Moon Patrol Buggy Build

[YeeP]

Ok thanks. When you measured it, did you just use scales and measure it flat then at an angle?

 

['84 Bronco II]

Exactly.

 

[chaplinfj60]

good morning,

how goes the build?

 

[ScottRS]

disagree here about the heat. With a show of hands; who has a black painted roll cage? Yup, thats what I thought. I don't know one person that I wheel with on a consistent basis that doesn't have a black cage. My CJ had an aluminum "bikini" to keep the shade on me, which I plan to do something similar here.

let's play this out for my own edification. Are you maybe suggesting like a flat black? Or should I be looking at lighter colors in general? Have you found that if you are wheeling with someone that has say a white cage, and you grab it mid day, can you physically feel that the temperature is not as high as a black one?

I don't know why it split into two quotes, or maybe it'll fix it, but whatever.

My current chassis is black.
My previous chassis was silver.
Both are hammered Rust-Oleum rattlecan product.
The black with the green skin looks better.
I wish I'd gone silver because of how hot the black gets in the sun.

 

[YeeP]

I don't know why it split into two quotes, or maybe it'll fix it, but whatever.

My current chassis is black.
My previous chassis was silver.
Both are hammered Rust-Oleum rattlecan product.
The black with the green skin looks better.
I wish I'd gone silver because of how hot the black gets in the sun.

Good stuff. I guess I'll open my mind to other colors on the chassis just in case.

 

[YeeP]

OK, so after speaking with Bebop, I thought that it was a good idea to design the oil pan skid, since it would directly affect where the lower control arms could go. I spent a good amount of time coming up with a plan. My original thought was to have it completely flat from the from of the transmission to the front of the oil pan. However, the lowest point in my drivetrain is actually the trans adapter just below the starter. The oil pan bottom is a good 2 inches higher than that, as well as the front of the pain slopes upward. I decided to have the skid slope upward toward the front as soon as I cleared the adapter. Here is a drawing from Bendtech that at least gives me an idea of what it will look like. While this is not true CAD, I did take a ton of measurements and create some other "tubes" to play the part of the oil pan and starter, as well as pinion yoke and driveshaft.


Knowing the amount of space this would take up on the suspension crossmember, I moved the lower chassis side mounts outward a little to make space. Based on my conversations here, I decided to try and find the just move the lower axle side outward as much as possible to clear the tires. Then it came to the uppers. I followed more recommendations I got here as well. I attempted to move the upper chassis side upward and outward, to lengthen them and planned to move the axle side upward and inward. I made some seriously huge mock tabs just so I could have some flexibility in prototyping.

---

Prototype 1

Here is my first attempt:

I tacked a bolt to the chassis thinking that if this works I could sleeve it and build something outside.

The "tire" hits pretty hard.

---

Prototype 2

So I have been trying to avoid moving the uppers upward on the chassis tube that I added because if they go up, they get shorter. I remember being told that I just have to deal with my shit on how this chassis was made, and I sure as hell am not redesigning it again. So. I bit the bullet, and moved the tab upward on the chassis. (I will include pics of from the 4-link calc in the next post).

All following pics of this prototype are with the driver side fully compressed.

So in moving the uppers inward on the chassis side, the tire clears them no problem.

lower clears the tire, but a little tight. If I go with this, I will move it inward at the axle side about a half inch. As you can see, I still need to narrow the bolts a little and this was as close as I could get.

This angle does make the uppers look like they go down at a very steep angle, I think this is just because the suspension is cycled upward.

Plenty of driveshaft room here:

Another view for driveshaft clearance:

So my next post I want to show what the calculator looks like here. I have a couple of concerns but I feel like as far as "doing what the chassis will allow" this is close to where I can run it. I still can make some changes, but as far as maximum triangulation coupled with clearance, this is pretty much as far as I can go. I wanted to have some numbers that would show me that this is as far as I can go in this direction.

More to come...

 

[YeeP]

---

This section is actual values of where the front control arms are right now.

OK, here is what the numbers look like at this position.

Concerns: uppers are a lot shorter than what I wanted when compared to the lowers.

Not super thrilled with the slope of the Oversteer graph. Also the ride height value is lower than I wanted.

Pinion is fine, the roll center did raise a bit. I know Bebop will chime in here to say CG is just a guess, but with my best guess of CG height, this roll center high may be higher than I wanted... Not sure what others will think.



So overall, I am happy that I found a position where I know steering will clear, and I have used positions available to me. One big concern of mine although I think that I am just going to have to deal with it; these tall uppers on the axle side are going to force me to mount the radiator in front of them (assuming they will end their height at the rod ends, not the monstrosity that is my mock tabs). With the rad in front of them, that means the chassis will also have to extend more out in front. Not really a game changer, just noting what I noticed when looking at it.

---

This section is hypothetical, I am just making changes to see if they will help at all.

Here are my efforts to "improve" and their results. I have been talking about wishing the control arms were longer. Although I don't really comprehend how defining the "side view" as the definition of a longer arm, why not just try with the calculator to see if it would help.
Also, the lower chassis crossmember is actually in a location that would make removing the transmission pan a challenge. So I wanted to see if I could at least bring the control arms close in length by lengthening the wheelbase by 3 inches, but shortening the lowers (as far as a 2D side view is concerned) by two inches by moving the crossmember forward that much.

Here are what those changes look like. (Only values changed are wheelbase, and upper and lower X values)

The 2D length of them is at least somewhat closer.

Slight decrease in understeer, slope flattened out a little

Roll center came down a little.

---

So, at this point I'm just looking for suggestions. Maybe something I didn't think of? Any ideas on how I can improve but not have to make major changes to the chassis. I really need to hold myself to not doing that, I want to make some progress.


Thanks guys!

 

[SMI17]

I'd say you can move axle mounts out a little. To be honest tires rubbing a little on the links is ok, unless you think you might run a taller or wider tire.

Don't get toooo hung up on perfect. Get close and wheel the thing

 

[Bebop]

Facts.

My tires rub the lower links a little. NBD.

Also, looks like you can lower the upper links a little if you are worried about that. I'd start building the driveshafts right now to keep moving on this topic.


Numbers don't mean shit, you know the deal.

 

[YeeP]

Facts.

My tires rub the lower links a little. NBD.

Also, looks like you can lower the upper links a little if you are worried about that. I'd start building the driveshafts right now to keep moving on this topic.


Numbers don't mean shit, you know the deal.

Why build driveshaft? Just to make sure it clears? I could build the pillow block at least for measurement.

 

[Bebop]

I meant building the whole front driveshaft system.

Pillow block, mid shaft and front driveshaft.

 

[YeeP]

I meant building the whole front driveshaft system.

Pillow block, mid shaft and front driveshaft.

Yeah understood that part of it. I'm just curious why? I'm guessing it's to check for control arm clearance. The mid shaft has room for days behind the pillow block. Just trying to determine if I have to build the whole thing right away or not.

 

[Sterlingfire]

Yeah understood that part of it. I'm just curious why? I'm guessing it's to check for control arm clearance. The mid shaft has room for days behind the pillow block. Just trying to determine if I have to build the whole thing right away or not.

I think he's saying to get some forward progress, and have an actual part of the project finished.

 

[YeeP]

Ok, so I need to make a decision here then if I am going to assemble the front driveshaft. My local driveshaft guy who I trust has let me borrow a carrier bearing that he likes to run. To me, this seems like something made for a car. While not necessarily a bad thing (bearing mounted in a bushing probably eats some of the vibration), my main concern is probably strength and longevity in my use case. When I asked him about strength he responded with telling me that he has them in drag cars with 2000+ HP. While that is a ton of power, it's not the same kind of abuse that I will give it.

So after some image searching online I found the model he let me borrow for mock up. This is it:

CHEVY IMPALA, PICKUP TRUCK POLYURETHANE HD DRIVESHAFT CARRIER BEARING - 1.375" - SKU# 3180-46 - Fort Wayne Clutch & Driveline

SKU# 3180-46. 1958 - 1972 era CHEVY IMPALA, PICKUP TRUCK REAR DRIVESHAFT POLYURETHANE CENTER SUPPORT HANGER BEARING. 1.375" ID. PTI# 3180-46

fortwayneclutch.com

I'm guessing because we have done business so much the end result will actually cost me less than building it myself if i go with this route. Either way I can run 1410s with this as requested by me. The local builder recommended 2" OD, .250 wall which I thought was a little heavy considering it will be protected by the control arm.


My other thought was to do with this kit:

1410 Series Ultimate Billet Carrier Bearing kit

This is the ONLY BILLET driveshaft carrier bearing on the market! ** The kit includes the billet carrier, 1410 weld yoke, 1410 end yoke and 18" of 3" x .095 wall driveshaft tubing. No welding required on the bearing so no risk of heat distortion like others currently available. Contains 2...

bustedknuckleoffroad.com

Any comparison thoughts? BKOR is having a sale right now for 50 bucks off.

 

[Bebop]

Mid shaft can be thinner wall, it won't shouldn't take any hits from rocks.

Front/rear shafts need to be .250 wall, for sure.

BKOR builds good stuff, go ahead with it, you won't be disappointed.

It also lets you do it yourself, you don't need a driveshaft guy to build them for you.

 

[Mattygwheeler]

Ok, so I need to make a decision here then if I am going to assemble the front driveshaft. My local driveshaft guy who I trust has let me borrow a carrier bearing that he likes to run. To me, this seems like something made for a car. While not necessarily a bad thing (bearing mounted in a bushing probably eats some of the vibration), my main concern is probably strength and longevity in my use case. When I asked him about strength he responded with telling me that he has them in drag cars with 2000+ HP. While that is a ton of power, it's not the same kind of abuse that I will give it.

So after some image searching online I found the model he let me borrow for mock up. This is it:

CHEVY IMPALA, PICKUP TRUCK POLYURETHANE HD DRIVESHAFT CARRIER BEARING - 1.375" - SKU# 3180-46 - Fort Wayne Clutch & Driveline

SKU# 3180-46. 1958 - 1972 era CHEVY IMPALA, PICKUP TRUCK REAR DRIVESHAFT POLYURETHANE CENTER SUPPORT HANGER BEARING. 1.375" ID. PTI# 3180-46

fortwayneclutch.com

I'm guessing because we have done business so much the end result will actually cost me less than building it myself if i go with this route. Either way I can run 1410s with this as requested by me. The local builder recommended 2" OD, .250 wall which I thought was a little heavy considering it will be protected by the control arm.


My other thought was to do with this kit:

1410 Series Ultimate Billet Carrier Bearing kit

This is the ONLY BILLET driveshaft carrier bearing on the market! ** The kit includes the billet carrier, 1410 weld yoke, 1410 end yoke and 18" of 3" x .095 wall driveshaft tubing. No welding required on the bearing so no risk of heat distortion like others currently available. Contains 2...

bustedknuckleoffroad.com

Any comparison thoughts? BKOR is having a sale right now for 50 bucks off.

If cost was not a concern i would run the busted knuckle or TMR carrier bearing

 

[YeeP]

Mid shaft can be thinner wall, it won't shouldn't take any hits from rocks.

Front/rear shafts need to be .250 wall, for sure.

BKOR builds good stuff, go ahead with it, you won't be disappointed.

It also lets you do it yourself, you don't need a driveshaft guy to build them for you.

If cost was not a concern i would run the busted knuckle or TMR carrier bearing

Cool, appreciate the input guys.

 

[Sterlingfire]

If cost was not a concern i would run the busted knuckle or TMR carrier bearing

Any reason to not use the wfo carrier bearing setup?

 

[YeeP]

Any reason to not use the wfo carrier bearing setup?

For me: yes. I like the idea of the billet housing that I don't have to weld on and possibly distort before pressing bearings in. I also like the sealed Torrington style bearings vs tapered (pre-load settings), unsealed.

Im sure at the end of the day they would both work fine. This one (BKOR) seems like a good way to go.

FYI - I talked with my local dude about buying most of the driveshaft parts from him, told him they have a 10 spline and he kinda balked. He said the cost difference from a driveshaft parts provider between the 10 spline 1.5" shaft and the 29 spline is like 15 bucks. So, Im working on getting just the carrier bearing from BKOR (and bushings), and will run the 29 spline from my boi out here.

 

[Bebop]

Why reinvent the wheel ?

Get the BKOR parts that are meant to go together.

 

[Sterlingfire]

For me: yes. I like the idea of the billet housing that I don't have to weld on and possibly distort before pressing bearings in. I also like the sealed Torrington style bearings vs tapered (pre-load settings), unsealed.

Im sure at the end of the day they would both work fine. This one (BKOR) seems like a good way to go.

FYI - I talked with my local dude about buying most of the driveshaft parts from him, told him they have a 10 spline and he kinda balked. He said the cost difference from a driveshaft parts provider between the 10 spline 1.5" shaft and the 29 spline is like 15 bucks. So, Im working on getting just the carrier bearing from BKOR (and bushings), and will run the 29 spline from my boi out here.

derp,i meant wod
Makes sense though
At least the welding part, the wod uses sealed bearings as well. I went with the wod 1410 setup. I like the way it mounts, but i doubt that will make an actual difference. I'll have to make sure it doesn't warp when i weld it though...

 

[YeeP]

Why reinvent the wheel ?

Get the BKOR parts that are meant to go together.

Hmm. Well 1.5" diameter shaft seems pretty universal. If I collect all parts needed except the carrier bearing, from a local shop I have a place I can go to for replacements. Beyond that it's just a decision on which shaft to run. I feel you on what your saying but I hardly think this is a large diversion.

When I get all the parts here in hand I'll verify the fit. At that time feel free to give me an "I told you so".

EDIT: Bebop I'll call BKOR and ask them why they don't run a 29 spline shaft there and see if there is something I am not considering (maybe shaft length) that would bite me in the ass later.

 

[YeeP]

Bebop The 10 spline shaft was used because that is what they had in stock as far as previously purchased parts for assembly. They said the 29 spline will work fine (although they have not had anyone break the 10 spline yet). Also, I can get the 29 spline less than they are selling the 10 spline for so I think Im good. Guess we will see.

 

[chaplinfj60]

as mentioned before i think you could lower the upper link mount on the axle one hole or two. it may help with some interference, it may not. instead of 11 maybe 9 inches. my 2 cents but more separation in theory makes it climb better. so who knows. keep up the good work . looking cool

 

[YeeP]

as mentioned before i think you could lower the upper link mount on the axle one hole or two. it may help with some interference, it may not. instead of 11 maybe 9 inches. my 2 cents but more separation in theory makes it climb better. so who knows. keep up the good work . looking cool

Thanks man. I am going to try that as I cycle through ideas. I ordered what I need for the front driveshaft so I'm waiting on that. In the mean time, I think I decided to make a couple of changes. After building several prototypes on the front last weekend, I came to recognize that I had valued getting the longest lowers possible over getting easy access to the transmission (I don't think I can drop the pan because of the front cross-member). In an effort to remedy this, I made a "modification" to the engine so I could move it rearward almost 3/4". This nearly took care of the access issue, but I still need another 1/2" or so. I am pretty happy with the setup except I really dislike how the uppers are not nearly close enough to the length of the lowers. So, I took a look at how far forward I could slide the cross-member on the chassis. It looks like I can move it almost 1.5" before it will start to increase in height measured from the table (I need it to be in line with the bottom of the chassis so that cannot happen).

So, I am going to make some changes to both make the buggy easier to work on, and increase the length of the upper arms. Bebop told me something that has stuck with me on this. Build it to what the chassis was designed for (I'm paraphrasing). Even though I want to be at 112", maybe adding a couple inches to my wheelbase to increase the length of the uppers won't be a bad thing.

Side note: The way that I have the chassis on the table, I tried to center the drivetrain in the middle because of weight. This caused the chassis to be closer to the edge at the back than the front. This means the front axle is just barely over the edge of the table on the extended runners I made. I currently have been doing all of my clearance checking by lifting one side (driver) up to a predefined height and turning the tire. As we all know, the other side of the axle going down can have an affect on the angle the tire approaches the chassis. The only way I could get "close" to mocking a "near full flex" (one side full stuffed, one side fully extended) would be to cut the tack welds on one side and remove the Inner C. The tube itself would hit the table. If the axle were just a couple inches farther forward, it would clear the table on its' downward path. Of course the problem could also be solved in two other ways both of which I'm not super excited about. One would be to make new stands for the height the chassis is mounted to the table on (hey I did make them so I could do that in the future). The other would be to move the chassis "forward" on the table and resposition everything.

Here is how I see it:

Advantages:

1. Longer uppers
2. Easier Transmission access if needed
3. Ability to fully flex for testing.

Disadvantages:

1. More work
2. Possibly too long of wheelbase

Anyway, thats where I am at right now. My son just started wrestling season, and that means some long hours sitting in a gym somewhere. Unfortunately that will affect my progress but I think he is worth it.

Oh! Another couple of things happened.

1. I believe my asymmetric headers I got from Marked Motorsports are going to be a problem. The one side that sticks out farther than the other (which could be either side as the heads are symmetric) is going to be in the danger zone for the suspension. I called them and he said they are not selling headers anymore?? Luckily, I have been chatting with these Honda dudes at a place called Power Rev Racing in FL. They are willing to sell me a set that basically has two "front headers" (is it just me or do you think that just because an engine is mounted transversely doesn't change the definition of front, back, left and right?).
2. Picked up a pair of Branik 1550s on their cyber monday sale. So I now I have two pair of them.... sitting in the attic in my garage.

 

[Treefrog]

Having matching lengths between upper and lowers in 2d or 3d is not important. There are some rules of thumb that used to be recommended to guys who didn't want to use the design tools that are out there, but they are only suggested starting points at best.

 

[YeeP]

Having matching lengths between upper and lowers in 2d or 3d is not important. There are some rules of thumb that used to be recommended to guys who didn't want to use the design tools that are out there, but they are only suggested starting points at best.

Yeah Im not really trying to match them just to have like a quick reference or something like that. Its more to deal with the increased slope of roll slope graph. I believe that having the upper vs lower rotating at such different radiuses would cause quicker changes which I believe that graph is highlighting. Also having the chassis point of the upper that much farther forward than the lower probably has a negative affect (which I cannot overcome). At least that is my understanding.

 

[YeeP]

OK, so... made some adjustments that fall inline with what I was talking about above. I move the front axle forward two inches, and moved the lower crossmember forward approximately 1.75". I then had to modify (massacre) my engine stand to allow for more downward travel on the suspension. Here is a pic of it flexed out.

With the added downward travel, just as I thought, I have a clearance issue...Although I don't think the tire could physically get into this position, it definitely indicates changes will be required.

Also while this angle makes the driveshaft look closer than it actually will be, I think Im going to move the lower downward about a half inch.

So... I guess my options are:

• Widen axle
• Lengthen wheelbase even more
• Limit up travel
• Limit steering angle
• EDIT: Change ride height
• 2nd EDIT: move the engine farther back (more tube work for sure)

Or some combination of several. The pictures Im showing were at the end of a full day session, so I didn't get any good measurements or ideas. I will be doing this again later this week to try and brain storm on. In the mean time though, I am interested in what other people have to say.


Thanks!

 

[Bebop]

limit uptravel and steering angle.

I like the progress though.

 

[YeeP]

limit uptravel and steering angle.

Surprised you are not saying to widen the axle. I thought for sure you would.