And that might be one reason mine worked. Whatever the ratio is on a mid 30s GM pickup box? Plus, I ran a 12"? steering wheel.
Math is math If someone did cowl steering “wrong” and it doesn’t bump steer then I guess there is some math that hasn’t been figured out yet
31 Vicky: The Rolling Bones have been using them, that's where I got my leads. Schroeder and Track Master I think have been a little diffulct to get?
Oh my, I’d have to find a marker, a straight edge, a knife and a big enough open flat spot to do all that and hunt up the cardboard.
Don't know why @Moriarity removed his posts here, but I will ask the same question he asked. Can anyone with cowl steering please post up a video of them bouncing on the front of their frame while showing the steering wheel?
Mark backed off because he has no dog in this hunt. I have no video of my old T but even with cross steer, the "jump on the crossmember" will get movement in the system. These are short travel cars 10-20 years removed from the horse and buggy. It is amazing how well the stuff has worked in various layouts for a hundred years
Every time this subject comes up again (and again, and again), we get the diagrams and geometric schematic videos posted up for all to see, and we are told that jumping up and down on the front will cause movement in the steering wheel. The geometry aspect is entirely correct, even though some persist with their head in the sand. I would love to see some "bouncing" videos posted up so we can all see it in reality. That way we could accurately assess the pros and cons of various setups........ but no-one ever seems willing to do the test and show the results. Cowl steering will work reasonably well if it is set up properly, but will be a real dog if done wrong.....
Because it is a non issue. Pwood made it his windmill to tilt, his Don Quixote if you will. Love the fact that this is the HAMB, the bastion of homebuilt hot rods yet when this topic comes up folks quote one one of the original mail order hot rod part companies like they are the Holy Grail, aka MAIL ORDER. Pete, Jake and Pete did tons for this hobby but their view is not the end all and be all.
There seem to be lots of builders/owners who say they have good results with setups that don't fall within the perceived "geometric sweet spot". Some are probably full of shit and in denial of the fact they have stuffed up........... but surely not all. A lot also comes down to the expectations one has as to how well a hot rod should ride and handle. While we shouldn't be looking for a "drives like a new car" experience, they definately don't need to be woeful, and should never be dangerous. I would still like to see some "real world" videos of the bounce test. I think it would tell us a lot about what actually is happening, and that would be both helpful and enlightening. Let's see if we get any............ When I get some free time I want to draw lots of arcs on some paper and see if I can make more sense of it.
But you'll find that those oval track setups, those which use split wishbones, have the wishbones tucked up really close to the bottom of the pitman arm. The problem arises on a hot rod, where the bones are a foot lower. That is indeed the thing. Minimal suspension travel means minimal bump steer. But that isn't to say that minimal travel is a good thing. Any attempt at improvement is likely to be about making softer wheel rates and longer travel possible. Colin Chapman was right about that. Exactly. But people imagine that there is somehow a hinge at the heel of the blue L, when there clearly isn't. And people get hung up on the horizontal leg of the L, as if the whole assembly couldn't have been any other shape, including a duck.
I’m not sure when the first cowl steer set up was conceived and put onto a hot rod. But let’s just say 50 years, 1973 is that realistic? Maybe it’s longer, Over the last 50 years do you have any ideas on how many new cars have been built that came from OEM designers with unlimited R&D capacity? Just over the last 20 years it’s like 2.5 billion. Any idea of how many had really bad bump steer issues, brand new, right from the smartest suspension engineers they could find with unlimited resources. Me neither because there’s too many to even imagine how to start counting them. Some are absolutely horrible. some resulted in class action lawsuits, recalls, a huge market for aftermarket compromise bump steer fix kits. These bump steer issues were thought to be tolerable. The main thing is the buggy spring doesn’t have much travel at all. That’s the only reason it’s tolerant of parallelogram geometry. A true triangle geometry is much better. 6-8” of suspension travel is not realistic on a buggy spring, nor possible. Most setups are not going to see 2” at max compression when landing after a wheel UP adventure or catching air over railroad tracks. Some of The New cars can see 4-6 and have horrible bump steer running over a chipmunk. The new ford truck owners are hating their bump steer. The GM Gbody, the mustangs, some Subarus, Toyota, soooo many. Some dangerous, many woeful, and plenty of folks hate their “ new car” “ drives like new car experiences” Reaching absolute zero bump steer takes a bit of doing, getting zero bump in the middle range of travel is very doable but apparently not to terribly important to the OEM team.
Tilt! I vowed to myself that I was done posting/replying on the HAMB. But I feel I have to respond to this. Pete & Jakes was/is, waaaay more than a "mail order" company. Jake was driving his hot rods across the country in the 1960's. before there were "Street Rod Nationals". Pete drove the shit out of his cars too. I drove my '32 coupe over 125,000 miles in the 1970's So we were more than a mail order company. We actually road tested the components before they were put into production. They did a lot of hot rod building before they had mail order parts, and continued to build cars after. Their mail order parts were miles ahead of what was on the market . Their parts are still the most widely copied parts in the sport. The info on the opening pages of their catalog isn't "their view". That information is simple geometry. Jake spent a lot of time putting all that together, including doing the illustrations! Their goal was to help builders understand that geometry, whether they bought a part or not! While I'm on my soap box . . . the performance of cowl steering has been discussed plenty. How about the aesthetics? I'm done
Since the Slover's have been steering the ship for almost 40 years I think we need to give them credit where credit is due Great folks.
Welp. I learned a bunch from the P&J catalog We used a good bit of parts from em. One of the few vendors that the parts worked as expected. Like a hardware store for builders.
me too Ironically, the only part I had break on my old T was a Pete & Jake urethane rod end. One of the "professional" welds vs. mine. The tig weld was pretty but it wasn't strong!
We had a build book for each chassis. The basis was from the P&J catalogue. Lots of hand written notes for changes or options other than Chevy engines.
Getting a little off course here but for the 40+ years I built chassis I swear almost everyday there was delivery from P&J's. Depended on them as they were overnight away. Plus they made me several parts to my specs. Never had a part fail. Their service was excellent and still is.
Oh shit man. That's like fridge voodoo from the other side of the world........ Trying not to laugh. I know how much that sort of shit ruins your day.
The Jalopy Journal
