Make it handle

[67cheby]

i am cheering you on from here....wearing my NO LIMITS shirt as i type !! ROCK ON MAN

[Grimee]

Great job Rob ! we could not make it to Pleasonton the Tahoe is on the Dyno at Whipple for some much needed tuning . Congrats on the win!

[robnolimit]

Yesterday I got to drive a run in Mike Meair's yellow mustang. A full on race car. I timidly ran a 28.446. To say the least, the car is rocket fast and turns like crazy. Mike was turning 26.200. Then, I put Mike, a 25 yr Autocross driver, in the Bullit, and he ran a 28.643 on a check out pass!!!!! This tells me a lot about tuning what's in the drivers seat.
Posted via Mobile Device

[wickid demon]

This thread has gotten huge. Thank you Rob and everyone here for there Q&A. I have started my front suspension, got it set up in the computer but my next step is to actually weld my suicide mission suspension together. My question is when building the chassis. Should I build my main rails with Dom tubing are just do box tubing? All inner structure will be done in Dom tubing, just wanting to know the best route. Any input will be great. The box tubing will be easier to build off of. But the round I can bend my self so it can flow better, basically look pretty. The Tubing will be more involved to. Is there advantage going with DOM verses box? Thanks again

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Thanks, chalk up another one. We won the truck class this weekend in Pleasonton at the GoodGuys show. We ran 28.961, Mike Maier ran 27.227 to win the vendor class. Hobauch ran 26.885 in the Wilwood camaro, winning the street machine class and fast lap overall. Had a great weekend up here.

Hobauch's Camaro is killer.... I was disappointed he didn't do better @ OUSCI.

[Greywolf200]

Hi Rob, back to the camber gain question. I was thinking that a full width 1" front crossmember section would bring the A arms closer together increasing the camber gain similar to the Shelby/Guldstand mods except that the lower arm would be raised rather the lowering the upper arm. To make this work, you'd need 1" lowering springs and combined with dropped spindles, you'd get 3.5" drop with improved geometry? Even though you're using 1" dropped springs, you'd still have normal suspension travel? The dropped springs re-establish the relationship of the LCA to the spring pocket. Would ball joint bind be a problem in normal operation (no frame laying or anything like that)?

While we're looking at this, do the tie rods need to be in a straight line from spindle to spindle to have proper steering geometry? That doesn't happen in the stock design and is one of the things you were trying to correct with the R&P set-up?

Inguiring minds want to know.....lol. I am going to figure out how to modify my C10 suspension before next spring and don't want to do it twice.

Thanks, the article in ST didn't give you near enough credit.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by wickid demon

This thread has gotten huge. Thank you Rob and everyone here for there Q&A. I have started my front suspension, got it set up in the computer but my next step is to actually weld my suicide mission suspension together. My question is when building the chassis. Should I build my main rails with Dom tubing are just do box tubing? All inner structure will be done in Dom tubing, just wanting to know the best route. Any input will be great. The box tubing will be easier to build off of. But the round I can bend my self so it can flow better, basically look pretty. The Tubing will be more involved to. Is there advantage going with DOM verses box? Thanks again

Good questions. Most would use box tubing. Like 2x6, 2x5, or 2x4. Using all round is more work, and must be more carefully thought out to be a success. I built 10 chassis in '05-'07 on a double stacked, round tube platform. The most notable of these was under a copper and black 56 F-100 for Ford's 50th anniversary of the 56 ford. I used 1 3/4", .120 wall for most of the construction on these chassis. I have to say they drove really nice. Due the the build time, appx 160 hrs, they were expensive, and I promised to only build 10. So, I doubt I will build any more any time soon. They are however, a testament to your fab skills, and set you apart from the rest. If this is for an early truck, tahe advantage of ALL of the space under the body, make the chassis as big as you can.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by Greywolf200

Hi Rob, back to the camber gain question. I was thinking that a full width 1" front crossmember section would bring the A arms closer together increasing the camber gain similar to the Shelby/Guldstand mods except that the lower arm would be raised rather the lowering the upper arm. To make this work, you'd need 1" lowering springs and combined with dropped spindles, you'd get 3.5" drop with improved geometry? Even though you're using 1" dropped springs, you'd still have normal suspension travel? The dropped springs re-establish the relationship of the LCA to the spring pocket. Would ball joint bind be a problem in normal operation (no frame laying or anything like that)?

While we're looking at this, do the tie rods need to be in a straight line from spindle to spindle to have proper steering geometry? That doesn't happen in the stock design and is one of the things you were trying to correct with the R&P set-up?

Inguiring minds want to know.....lol. I am going to figure out how to modify my C10 suspension before next spring and don't want to do it twice.

Thanks, the article in ST didn't give you near enough credit.

This is an interesting deal. my first thought is you may need a little more drop from the spring. Try to get the lwer ball joint even, or just slightly above the center of the lower A-arm pivit. One thing to remember is to keep the roll center in a reasonable range. I'd shoot for 3" to 4". Ball joint bind will not be a problem. I have been thinking about crossmember mods lately, so, here's a thought. Nock the upper A-arm mounts off the crossmember, and move them back 1", then re-attach. when you re-install the crossmember, align the holes through the side of the rails first. This will move the crossmember forward 1", and with it, the lower A-arm. The wheel will be centered, and the caster will be appx 7 deg. You can weld, or re-drill the holes through the bottom of the rail. As for steering, you'd have to raise, or bend, the pitman arm and idler arm up 1", OR, fab a center link with the inner tie rod mount holes up 1" (look at Ride Tech's new True Turn kit), OR, go with a rack set up that indexes off of the crossmember/lower arm mounts. (ours would work fine.) This has me thinking, i may plug in the numbers and see what the computer says.

[wickid demon]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Good questions. Most would use box tubing. Like 2x6, 2x5, or 2x4. Using all round is more work, and must be more carefully thought out to be a success. I built 10 chassis in '05-'07 on a double stacked, round tube platform. The most notable of these was under a copper and black 56 F-100 for Ford's 50th anniversary of the 56 ford. I used 1 3/4", .120 wall for most of the construction on these chassis. I have to say they drove really nice. Due the the build time, appx 160 hrs, they were expensive, and I promised to only build 10. So, I doubt I will build any more any time soon. They are however, a testament to your fab skills, and set you apart from the rest. If this is for an early truck, tahe advantage of ALL of the space under the body, make the chassis as big as you can.

My plans are to use 1 ¾ for the main rails, double stacked & plated in between the lower rail and upper rail, or is the plating not really needed? The lower rail will be used to pick up the lower control arm and upper rail will be used to pick up the upper control arm and of a course all need internal Skelton to give it rigidity. When you say “make the chassis as big as you can” do you mean the gaping between upper and lower rails, basically making it a 2X10 like one of your chassis or the width of the truck? I planned on making the gaping around 2.5 in which would give me a 2X6 rail and bending the rails out to the outer edge of the rockers. Rob thanks for the advice it helps out tremendously. Would you do IRS or just go with straight axle? I’m really trying to make my truck the best that I can.

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

This is an interesting deal... ...This has me thinking, I may plug in the numbers and see what the computer says.

Please do! I've been contemplating something VERY similar- would like to see what, if any, benefits come from this.

[NPilot1975]

Rob, Thinking about making my truck a Trazer or maybe just a topless roadster with a cage. What would you recommend for building the inner structure of the bed area? Was thinking of 1x1 or 1x2, but how thin can I go but keep good strength? I want it to be strong, but as light as I can make it. What did you use when you raised the floor on JT? Also, for overall rigidity, are there gains/losses to tying the frame and rockers together (bolted to allow it to be removed)
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

The floor of the JT is all original parts, just raised 4", and it's heavy. You can use .065 wall, as long as you don't drop an engine block on it. Not sue tying the rockers in would help that much, but then again, any little bit helps. 1rst to 2nd in charlotte was .039 sec. If you want to get really trick, form all of your mounts and bracing with .040 aluminum.

[jimmydean]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Thanks, chalk up another one. We won the truck class this weekend in Pleasonton at the GoodGuys show. We ran 28.961, Mike Maier ran 27.227 to win the vendor class. Hobauch ran 26.885 in the Wilwood camaro, winning the street machine class and fast lap overall. Had a great weekend up here.
Posted via Mobile Device

Was that your run I overhear in the tour video from facebook? Man, the group of muscle makes for nice eye candy. Congrats on another win.

[ferk_3131]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

If you want to get really trick, form all of your mounts and bracing with .040 aluminum.

Rob what mounts are you talking about I just happen to have a sheet of .040 in the shop
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

If you form up nice 3-D mounts, you can use .040 for all sorts of light duty components. Bed, floor and inner tubbs and mounts, Dash, inner panels, guage pods. Cooling and electronics mounts. If you need to shock mount something, such as electronics, check out the rubber isolators used for Harley oil tanks.

[djw32]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Hobauch's Camaro is killer.... I was disappointed he didn't do better @ OUSCI.

Brian did come in 3rd...not that bad of a showing.
Posted via Mobile Device

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by djw32

Brian did come in 3rd...not that bad of a showing.

Definitely agree there, not bad @ all. I just felt that car had the makings of being THE winner.

[Spla'nin]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Try to get the lower ball joint even, or just slightly above the center of the lower A-arm pivit. One thing to remember is to keep the roll center in a reasonable range. I'd shoot for 3" to 4". Ball joint bind will not be a problem. I have been thinking about crossmember mods lately, so, here's a thought. Nock the upper A-arm mounts off the crossmember, and move them back 1", then re-attach. when you re-install the crossmember, align the holes through the side of the rails first. This will move the crossmember forward 1", and with it, the lower A-arm. The wheel will be centered, and the caster will be appx 7 deg. You can weld, or re-drill the holes through the bottom of the rail. As for steering, you'd have to raise, or bend, the pitman arm and idler arm up 1", OR, fab a center link with the inner tie rod mount holes up 1" (look at Ride Tech's new True Turn kit), OR, go with a rack set up that indexes off of the crossmember/lower arm mounts. (ours would work fine.) This has me thinking, i may plug in the numbers and see what the computer says.

For camber gain, you got me thinking and after examinating my 76, I was wondering if the stock upper A arms could just be swapped L/R R/L...on a stock spindle? Looks to move the top of the spindle back +1.75" or so...Not sure if that would induce ball joint bind or not ... I wonder what the design range of movement on ball joints is?...thinkin this mod may gain +5*...? Any thoughts...

And then again maybe it's just better to bite the bullit...and get a complete lightweight performance front clip... will you be offering anything like this in the future Rob...?

[robnolimit]

The idea of swapping arms has bee tossed around. The 1 3/4" move back on the upper ball joint would add about 9 deg of caster. - may be too much added to the stock 2 deg. Also, the arm is tilted at the ball joint, and swapping sides makes the ball joint tip backwards, I haven't tried it, but i think it may bind, or be right at the edge. Also, just moving the top back will also move the front centerline back. The smart way is to move both arms. Bottom forward 3/4", top back 1/2", would be the ticket.

Bad ass pict!!

[BMERDOC]

I haven't messed with my truck because I've been busy and I had to take it home because they are doing construction at my work. I havent finished aligning my truck yet (except for toe). Maybe after Tgiving I'll swap the upper A arms, put it on the rack and see what happens.

[Greywolf200]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

The idea of swapping arms has bee tossed around. The 1 3/4" move back on the upper ball joint would add about 9 deg of caster. - may be too much added to the stock 2 deg. Also, the arm is tilted at the ball joint, and swapping sides makes the ball joint tip backwards, I haven't tried it, but i think it may bind, or be right at the edge. Also, just moving the top back will also move the front centerline back. The smart way is to move both arms. Bottom forward 3/4", top back 1/2", would be the ticket.

Bad ass pict!!

Did you ever get a chance to work the numbers on pancaking and relocating the front crossmember?

Thanks

[chevyrestoguy]

The smart way is to move both arms. Bottom forward 3/4", top back 1/2", would be the ticket.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm just finishing my rear suspension, and I'm going to get started on the front in the next week or two. I am going to do this mod, and I'll post up my in-progress pictures.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by chevyrestoguy

That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm just finishing my rear suspension, and I'm going to get started on the front in the next week or two. I am going to do this mod, and I'll post up my in-progress pictures.

On 63-87 C-10's, this is pretty easy. For the lower arms, remove the arm, and drill a new index hole in the cross shaft. I usually rotate the shaft 90 deg., then drill a new hole 3/4" back. You may need to grind a small amount off of the rear lip of the crossmember (more comon on 73-87) so that the bushing clears fine. Then bolt the arm back on. For the uppers, knock all the rivits out, unbolt the upper A-arm mount and slide it back. Weld it to the crossmember, and drill out the mount to fit the frame. Use grade #8 bolts and washers to bolt it back to the frame.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

On 63-87 C-10's, this is pretty easy. For the lower arms, remove the arm, and drill a new index hole in the cross shaft. I usually rotate the shaft 90 deg., then drill a new hole 3/4" back. You may need to grind a small amount off of the rear lip of the crossmember (more comon on 73-87) so that the bushing clears fine. Then bolt the arm back on. For the uppers, knock all the rivits out, unbolt the upper A-arm mount and slide it back. Weld it to the crossmember, and drill out the mount to fit the frame. Use grade #8 bolts and washers to bolt it back to the frame.

Any impact on the outer tie-rod orientation? Seems the angle from the center-link to the spindles steering arm will slightly change w/the lower a-arm moving.

[robnolimit]

there is a slight change, but it actually reduces some of the factory bump-steer. More than the front/back position, when you 'tip' the spindle back to gain caster, it raises the steering arm slightly, and this also helps the factory steering geometry a bit.