Local Legend Don't Call It An S10

Are you saying the swinger mounted on the driver side or the swinging serving the driver side beam? I thought the two beam pivots should line up with the tie rod pivot which would mean the swinger mounted on the passenger frame rail should move outboard. These things make my head hurt though.
 
I am referring too the steering swinger that's mounted on the driver side frame rail. You know the one that steers the short beam that pivots like a foot on the inside of the frame.
 
the_fablab_ said:
Your driver side swinger is in a completely different area code from where it should be FYI, but I like that you can do 3D scans now. I'll have to keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

The driver side swinger (controlling the passenger tie rod) is actually in the correct spot, based on the axis going through the radius arm and beam pivots. The passenger side swinger (controlling the driver tie rod) is actually not in the best spot, but it's where I had to put it to have straight tie rods. From what I'm seeing, there isn't much bump steer with how I have it - worlds better than oem.

Slightly outdated picture, since I moved both swingers rearward a bit, but you get the idea.
1772733489542.webp

Anywhere along the blue lines is where it should be
 
What you have drawn for the long beam should get you close enough you can start cutting stuff out to cycle, but I think you are forgetting about the steering knuckle on your short beam side.

Also if you can with your packaging, try modeling it where the short beam swinger right up against the engine crossmember and have the long beam the one further away, that should give you room between them for the center link and pitman arm to passenger side swinger. That should get your tie rods a lot closer to the beams/engine crossmember giving you a better approach angle.
 
the_fablab_ said:
What you have drawn for the long beam should get you close enough you can start cutting stuff out to cycle, but I think you are forgetting about the steering knuckle on your short beam side.

Also if you can with your packaging, try modeling it where the short beam swinger right up against the engine crossmember and have the long beam the one further away, that should give you room between them for the center link and pitman arm to passenger side swinger. That should get your tie rods a lot closer to the beams/engine crossmember giving you a better approach angle.
Click to expand...

Tried that already. I'd need bends in the tie rods to clear things. This first picture is my current setup, showing the driver frame side swinger wants to be exactly in the path the driver tie rod needs to be.

Drawing-4.sketchpad(1).webp


Here's one iteration I was messing around with the swingers switched. If the steering arms on the knuckles were longer it would solve a lot of my problems. Either that or adding a small amount of bend (10-12*) to the tie rods.

1772736159609.webp
 
Last edited:
I think you are still missing my first point which was your passenger tie rod/ driver side mounted swinger is in the wrong spot because you aren't accounting for the knuckle/steering arm/ackerman like you did for the other side.

The driver side tie rod will end up being under the frame roughly as far forward as you have it mounted.

I would also consider moving your upper shock mount up wither with a shorter eyelet on the shock or a welded uniball cup so you don't need the bends.
 
the_fablab_ said:
I think you are still missing my first point which was your passenger tie rod/ driver side mounted swinger is in the wrong spot because you aren't accounting for the knuckle/steering arm/ackerman like you did for the other side.

The driver side tie rod will end up being under the frame roughly as far forward as you have it mounted.

I would also consider moving your upper shock mount up wither with a shorter eyelet on the shock or a welded uniball cup so you don't need the bends.
Click to expand...

I'm not following what you're laying down. I'll see if I can swing by after work today so we can talk through it. I'll bring my laptop.

The bends aren't there to clear the shock mounts. Those should clear no problem as the tie rods are lower than them. The bends are needed to A. clear the beam crossmember, and B. clear the swingers.
 
Look at your X axis you have on your drawing, see how the long beam tie rod end is short of the x and your short beam tie rod is dead on the money, that would only work if you didn't have steering arms to take into consideration
 
the_fablab_ said:
Look at your X axis you have on your drawing, see how the long beam tie rod end is short of the x and your short beam tie rod is dead on the money, that would only work if you didn't have steering arms to take into consideration
Click to expand...

What about the steering arms is causing the issue? I see what you are saying about the locations, but I don't know what issue the steering arms are causing? The arcs made by the tie rod and steering arm are very close, which I'm aware I'm only looking at it cycling with the wheels staying straight.
 
Only thing I can really add is having the one tie rod so much further forward than the other causes odd behavior when steering. Ackerman gets more and more wonky the further it steers because of the angle between the tierod and steering arm.

Bent tie rods with better geometry is better than straight tie rods
 
Last edited:
What a fun challenge! Have you built a wireframe geometry model of your geometry? That way you can cycle through travel to eliminate bump steer and determine ackermann correctly. Solid models are great for verifying clearances but without solid geometry your just making guesses.
 
Motiracer38 said:
What a fun challenge! Have you built a wireframe geometry model of your geometry? That way you can cycle through travel to eliminate bump steer and determine ackermann correctly. Solid models are great for verifying clearances but without solid geometry your just making guesses.
Click to expand...

It is really a really cool learning experience, and definitely pushing my modeling skills lol.

I haven't yet done a wire frame. I need to figure out how to transfer all of my points into a fresh document without bringing everything else over. Thoughts?
 
84Prerunner said:
Only thing I can really add is having the one tie rod so much further forward than the other causes odd behavior when steering. Ackerman gets more and more wonky the further it steers because of the angle between the tierod and steering arm.

Bent tie rods with better geometry is better than straight tie rods
Click to expand...

I have thought about that too. I'll keep messing with it and see what I come up with.

Also, I think it's worth noting that I did chop the frame shorter, so it might be looking farther forward than it actually is.
1772813070414.webp
1772813107815.webp
 
We don’t need to get too far into the weeds on this one…. But from what little I know, isn’t the key to have each beam pivots in line with the swingers to achieve minimal bump steer?
Like how the swing steer set ups on the Dana 50 ttbs are a little wild? I just mean the swingers are super close together.

I’m interested to see what you come up with 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kwoodbury488
2nd gen explorer build
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
3K
Kwoodbury488
Kwoodbury488
blueherron96
Whipple Charged Gen Juan Raptor Build
2
Replies
22
Views
478
blueherron96
blueherron96
386.jace
95 ford ranger “the hoopty”
Replies
13
Views
914
Isaac.Helton
Isaac.Helton
Abaker1411
Carli the ranger
Replies
5
Views
415
LoganB
L
B
2002 Chevy Silverado Prerunner
Replies
9
Views
192
Blake2790
B
Back
Top