Local Legend Don't Call It An S10

[Cleandezert]

the knowledge base on all this is awesome. So much learning to be had for all of us. stuff you will not learn anywhere else. BLGT for the win.

 

[the bodj]

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

Not necessarily inline with the beam pivot, but through the axis made by the imaginary line going through the beam pivot and radius arm pivot.

In this picture you can see the blue lines. Imagine placing a hinge along there, and the corresponding steering arm pivots around it

This is how it looks from the front


But really the arc is like this (passenger side from the top)









Also, for reference, the forward swinger is ~3.125" forward from where the oem tie rod attaches to the pitman arm.

the knowledge base on all this is awesome. So much learning to be had for all of us. stuff you will not learn anywhere else. BLGT for the win.

It totally is! It may seem like I'm pushing back against all of the suggestions, but I'm just trying to figure it all out and understand what's happening

 

[Tree trunk]

Really interesting seeing it scanned in like that, also how all this geometry comes together

Are you going to try and quicken up the steering?

 

[the bodj]

Really interesting seeing it scanned in like that, also how all this geometry comes together

Are you going to try and quicken up the steering?

Yeah there are a lot of things at play with beams that makes it really challenging lol. That's why I'm not trying to get perfection, just stronger and a bit better than before.

No I don't think so. I like the way it is right now. There is definitely play in the steering, which I believe is from the old box, but aside from that I don't see a need to quicken it.

 

[the bodj]

The wireframe is kicking my butt. I got all the points located in a 3D sketch, but due to they way I constrained lines to specific points, it is all locked together and I can't figure out how to get it to cycle without losing those constraints.

Anyways, here's the front view of the arcs made by the steering arm and passenger tie rod as seen from the front. The points are the extents of wheel travel (8" up and 8" down)


When seen from the corner you can see the actual difference between the two. I haven't found anything with moving the pivots in or out to affect this, only moving the inner tie rod end closer to the rear of the vehicle. The only way to get them to actually lie on top of each other is to bring the tie rod end somewhere under the transmission hah.



I'm not sure if that difference is what I need to be focusing on? I think the next thing to look at would be making a sphere with the pivot at the inner tie rod. I think the difference between the bottom point (in the above picture) and the sphere is going to be the actual bumpsteer.

 

[the bodj]

Doing this for my reference and for anyone it may help. Ignore all the Bert posts.

Doing the sphere method, there is .096" discrepancy at bump and .267" at droop for the passenger wheel. Driver bump is .019" and droop is 0.366"




Driver's side

 

[the bodj]

Alright, playing around with swapping which TR is in front. I'm liking this setup. Each TR will have ~7* bend. The front will be to clear the swinger, the rear will be to clear the crossmember, which will be trimmed flush and plated. The difficult part with this will be making the swingers symmetric. The rear swinger needs to mount outside the frame rails because of the steering box. But that will really angle the swinger pivot and tie rod pivot holes like this /
To make the forward swinger match, it'll have to pivot really far off the frame. Not to mention it'll wreak havoc on my ackerman. I can get creative with the rear swinger shape and mounting plates to tuck it under the steering box, giving me a max length of about 5.75" bolt hole to bolt hole. I was hoping for longer swingers to reduce height change as it is rotating, but I might be stuck here. It's only 1.43" height change, so I'm hoping it's not much of an issue

 

[84Prerunner]

Another TIP for you
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDU5Wzzhtz7/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

 

[the bodj]

Another TIP for you
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDU5Wzzhtz7/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

I already told you I don’t want my swingers danglin’ too low!

 

[troysladeck]

Since you’re messing with TTB steering right now I got a question for you… Does flipping the tie rod onto the top side of the knuckle change the geometry at all? I’m thinking about doing that on mine to get the drag link more parallel with the beam on ambulance style steering

 

[the bodj]

Since you’re messing with TTB steering right now I got a question for you… Does flipping the tie rod onto the top side of the knuckle change the geometry at all? I’m thinking about doing that on mine to get the drag link more parallel with the beam on ambulance style steering

I’ll take a look at it when I’m back at the laptop next week. Doing that should help bumpsteer a little at droop since the pitman arm is higher than the steering arm. You’d have to drill out the steering arm and run uniballs, though, because the taper on the balljoints will only fit from the bottom.

 

[troysladeck]

I’ll take a look at it when I’m back at the laptop next week. Doing that should help bumpsteer a little at droop since the pitman arm is higher than the steering arm. You’d have to drill out the steering arm and run uniballs, though, because the taper on the balljoints will only fit from the bottom.

I know explorer dudes do it when they do the d44 knuckle swap, just need to ream it out from the top and buy tapered inserts. Just wasn’t sure if it actually helps reduce bump steer

 

[the bodj]

I know explorer dudes do it when they do the d44 knuckle swap, just need to ream it out from the top and buy tapered inserts. Just wasn’t sure if it actually helps reduce bump steer

Interesting. I’m kinda an explorer dude with the d44 swap lol

 

[96f-u250]

I thought you were more of an s10 dude . lol

 

[DialedShockPrep]

Out of shear curiosity and for simplicity sake, why not just purchase something like the Ohcho Fab TTB dual swingers setup with crossmember? Maybe i am confused but i dont see why you shouldn’t be able to utilize a F150/Bronco Dana 44 steering kit since that is essentially what you have up front?

I definitely like that you have the tie rods oriented correctly now. You always want the first tie rod to be for the first beam, and second tie rod for the second beam. This helps reduce Ackerman.
Geometry wise you want the tie rod pivot to beam pivot fore/aft distance to be the same distance apart side to side. Thats doesn’t always work out but it helps to keep them as close as possible side to side, otherwise it’s the equivalent of mounting a steering rack in an a arm truck at an angle on the chassis.
Looks good though man, it’s fun to DIY and see what you come up with!

 

[mounty71]

Out of shear curiosity and for simplicity sake, why not just purchase something like the Ohcho Fab TTB dual swingers setup with crossmember? Maybe i am confused but i dont see why you shouldn’t be able to utilize a F150/Bronco Dana 44 steering kit since that is essentially what you have up front?

He has D35 beams not D44.

Don't think you mentioned it and can't tell with the pictures, but with the latest design iteration are you still using two swingers? It looks to me like you could get away with only a swinger for the driver's tie rod, and build a pitman arm to act as the swinger for the passenger tie rod and drag link (not exactly inline with the passenger beam's pivot axis but it's pretty close).