The "fancy tool" is just a FWD car bearing puller/installer.
Ya it is
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ifs 101
- Thread starter patooyee
- Start date
Ya it is
AgitatedPancake
Frobot
Wow there's a lot going on there, starting to look like some German engineered independent suspensions lol. So the upper ball joint geometric "center" where those two links would converge is out further than the hardware would actually allow it to be which is sweet. The other interesting note brought up by the first reply I see is what it does to caster. The OP comes back and says it doesn't change caster, but I don't know how that's possible. As it's steered left and right, the convergence point of the upper links is sweeping forward and rear in relation to the chassis, so it has to directly effect caster right? That brings up an interesting tuning concept, if caster change based on steering angle becomes a tuneable feature, you're also tuning caster-induced camber through turning. Hmm time to watch that video a few more times
*edit* What's the intent of that crossbar between the UCA links mid way up I wonder?
*edit* What's the intent of that crossbar between the UCA links mid way up I wonder?
Last edited:
Tech Tim
Your AD Here....
Interesting thinking.
It increases sweep of the tire a lot. That used to be the norm in competitive rock crawl buggies years ago, then they found out having less sweep was better.
It increases sweep of the tire a lot. That used to be the norm in competitive rock crawl buggies years ago, then they found out having less sweep was better.
WaterH
Well-known member
Interesting for sure. Is the bottom a standard ball joint? I doubt it will be competitive edge, but what do I know?
Provience
Kill!
well i'm excited to see how it works out.
seems needlessly wonky, but maybe it isn't. the wholesetup seems to move a huge amount just under steering, so what will steering impact in a corner that isn't smooth? hell, i dunno. but i'll assume they've driven it a bit before this week and must have it figured out for the driver.
seems needlessly wonky, but maybe it isn't. the wholesetup seems to move a huge amount just under steering, so what will steering impact in a corner that isn't smooth? hell, i dunno. but i'll assume they've driven it a bit before this week and must have it figured out for the driver.
I'm playing with the concept of making a custom knuckle using the Ford 05+ UB with Uniballs and the exact dimensions / geometry of the 2013 Chevy knuckle. I'm quickly realizing why the lower joint on nearly all knuckles in this thread have the bolt horizonal instead of vertical. You lose a tremendous amount of ground clearance by making the lower bolt vertical due to required clearance with the CV joint. So that gives the design constraint of having that lower bolt horizontal. But doesn't this essentially limit front steering to the lower joint's total possible angularity? If so, what joint / spacer combinations are netting 35*+ angularity? I believe the angularity numbers listed in the following combine the angularity in both directions. For instance, 60* is really 30* from perpendicular in both directions, which I think is how we measure steering, right? So the 60* number on here equates to 30* of steering?
https://www.fkrodends.com/products/s...cial-series-3/
https://www.fkrodends.com/products/s...cial-series-3/
Last edited:
Yes.
60 is total degrees of misalignment
60 is total degrees of misalignment
Isdtbower
In for Tech
Close to 37*
How?
AgitatedPancake
Frobot
The only way I could see it is go bigger on the uniball itself, or smaller on the bolt size. The FK chart you linked says they're capable of 30* with a 3/4" bolt, but if you step down to a 5/8" bolt you can get 33. I couldn't see those racers going with a smaller bolt than that, so maybe they're just using larger uniballs than commonly available. Doing a little more digging now
*EDIT*
This place says their misalignments for a 1" bore uniball to run a 9/16" bolt allow 39*. Still searching for more:
http://www.dirtsport.co.za/index.ph...ms-spacers-uniballs/high-misalignment-spacers
*EDIT*
This place says their misalignments for a 1" bore uniball to run a 9/16" bolt allow 39*. Still searching for more:
http://www.dirtsport.co.za/index.ph...ms-spacers-uniballs/high-misalignment-spacers
Last edited:
Tech Tim
Your AD Here....
Go with horizontal Uniball mounting (bolts vertical). If you are building your own knuckle, then stretch it a little to make it work. It can be tight, but it is worth it.
I'll take a pic of the knuckles in my shed this weekend, they're an older version of our mid-level kit that traveled 17" and had 30°-ish degrees steering (don't remember all the details on that kit now).
Horizontal uniballs.
That way the his-mis spacers are only used for the up/down travel and with long enough arms (to cut down on the angularity of the travel arc), you can get big travel numbers.
The 76 car of Jason Scherer in the lower pic has the most steering angle out of the U4 IFS cars and it took a lot of work to get it.
AgitatedPancake
Frobot
Good point Tim. That trout chassis you guys (Wild West) designed the suspension on really is a work of art. I couldn't tell details from that pic Ben posted so I just found a few on Scherer's FB race page, so clean. I really like the high clearance kick they integrated into the arms as well
Last edited:
Isdtbower
In for Tech
First, it was designed to do it. Then re-designed after CV improvements for droop considerations. And probably lost some travel in droop/camber to get the important rock turning. What you will learn after running for awhile.
Jason worked on the CV's to accept the angles. At first the balls fell out of the cage. Then the bolt heads got in the way, so carbide recessed, outside spacers maybe, etc. etc.
For that reason, I would not use him as a goal unless you have a bigger budget, out-of-the-box ideas, great suppliers, and unlimited persistence.. Jason has pushed many suppliers to be way better at what they do. If a SA can turn 45*+ then maybe that can be your new max CV angle......
My build with 85" OoT should turn 35-37* with 17" travel with stock GKN series 30 cv's and 35 spline axles. (Wild West) Not sure about boot clearance yet, but understand recessing the bolts, etc.
Give yourself some arm clearance. You might improve it later. If OEM then you know where your limits are. Limit straps will be your best, and should be your most trusted friend.
Tech Tim
Your AD Here....
Keep in mind that the IFS and rear LCAs are Wild West. Trout and Scherer did the Fab work, but the design is my Kid Dallas (Zippy7 on the old board) and mine.
We did the first high clearance lower arms on Faravanti's car, then followed it up with this design on Scherer's and then the Crossed Up U4 car of Mike Klensin. They are all the rage these days, seems like everybody is doing lower arms like that.....
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the IFS and rear LCAs are Wild West. Trout and Scherer did the Fab work, but the design is my Kid Dallas (Zippy7 on the old board) and mine.
We did the first high clearance lower arms on Faravanti's car, then followed it up with this design on Scherer's and then the Crossed Up U4 car of Mike Klensin. They are all the rage these days, seems like everybody is doing lower arms like that.....
Thats been a SxS thing for a while. 99% of the aftermarket arms sold are like that.
AgitatedPancake
Frobot
Keep in mind that the IFS and rear LCAs are Wild West. Trout and Scherer did the Fab work, but the design is my Kid Dallas (Zippy7 on the old board) and mine.
We did the first high clearance lower arms on Faravanti's car, then followed it up with this design on Scherer's and then the Crossed Up U4 car of Mike Klensin. They are all the rage these days, seems like everybody is doing lower arms like that.....
Oh I do apologize, I genuinely had no idea! Amazing engineering all around, and a well proven design by you guys. Honestly I made the poor assumption it was in house, but you guys absolutely deserve that credit now that I know.
Isdtbower
In for Tech
Pretty sure that is chassis #2 and mod #...... with changes from experience. Easy to notice how bearing mounts are being optimized from originally vertical. All good feedback from Jason and understanding by designer and fabricator. Jason is hands on (CV grease and all) and relates quickly to issues and what he is feeling in the car. The car has come from rebuild/re-working most every part after every race to multiple races and test sessions.. Expect it. (Dan Trout) Amazing the main chassis has had minimal, if any, changes. Just repairs from Dents and Dings.
Chassis #2 and current, 6 years ago. And 6 weeks later. 24/7
Isdtbower
In for Tech
I asked Tim and Dallas to use Jason's first IFS design and make it work for my dream of all aluminum. It was a CHORE, as aluminum just doesn't have the same properties and you just can't laser cut and weld stuff together like Dallas had experience with. With experience from the first car, we knew things would work well...AND i could probably make it. I sure wanted J#2 but the billet block sizes and machining challenges were just too much. Also not racing...and just for fun. Most of us don't want to ever hit stuff like the J#2+ hits on a regular basis. I mention that as a Ultra4 IFS should be able to hit a basketball size rock at 40-50 mph and consider it a nuisance....for the garage crew. .
Sterlingfire
ignant
:rolleyes:Quads had them first, where do you think the idea came from?
Tech Tim
Your AD Here....
Isdtbower
In for Tech
Not sure how you can get the bottom outside omniball/spherical bearing so close to the rotor, and still have a strong upright. Maybe planning on the unitbearing housing to take some of the stress? Neat if that works.
Wilson
Newb
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
- Member Number
- 3068
- Messages
- 680
may be time for a ghost account
thats how UFO does it as well as others, curious to see how it finishes out.
AgitatedPancake
Frobot
Alright I skimmed the thread but didn't see it, there's one CV dimension that I'm not sure has come up.
For 930, 934, and Series 30 joints, what is the distance from the mounting face to the pivot center? Then on the plunge versions that measurement will be a range based on amount of available plunge. I assume this stuff is pretty standardized per joint size, but maybe not. If it was discussed here just point me in the right direction!
For 930, 934, and Series 30 joints, what is the distance from the mounting face to the pivot center? Then on the plunge versions that measurement will be a range based on amount of available plunge. I assume this stuff is pretty standardized per joint size, but maybe not. If it was discussed here just point me in the right direction!
Isdtbower
In for Tech
Shows the rotation is on center. Some CV's have caps. And some CV's are different. I know the guts of a GKN do not fit in a Series 30 RCV. But then I was trying that when RCV was solving a particular want..... (Never throw anything out...Catalogs or paper files)
Provience
Kill!
doing axle shafts on my wifes escape, the outer joint is a typical birfield/cv bell joint but the inner uses 3 wheels and a not round housing. housing is about 3" long and allows the 3 wheels to spin and transfer rotation, but also allows the whole system to plunge without causing damage. i'll see if I can take a picture tonight.
it would obviously take some doing to make a larger and significantly stronger version, but that is certainly a workable solution
edit: obviously I don't mess much with CV shafts so if it is common or not, beats me.
it would obviously take some doing to make a larger and significantly stronger version, but that is certainly a workable solution
edit: obviously I don't mess much with CV shafts so if it is common or not, beats me.
I think you're referring to a tripod-style CV joint, which is very common on the inboard of IFS vehicles. It's what we've been referring to on the Chevy IFS shafts as well.
On RCV Chevy shafts they replace the tripod joint with a plunging 934. I don't know if they do this because there is some sort of inherent weakness in the tripod design or because they might not have their own tripod-style design.