Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lowest part around the kingpin

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

  • Noxnabaker
    replied
    As for anyone interested...
    I reckon (yep: I COULD be wrong! ) that all one needs is some small iron blocks & if we don't have millingmashine one could go to a school were mecanic skills are teached & ask them if it would be interesting to be part of a "historical racing project"...
    & in the end when/if the lower knucle is fabricated it MIGHT(!) even be possible to try building a longer kingpin.
    & if we don't try we don't fail (or suxeed) & that means we still don't know...
    & in the night, just before falling asleep we will lay awake thinking...
    Last edited by Noxnabaker; 05-22-2019, 05:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nels
    replied
    I don't think the proposed R3 suspension lowered the car as the suspension system incorporated new front sprigs to bring the ride height back to standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Springstreet
    replied
    Flipping/switching 1204-64 (if successful) would not change the frame / spring / shock geometry but it would add some more castor (dropping the front end adds more frame rake) and negative camber ... because the stock upper A arm is sloped down on a fixed arc, BUT after flipping would contact that fixed arc at a higher point (closer to parallel) which would increase the negative camber at rest and under load (body roll and/or suspension travel). The angle of both A arms will be affected but they will probably not be parallel (varies with front end load).
    This flip/switch would help me because my light front end Avanti needs more rake, and (because I have wider rims) I currently have a rim to upper A arm rubbing at full lock ... and a lower center of gravity couldn't hurt body roll. So ... why don't one of you real mechanics (not me) try this and see if radial tire handling improves (and you share your brand new alignment specs!) by getting more (of the previously elusive) positive castor and negative camber !!!! Seems like a cheap fix.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noxnabaker
    replied
    Mike, I'm not after to lower the car, that could be done in many other ways, I'm after the angle called camber when the car is leaning in corners.

    I'm happy I started this, it's been on my mind for years...
    & I agree with Bez, I'm pretty stupid too...

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
    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
    How do explain that it does not change the geometry of the suspension? If you raise the lower attaching point of the kingpin does it not raise the UPPER mounting point the EXACT same amount? Wouldn't that also be the same effect as tunneling the inner upper attaching point???? It has to be the same. why would it not? The position of the lower control arm remains exactly the same point (and so do the pivot points) whether the rest of the system is moved or not. Explain so stupid me even gets it.
    Last edited by bezhawk; 12-28-2017, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    OK lets say the Goal is: "Better Road Handling" as NOX says.

    Wouldn't it be better to forget the "A" Arm angles etc. and focus on how to get more Positive Caster?
    That is what people say/said including; Vince and Andy Granetelli at Bonneville about the 2 or more Negative Degrees of Caster on a Stude. So they Made a few expensive High Speed suspension Parts for a couple of Record setting Bonneville Race Cars on the "Corporate Dime".

    It makes for good "Turnability" (Easier) but if taken well above 100 MPH the "Wandering does begin to be a problem.
    On the Street at 70 or less, there IS no problem.

    So it's important to know the "Where" and "Why" a change is needed for your application.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Springstreet
    replied
    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 !

    Leave a comment:


  • Noxnabaker
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeB
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Noxnabaker
    replied
    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...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Alan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noxnabaker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X