Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lowest part around the kingpin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Front Axle / Front Suspension: Lowest part around the kingpin

    A year or two ago there was a interesting thread here about how to get better roadholding on original Studebaker front end & one way was to lower the upper A-arms inner point & one other was to ad a separate bit on the outer point of the lower A-arm.
    I liked the secong idea a wee bit better than the first, even if I found that one a good idea too.

    I tried finding the thread but I couldn't.

    Anyway, wouldn't it be possible to ad a piece to: Either the upper OR the lower A-arms outer points?
    In adding a piece I don't mean making something to fit between as in previous therads, but let's say...
    That you cut a top A-arm & weld pieces downwards under the outer holes for the kingpin with new holes in & either weld the old holes closed or just make the new pieces high enough to the top of the A-arm.
    & ofcourse with some extra material over the welds!

    here's my idea quickly drawn (just now), sorry for the bad focus on the fist one that's just the main idea, (& these electric cameras live their own lifes):
    Click image for larger version

Name:	026.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	31.8 KB
ID:	1756295
    Click image for larger version

Name:	027.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	38.8 KB
ID:	1756296
    I remember there was a few people here that was GOOD at this kind of thoughts...
    sigpic

    Josephine
    -55
    Champion V8
    4d sedan

  • #2
    Nox, You need a longer king pin. No matter how long you make that drop on the outer pivot, it will remain the same. You run a line through the pivot points and if the king pin remains the same length the instant center remains the same. That is why they drop the inner pivot.

    Comment


    • #3
      To lower the top A-arms outer point would raise up the A-arm & wouldn't that mean the same as lowering the inner point? = the arm would be in horisontal level.
      If I/you would instead raise the lower A-arms outer point it would mean the same but also(!) that the axel tap would be raised & the car to sit lower.
      sigpic

      Josephine
      -55
      Champion V8
      4d sedan

      Comment


      • #4
        Nox, If you raise the lower, outer pivot, you move the instant center higher is all. You still have an instant center that is outside of the car to the side that axle is on. What you want is an instant center on the opposite side, so when you come back across the car to the center of the tire patch from the axle you are measuring you get a moment center that is a + above the ground. With a Studebaker the moment center will always be -, unless you can make the king pin longer.

        Comment


        • #5
          Okidoki, NOW(!) I got it, slow as I am...

          Click image for larger version

Name:	001.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.8 KB
ID:	1717657
          But if you raise the outer end of the lower A-arm it would make the same result as if you put a piece between it & the kingpin, wouldn't it?
          Last edited by Noxnabaker; 12-27-2017, 04:57 AM.
          sigpic

          Josephine
          -55
          Champion V8
          4d sedan

          Comment


          • #6
            Is it likely to improve a design that certified, educated suspension engineers designed, using the same technology that they used, merely by moving a hole or two using the same components? Wouldn't the engineers of the day have tried that? What do the calculations say? I would think that front suspension design requires a lot of math before any parts are made.

            I'm not talking about a modern suspension, using high strength light materials combined by modern steering and tire technology. That could definitely improve on 67 year old technology.

            But merely moving mounting and pivot points with existing/old technology will generally make things worse. I am not a suspension engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but common sense says that this will not work.

            What do the calculations say?

            That's my opinion, of course.
            Last edited by RadioRoy; 12-27-2017, 10:55 AM.
            RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

            17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
            10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
            10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
            4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
            5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
            56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
            60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

            Comment


            • #7
              About raising the outer point / kingpin-fastening on the lower A-arm:
              What would the difference be compared to the extra piece that fits between the lower A-arms outer point & the lower part of the kingpin?
              Wouldn't it get the upper pivot higher & the top A-arm in level?

              When looking at the piece between the lower A-arm & the kingpin (part-number #1204 or 1264, it's rather hard to see); is it a part to put on top of that one that's been discussed before to exist?
              Or is it a taller part to replace that original piece?

              Click image for larger version

Name:	StudeKingPin.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	125.9 KB
ID:	1717665
              Last edited by Noxnabaker; 12-27-2017, 02:01 PM.
              sigpic

              Josephine
              -55
              Champion V8
              4d sedan

              Comment


              • #8
                Nox. You would have to make a part like 1204-64 that was 3 1/2" taller to get the upper a-arm level. But you don't want it level, you want it in the neighborhood of 10-15 degrees up. I have fought and fought trying to get it right. The way I came up with is in Alan's 53K project in the Racing forum.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nox -

                  While you do recall the modification, your modification will actually make the handling worse.
                  You need to actually "move" the pivot point down closer to the lower arm pivot. Which turns out to be both physically down AND away from the center of the car.

                  Or like Alan says, use/make up a longer King pin/spindle.

                  Mike

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok... so a taller 1204-64 wouldn't help? I mean as if it was an original-styled "upside-down" with the kingpin's hole higher?
                    A piece like that wouldn't be hard to make, but wasn't there a piece allready made somewhere for this?

                    (I'm having serious trouble getting into the Racing forum, mostly it don't work at all, that's why Jeff helps me posting there...)
                    sigpic

                    Josephine
                    -55
                    Champion V8
                    4d sedan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Nox -

                      Yes, overall a thicker 1204-64, ultimately would help, but you'd obviously need a taller 1203-2 to go with it to hold it all together.
                      No easy way out of this or someone would have done it.

                      Currently the easiest way of inducing negative turning camber is to cut into the frame and remount the upper control arm.
                      The next way is to build your own front suspension system.
                      Here's what I did -
                      https://public.fotki.com/-Mike-/60_lark/

                      Look at my front suspension pictures. I used all C4 Corvette parts. But I ALSO...used all of GM's attachment point locations. The control arms are not parallel in any direction that you look at them. Like most front clip "kits" you can buy...the control arms ARE parallel in both planes. Why, because it's a LOT easier to build.

                      And...the Racing site can't help here either, the conversation has gone on over there too.

                      Mike

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Studebaker developed changes to the front suspension geometry as discussed here. The spindle and kingpin were heavier duty and, most importantly, the lower kingpin support 1204-64 was changed to raise the whole assembly relative to the chassis, effectively lowering the front of the car. The upper inner control arm pivot was also lowered by cutting a channel into the cross member. The only car I have ever seen with the fully implemented setup is the #9 Bonneville Avanti. I believe these changes never made it into regular production.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	2012-07-16 .jpg
Views:	1
Size:	10.4 KB
ID:	1717685 Click image for larger version

Name:	Lowered upper inner.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.5 KB
ID:	1717686
                        Rich G

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanx Rich G, that's the stuff I wondered about!

                          I reckon it's not possible to just turn 1204-64 upside-down, but it wouldn't be that awfully difficult to make a few of those.
                          To cut on the top might be easy too, but to weld it all in the right possition on the other hand...

                          Now then: What's the bad(?) difference between raising it more, compared to lower the inner pivot of the top A-arm?
                          sigpic

                          Josephine
                          -55
                          Champion V8
                          4d sedan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bezhawk noted that 1204-64 is offset so if it is flipped, it should also be switched with the opposite side. If there are no bevel connection problems, then the car will be lower and have a lower roll center which should help cornering ... but not clearance. It would seem that if there is enough eccentricity to get alignment, then lowering the front end will also increase the lower control arm's downward angle so, as it swings up, negative camber should increase in cornering. The original engineering was meant for bias ply tires and bumpy roads so I don't know how original alignment specs would pertain to performance radials, modern gas shocks and increased roll bars ... and flipped 1204-64s !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Spring, Nox -

                              Sorry...geometry just doesn't work like that..! You aren't seeing the whole picture.
                              The upper and lower control arm must ""NOT"" be parallel. Altering that lower knuckle does nothing to enhance the handling.

                              You want to see it first hand...it's VERY SIMPLE... Build yourself a cardboard model, use push pins as the pivots...see for your self..! Cheap and easy to prove the action.
                              You need to do some modeling, geometry, "homework" to see that just lowering a car does nothing...but lower the car. Does it change the angle of the upper arm...yes...BUT it also changes the angle of the lower..!!

                              Mike

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X