Mix & Match Steering

[Skip]

I am thinking about my next build. I have a 40 Ford front axle that I will likely use. It uses cross-steer. I also have an early Econoline steering column with the built in gearbox. My question for the day is, has anyone seen or done a setup where they use these (or similar) with a drag link and bell-crank to marry the two? I like the look of a drag-link style steering setup, and I understand the cross-steer works better, so I would like to make this work.

I have other options, if this idea is not workable.

 

[Bamamav]

Studebaker used a setup like that on some vehicles.

 

[smallfoot]

studebaker stuff

 

[Skip]

Well, if Studebaker can do it, so can I. Just need to design the bell crank part. Nothing to it. Right?

Thanks, smalfoot. Hope your world is getting closer to normal.

 

[Torch]

I think it would work the same as adding the top steering arm for the front-back steering to work from.
just a different mechanism doing the same thing but in a more complicated way.
i can see though where a bellcrank would reduce bump steer but if a drag link is set up properly theoretically it shouldn' t have bump steer

 

[Yankee Transplant]

im no real mechanic , so are yall talking about a steering gear box that the arm swings left to right ? like more modern 4x4 chevy trucks ?

 

[Skip]

im no real mechanic , so are yall talking about a steering gear box that the arm swings left to right ? like more modern 4x4 chevy trucks ?

The Econoline gearbox arm swings front to back. That is why I am thinking about the bell crank. It also sat in from of the axle, with the drag link going back. I imaging that will add an extra point of complication to the project. May have to point the pitman arm in a different direction. Up instead of down. Haven't played with all the pieces yet. [S

 

[Yankee Transplant]

i got lucky mine was already there when i got the truck .. its boogered up but it works ,




plus i need the power steering with this 10 inch steering wheel , my box goes side to side

 

[Neto]

I was wondering about something like this myself recently, to use cowl steering with an underslung frame, quarter ellipticals, and a straight axle (mounted above the spring eyes, instead of below). I very much a learner, and got the idea that unless the axle is mounted to the springs via shackles, it would cause a lot of bumpsteer, because of the unequal lengths of the steering connecting rod & the springs. So I wondered if a person could use a 90* outfit to switch the forward & back motion to a side to side motion, with another steering rod going to a center mounted bell-crank (I hope that is the right term), to which the two tie rods would be connected. I was also wondering if this wouldn't give a closer to 100% Ackerman configuration, because in a tight turn, the two separate tie rods become shorter in their over-all length, that is, the distance between the idler arm holes gets less, where as a single tie rod obviously cannot. (The shorter over-all length turns the inside wheel at a bit tighter angle than otherwise, which seemingly gives a higher Ackerman reading.) Like I said, I'm very much a learner, so now please correct me.

 

[Dr Crankenstein]

Neto: How can tie-rods become shorter in length???

I can't imagine how any combination of links and pivots could increase or decrease Ackermann. The attachment points are fixed. The steering arms and/or spindles are fixed. You could increase steering ratio with a bell-crank or two, but the Ackermann geometry will remain fixed.

.

 

[MercuryMac]

Neto, You are right about having a split steering arm in the middle with two short tie rods running from it will make the inside wheel turn sharper than the outside one, and you want that, but with one long tie rod, the two steering arms are bent inwards not just to miss the tires but to steer the inner wheel sharper than the outer one, too.
I think you're Imagineering something complicated when a simple draglink that's level, [and elliptical springs that are level] will give you no noticeable bump steer. The complicated way has a way more pivots and joints and each one of them has a potential binding point or loose joint possibility, maybe causing poorer steering than simple drag-link steering.
Bump steer is a Coffee-Shop builders lament, not something a thinking builder goes crazy over.
Think it out, read about drag-links and start building it. It'll all work out.
Good Luck.

 

[smallfoot]

I agree with Mac on simplicity. The more joints you have, the more trouble spots you build into a system where you want as few problems as possible.

 

[Neto]

Neto: How can tie-rods become shorter in length???

I can't imagine how any combination of links and pivots could increase or decrease Ackermann. The attachment points are fixed. The steering arms and/or spindles are fixed. You could increase steering ratio with a bell-crank or two, but the Ackermann geometry will remain fixed.

.

Neto, You are right about having a split steering arm in the middle with two short tie rods running from it will make the inside wheel turn sharper than the outside one, and you want that, but with one long tie rod, the two steering arms are bent inwards not just to miss the tires but to steer the inner wheel sharper than the outer one, too.
I think you're Imagineering something complicated when a simple draglink that's level, [and elliptical springs that are level] will give you no noticeable bump steer. The complicated way has a way more pivots and joints and each one of them has a potential binding point or loose joint possibility, maybe causing poorer steering than simple drag-link steering.
Bump steer is a Coffee-Shop builders lament, not something a thinking builder goes crazy over.
Think it out, read about drag-links and start building it. It'll all work out.
Good Luck.

Thank you both for your input on this. I wasn’t much thinking about the greatly increased number of joints to add slack into the steering design.

What I meant about the Ackerman ratio being different for a one-piece tie-rod as opposed to a two-piece tie-rod design with the bell crank in the center, is that when in a tight turn, the over-all distance from the steering arm ball joint center to the opposite one is a bit shorter with the two-piece design than it is with the one-piece tie-rod. In that sense, the Ackerman ratio is a bit different, that is, the degree of difference between the two wheels is a bit more with the two-piece tie-rod design, because as the bell crank turns, it lessens the distance between the tie rod centers left to right. (Because of the angle of the two holes. I don’t think I can explain myself any better than this, and I’m not good at drawing.)

 

[Dr Crankenstein]

I think I understand your theory, Neto, but I doubt any significant gain.

A wise man once said, "Of all the sins you can commit when building a rod, bad Ackermann is the least serious." donsrods

.

 

[Neto]

I think I understand your theory, Neto, but I doubt any significant gain.

A wise man once said, "Of all the sins you can commit when building a rod, bad Ackermann is the least serious." donsrods

.

Yeah, I doubt if it makes much difference at all (maybe few degrees at most?)- just doing a lot of thinking because I can't afford to do any 'doing' right now.