock 69 C-10 alignment specs. We have specs on our alignment machine but I want to make sure they are optimum. I think they are using bias tires...What would be the best Camber, Caster, and Toe setting? Stock suspension.

[Scot_Douglas]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Here goes. There are a bunch of chassis and suspension builders out there who claim to have great handling products. I CHALLENGE YOU to show up to Des Moines and/or Columbus and PROVE IT. The truck class needs more hard chargers. Lets show everyone that a well built truck CAN out handle a muscle car. Hope to see you there!

Maybe Columbus.

[robnolimit]

Rstone1 This will be a scratch build. All we have at the moment is a cab, front sheetmetal, and some beat-up bed sides (I don't think we'll be using the sides in the long run). I'll start a seporate threat when we start this project, and post up everything I can). When it comes to 'pin inclination' it has to be balanced with the static caster. usually 7 - 9 deg. Lower numbers can have an advantage in the corners. If your thinking about it, get a copy of "suspension design pro" from autoware, it's easier to lay your plan out digitaly first.
Bobbo This biggest thing these trucks need is caster. See if you can get 4 to 5 deg + caster, with -1/2 deg camber. For cruisers/drivers, 1/8" toe in, for a sporty feel, try 1/8" toe out.
Scot D Hope to see you in Columbus!!!!

[danielhaskins336]

Hey rob, earlier in the thread you mentioned you where testing a bunch of arms and I was looking to replace my setup for better handling and was just wondering which ones you liked the best. Of coarse if you are developing some I may be inclined to wait. Also the bolt in rack kit, will it work with my lsx mounted on the front engine mount holes. All the engine work is done already and to move it back now would suck. Anyway thanks in advance for any time spent on these answers and sorry if you already covered them elsewhere
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

Ha, i know it's been a while, but we're still testing. We asked several companies if they would send us sample arms, but most are not interested. I guess they don't want their 'secret' geometry to get out. Here's what I know so far.
RideTech Ball joint angles are good, clearance is good, Caster range is 5-8 deg. Wheel position is good, could have been moved a bit farther forward. These are they 'bag & shock, cool-ride' arms.
Hotchkis This is a coil spring and shock arm. Wheel position is good, fit is good, 6-9 deg. caster range.
P.O.L. We got these arms off of a customers truck, they are about 5 yrs old. These are a dropped arm for a coil spring and shock. Fit is good, wheel placement is stock. Caster range is 3-6 deg. Like many dropped arms, the spring pocket hangs down. This is fine for a mild drop truck, 3" to 4", but may be too low for trucks with more drop.
Porterbuilt The arms we checked were from a 'Dropmember' IFS. Bag & shock style. Fit is good. Caster range is 4-7 deg. ball joint angles are good, front wheel location is as close to perfect as it gets.
Brand-X We have a set of arms from an unknow source. These are the mass produced overseas arms that can be bought on the cheap. You get what you pay for. They are a clone of stock arms, with loose urathane bushings. the spring buckets are very low, and none of the other geometry is fixed. Caster range is 2-5 deg.

Caster range is checked with the crossmember at 1 deg of rake, and a -1/2 deg of camber. A truck with more rake in its stance will loose a deg. or two of caster. We are considering throwing our hat in the C-10 ring, but at this point we're thrashing on the J.T. to see what it really needs to make it right.
Your motor placement is OK for the new rack kit.

[Tony@AirRideTech]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Here goes. There are a bunch of chassis and suspension builders out there who claim to have great handling products. I CHALLENGE YOU to show up to Des Moines and/or Columbus and PROVE IT. The truck class needs more hard chargers. Lets show everyone that a well built truck CAN out handle a muscle car. Hope to see you there!

Dude..... Im comin and Im bringin the dually with me!

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by Tony@AirRideTech

Dude..... Im comin and Im bringin the dually with me!

"I can't see $hit, can you?"