Art & Inspiration Axle Ahead of Radiator

Nope, but you will tuck the outside tire with early Ford components, if the tie rod is out front.

Don't argue with automotive engineers.

 

Since we're on the subject. This roadster pickup belongs to a friend of mine. This was the trucks maiden voyage last Friday. I ask him if the front tires squealed when he made sharp turns ? His answer was yes.
Here is my question , does somebody make steering arms that will correct the Ackerman ? Bill

 

Well, being that it's a Friday and I am a contrarian, I don't really care for the look and it also seems a bit unsafe. But, JMTC and not my car.

 

I dont think you can get the tie rod outboard far enough to fix it, moving it out as far as possible would help a lot though

 

Aren’t there a zillion T-buckets out there with their tie rods in front of the axle? They don’t seem to have a problem correcting the Ackerman.

 

For that car & the brakes n wheels it's running, I'd think the steering arms from InstantT or TotalPerformance would be really close. Neither of those are made anymore, but parts can be found, or better yet, heat-n-bend yourself a set, which would allow you to get the tierod ends as close to the wheel & disc as possible w/o hitting. May not be perfect, but would be a hellof a lot better than it is now. .
Marcus...

 

They all have incorrect Ackerman, and are dragging a tire.

 

It cannot be done.

The tie rod pivots would need to be inside the envelope of the brakes.

It needs to be done over.

 

I see. I guess the only way would be to extend the frame / set back the radiator further so the tie rod stays behind the axle.

 

My experience says that they don't drive all that well but My reading from the alleged experts says that if you flip the trangle and It meets the exact same distance in front of the car as it would to the center of te rear axle. Then again Every Chevelle ever built had the tie rod in front of the axle, Just about every GM rear wheel drive rig had the tie rod in front of the axle after 70. That rather blows the BS of you can't have the Ackerman right with the tie rod in front of the axle. The reason it drives like **** when guys do it on hot rods probably had more to do with the other things they did with the front end setup.

 

That's what I had in mind with this post. Even my Photoshopped (actually GIMPed) Deuce above involved moving the axle forward about 8" so that the tie rod could clear the grille insert.

The difference is that the Chevelle and the other cars you refer to have IFS, which affords the opportunity to correct Ackermann by sweeping the tie rods back towards the centre link and steering gear. If you engineer the spindles with the steering arms as far outboard as is possible, it shouldn't take that much sweep. With early Ford parts you're dealing with a straight tie rod.

The IFS approach can be done on a solid axle, but it complicates the installation. It might involve idler arms pivoted on the underside of the wishbone — if you're using a wishbone — a short distance back from the axle, which pick up a three-piece tie rod. There should be clearance under the engine in that region. It might even enable potential advantages for bump steer, depending on the rest of the steering system. But it's something I can see people who have trouble wrapping their heads around Ackermann with a straight tie rod getting horribly wrong.

 

You just can't use Ford straight axles with a front tie rod and get the ackerman and scrub radius both right.

 

That's my point.

I suppose if you were foolish to remove the front brakes you could.

 

I owned this Bo Jones "T" for about a year, in order to be able to drive it I ditched the wires and added 50 Merc solids. It went from being undriveable (wheel hop and wobble) to a pretty good road car. I sold it and I think Bo bought it back.

 

Cool, I sold off all my wires at a profit about 20 years ago and never went back

 

One of mine

 

Well proportioned Tim

 

Its curious to me seeing all the talk about getting the Ackerman angle perfect .
During the 15+ year run ,I'm reasonably sure that all Chevy truck spindles from short wheelbase to crew cab length ( over 30" wheelbase difference) used the same spindles & therefore the same steering arms , seems that close enough was good enough ?!

 

Those vehicles have a 3 piece tie rod.
With a 3 piece tie rod, Ackerman can be corrected with how & where the tie rod is located.

 

Same " correction " for all three wheelbase lengths , not mentions over length ch***is like motorhomes , etc . Hmmm

 

No comparison.

Different technology.

I'm not an alleged expert.

 

Actually few vehicles run absolute 100% Ackermann. I'd expect OEMs to err on the side of <100% Ackermann, in line with favouring a bit of understeer for reasons of safety.

The point is not that Ackermann ought always to be 100%. The point is that Ackermann is something to be aware of and considered and appropriate to the sort of steering performance you're designing for.

I can't imagine anyone rationally designing for –100% Ackermann, which is roughly what turning early Ford spindles backwards will give.

 

My 48 Stude pickup had an off topic mid 70's Camaro clip. Because of the difference in Ackerman the tires would cup after 5000 miles. My buddy had a 46 Stude pickup which had a Nova clip did the same thing. He kept blaming his alignment guy and I kept telling him your alignment guy can't fix bad Ackerman. Bill

 

What were the wheel base differences ?

 

Sometimes close enough is exactly what the OEMs do. I have mentioned before my old OT parts hauler 2000 Ranger. From the factory it had a noticeable amount of bump steer and the steering wheel turned in an oval pattern (off centered) if you were paying attention.

 

Camaro 108" Stude M5 113"

 

My other one

 

And both together