View Full Version : Equal lenght TTB
Well, here is the thread.
Unlike the rule thread this one has no limits.
As long as it looks like a TTB it would be legal.:)
The TTB is in my opinion a POS design, and weak! At least as far as 4x4 fronts go particularly compared to a solid axle. This would be on a "truck" that I am going to depend on in 4WD. And no, I am not going to limit my statement to just the TTB: ANY IFS 4WD Front is JUNK on a working truck. Gee I wonder why GM loses money on their truck line where both Ford and Dodge make a profit...
That said... if you are running it as most in the desert do, as a 2WD IFS set-up that has the distinct advantage of some limited 4WD capability then and only then is the TTB worth while.
BUT the OE TTB design has just all kinds of goofy camber curves and they are not the same side to side and the complexity of the system and frailty of the drive parts and limited articulation and...
Is the equal length TTB a better mousetrap?
This here is the tread to hash it out...
OK I stirred the pot gave enough opinions to get somebody riled up...
Dust
Anderson Offroad
06-14-2007, 10:52 PM
Have you ever driven offroad in a truck with a ttb in 4wd?
Brokenbronco
06-14-2007, 10:55 PM
Oh boy...here we go :(
Blanco
06-14-2007, 10:57 PM
Personally I like the TTB design..
for what it is, I'd prefer it over most IFS options..
I have an friend that Snapped his SAS when he lost his Brakes on his way down a hill when he launched it..
& I feel considering his suspension design, if he had TTB it would of got through the landing better considering the fact that at least a TTB has some release of energy when it lands...
the two sides have individual up travel vs what his straight axle gave him! SNAP! http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/m2c.gif
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/402719/fullsize/img_7155.jpg
Damn it!
The Old Straight axle vs TTB came up again even here on C3R. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/bangdesk.gif
As on every other site on the Web, I'm gonna stand my ground & defend the TTB! http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/nunu.gif
(why can't I make the multi quote work?)
Look at my post again!:)
I have driven a TTB truck as speed.
I have driven a solid axle truck at speed.
I have even jumped them both.
Stock for stock up here... well there is a reason that you don't see TTB's and can pick them up purty regularly for free.
I do not give a Flying Fig if you get a big stiffy over your TTB:eek: my evaluation for application stands; go back and read carefully!
But to say it clearly again...
IF I have a "Truck" (not a car) that needs to actually work in 4WD then "I" will choose a SOLID AXLE as do 95% of the ranchers around here. There is a reason for this. It is simple Inferior Front Suspension SUCKS on a 'work truck', it bends, it brakes, it won't stay in alignment, even when it does it eats tires, etc, etc...
NOTE THIS THOUGH:
If I want to go fast in a truck then the TTB or other IFS is the way to go...
Wheew!:rolleyes:
As to your pictures of a snapped D44... The TTB would have been total s#!+ too. I read your post and there ain't nothing that came from any factory that would have stood up to that FUBAR!
Oh and FWIW I have seen stock D44 TTB beams and arms FOLD up under far less of a hit.
None of that is the point of the thread!
Equal TTB style set-up?
Dust
Blanco
06-14-2007, 11:45 PM
So, what was the point of you starting a thread talking trash about TTB's? http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/waiting.gif
Cost:
A good purchased CRMO Equal length 2WD semi Bolt on kit without shocks C/O's or steering can easily top $4500. Add in 2 C/O and 2 B/Pass and you are WAY up there!
Complexity:
Adding a drive to any front end is going to complicate things.
Any LT set-up is going to benefit from a redesign of the steering...
Strength:
Well it would be easy enough to go to the Hi-9. Going to a regular 9" would not be a good choice! Driving on the wrong side of the gear is not a good idea. A RR D60 could be done but is the weight worth the strength?
I would scrap the TTB sheet metal arm. Throw away the budget and I'll choose a double butted 4130 tube arm running to a fabricated spindle with the equivalent of Dana 60 spindles.
Why not a 934CV set up. The CV design is available for the D60 solid axle today.
I have not looked at the price yet as I have only just started to kick this one. Jigs fixtures machining and Fab are zero cost for me as I own the shop.
I'm more looking at this from the perspective of is it worth the effort?
A factory based TTB can give what 16 or so inches of travel with some reliability. Could that be pushed out to say 20-inches with a gain in strength?
Dust
Blanco
06-15-2007, 12:07 AM
I've heard of numbers out to the mid 20"s using extended beams.. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif
My stock lengths are currently pushing 15 & 1/4 iches.. :cool:
So, what was the point of you starting a thread talking trash about TTB's? http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/waiting.gif
Oh well...
TTB's outside of the desert simply bring on the suck!
They were one of Ford's stupidest ideas!
If that was not true they would have some value...
However out side of desert racing circles as I said I have found them FREE!
Did you actually read my post?
Or did you just react because of... what? devotion, religion, fetish:)
The problem with the web is you can't see me LMAO!
So just for the record... The only place I would ever use a TTB is in C3!
However IF I am going to build a C3 I want to take every advantage of the rules I can! So the idea of an equal length TTB style set-up should be looked at...
We Kewel:confused:
Dust
I've heard of numbers out to the mid 20"s using extended beams.. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif
My stock lengths are currently pushing 15 & 1/4 iches.. :cool:
Can't really extend much in C3 though...
Dust
151FAB
06-15-2007, 08:36 AM
I think you might not be considering the complexity of the system in your reasoning for TTBs being dumped in favor of SAS and therefor TTBs being found for cheap everywhere. Any idiot can strap-on a SA and get it to go down the road. You only need look at that website devoted to scary steering or whatever to notice that the thinking-impaired prefer SAS. You don't really here of the TTB sucking from people who have used them, you hear about it from the sheep that have followed the obnoxious threads and carbon-copied all the B-S into their posts thereafter. I love the solid axle for the same reasons everyone else loves them: ease on setup, ease of replacement, strength, quick and dirty repairs on the trails, etc... But, I hate the solid axle because its boring, unimaginative, generally rough-riding and un-tunable (generally), etc..
Dust, starting a thread titled equal-length TTB and then writing that first post of yours is a little odd. Let's move on to the subject at hand..
Equal Length TTB:
The main advantage of a equal-length TTB is that it creates equal camber curves and identical dampening and sprig rates per side. Without it ideally you'd need different spring rates, valve settings, and shims per side to compensate for the shorter beam and therefor higher motion ratio at the passenger side wheel.
The downfall is that it is a fully custom unit requiring a ton of time, matl, and effort. Also, it creates a lot of plunge for the axle that bridges the two beams.
By the way, I thing the Equal Length TTB would still be legal in all classes of racing as long as you kept it within the width parameters for Class3.
Blanco
06-15-2007, 09:23 AM
Can't really extend much in C3 though...
Dust
Oh, I read this & thought it was just TTB talk & not Class 3 tallk.
Unlike the rule thread this one has no limits.
Anderson Offroad
06-15-2007, 09:56 AM
This is why i drive my BII with ttb. Equal length TTB would be a real PITA to get to work with 4x4, need lots of u-joints.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M151_MUTT
In 1951 Ford Motor Company gained the contract to design a 1/4 ton 4x4 Military Utility Tactical Truck (hence MUTT) to replace the Korean War jeeps, the M38 and M38A1
Unlike having rigid live axles front and rear as was customary. The M151 was equipped with independent suspension with coil springs all around. This made it capable of high-speed, cross-country travel with high maneuverability and agility while at the same time providing a more comfortable ride.
Third, this jeep didn't need to be designed in such a hurry as the wartime original, so this gave technicians the time to engineer it such that all maintenance and basic repairs could be done with a minimal tool kit under field operating conditions. It is said that you can fix anything on it with a straight and Phillips screwdriver, a 1/2 inch open/box end wrench and some wire.
And this replaced the M151A2 http://photo.netcarshow.com/Hummer-Humvee_Military_Vehicle_2003_photo_01.jpg
RelentlessPursuitRacing
06-15-2007, 10:24 AM
Equal Length TTB:
The downfall is that it is a fully custom unit requiring a ton of time, matl, and effort. Also, it creates a lot of plunge for the axle that bridges the two beams.
.
Hey, 151Fab (or anyone else). Can you explain axle plunge here for me. It seems to have to been referred to in a few different ways. Thanks. Jerry
Hey, 151Fab (or anyone else). Can you explain axle plunge here for me. It seems to have to been referred to in a few different ways. Thanks. Jerry
The drive shaft has a slip yoke to allow for the change in the distance between the transfer case yoke and the pinion yoke on the shaft. that change in length is referred to as plunge. The same thing occurs in the TTB.
Dust
RelentlessPursuitRacing
06-15-2007, 12:59 PM
The drive shaft has a slip yoke to allow for the change in the distance between the transfer case yoke and the pinion yoke on the shaft. that change in length is referred to as plunge. The same thing occurs in the TTB.
Dust
Gotcha, so you are talking about the axle slip yoke on the passenger side then, eh? I knew that was something that needed to be dealt with and planned on dealing with it with custom axles when doing the whole extended beam thing. Thanks. Jerry
I think you might not be considering the complexity of the system in your reasoning for TTBs being dumped in favor of SAS and therefor TTBs being found for cheap everywhere. Any idiot can strap-on a SA and get it to go down the road. You only need look at that website devoted to scary steering or whatever to notice that the thinking-impaired prefer SAS. You don't really here of the TTB sucking from people who have used them, you hear about it from the sheep that have followed the obnoxious threads and carbon-copied all the B-S into their posts thereafter. I love the solid axle for the same reasons everyone else loves them: ease on setup, ease of replacement, strength, quick and dirty repairs on the trails, etc... But, I hate the solid axle because its boring, unimaginative, generally rough-riding and un-tunable (generally), etc..
Dust, starting a thread titled equal-length TTB and then writing that first post of yours is a little odd. Let's move on to the subject at hand..
Equal Length TTB:
The main advantage of a equal-length TTB is that it creates equal camber curves and identical dampening and sprig rates per side. Without it ideally you'd need different spring rates, valve settings, and shims per side to compensate for the shorter beam and therefor higher motion ratio at the passenger side wheel.
The downfall is that it is a fully custom unit requiring a ton of time, matl, and effort. Also, it creates a lot of plunge for the axle that bridges the two beams.
By the way, I thing the Equal Length TTB would still be legal in all classes of racing as long as you kept it within the width parameters for Class3.
I wrote the first post and unfortunately it was taken out of the context I wrote and intended it in. :(
I backed up once and I'll do it again...:D
Let me start at the beginning...
I have more then 30 years in the design and building of racing motor vehicles from drag, to road, to circle track, to jet boats and aircraft.
My personal favorite toys are 4x4's and I have been building them longer.
I am a Tool and Die Machinist by training and I the company.
I have never been seriously involved in Baja type Desert racing, for several inconsequential reasons. I have built components for off road racers over the years, and designed and built many suspensions for different applications...
Bout spit my coffee this AM when I read your comment on the scary steering! LOL. IF you think that I or my customers would choose the SAS because of something so simple as steering...:rolleyes:
I have built and modified the TTB since year one.
PNW trail running is completely different then SoCal/AZ/Baja.
Personally I like to run fast off road (and on, shhhh). Running up here I have found is generally slower, tighter, and harder on equipment; if there is a weakness you will rapidly find it.
You do not find that the TTB has any real popularity around here because...
The TTB is modified, then broken, then built, then broken, then built stronger then the tires are wearing goofy, then the TTB is cut. turned. braced. gusseted and... then the poor owner realizes all of the TTB;s faults and his buddy has less money in a SAS with a D60 runs harder with larger tires and doesn't brake as often, if at all! And up here the SAS can run as fast.
FWIW the solid axle is not simpler to get LT out of then the TTB nor is the steering much if any simpler. Just different.
That is not meant as bashing the TTB without cause, or ignorance. It is just my experience (and many, many others) for more then... what 27-years with the TTB.
The TTB is a great design from the factory for a small tired, low horsepower, grocery getter/pavement rig that will not be used seriously off road at least PNW style. To do much more requires serious reworkage just to strengthen the beams to the point where they will hold up to abuse as well as the solid axle with a simple truss.
Now in my original post (and above) I intended to give the weaknesses as I have "experienced" them in over 2+decades of pushing the limits. One of the faults in the TTB is the unequal length design. While it is conceivable to get a similar Camber rate side to side, when you start pushing the travel range you quickly expose the deficiencies of the TTB. As mentioned the spring and shock rates "should" be different side to side. The drive components "POP" with alarming frequency when the tires get much above 35"and if you are using it in 4WD, and there is the fact that the 3rd is only a D44. Under the weight of a Bronco I feel the D44 TTB is marginal, under a Ranger the D44 might just be the s#!+z!!
Now IF you can live within the finite limits of the TTB that is cool!
Undeniably the TTB design works adequately! "I" even plan on using it under my new Daily Driver!
What if you want more...
I am seriously looking at C3.
My first choice is a 78-79 'B' yes, with a solid axle in front the Moss Bros Bronco is, has always been, since I first lied eyes on it in some magizine... I built and flew a 79 Bronco years ago, and it is the only toy I regret parting with!
However, I like the concept of IFS in high speed running. I suppose that I should look at the new Toyota FJ but I really do not like the way they look... Prolly not the best way to pick a race platform, LOL!. The E'sploder has the same looks problem and the Chevy Blazer has leaf springs in front but big kewel points!
Equal length TTB + Stronger.
Float the 3rd member near center of the beams.
Split the drive plunge possibly by mounting the 3rd to the chassis? Rule violation?
Shaft plunge is just inescapable, therefore just a constraint that would need to be solved and I have several options in mind because I would not use the TTB beams packaging constraints are gone.
The whole U-joint thing should be up for review as they have finite limits that a CV exceeds.
The steering is simply not a big issue! Look to the LT 2WD beams for inspiration.
Custom spindles are fabricated all the time in the 2WD classes, and the choice for spindles is often the D44 or D60 piece.
Time, and materials are no problem; the price I would pay for the parts for a good strong TTB I'd have serious money involved...
Somebody one said that Desert racing is just: Wheel Travel, Horsepower, and LUCK.
Horsepower is easy, Wheel travel is less so, and well Luck...
I've had no Luck with this thread!:rolleyes:
Oh, lest I forget: 151 I am odd!
I turned a stainless steel shot glass that I freeze to shoot 151 from...:cool:
Dust
RelentlessPursuitRacing
06-15-2007, 01:55 PM
Lots of good info and brings up lots of good questions. Here is one I contemplated. What about using a D50 TTB out of an F250. I know that the center section is a bit bigger and may not clear as well, and I know that one of the beams is VERY short and would take a lot of custom building on it , but would it be worth it to get bigger ring and pinion, bigger axles, bigger spindles, hubs, brakes....?
I have thought about this and the answer FOR ME is NO:(
My idea was to simply cut the center out of the D50-TTB and weld it into the D44-TTB arm. Considering the amount of gusseting and bracing that a TTB arm takes it seems like it would be straight forward.
While the R&P is slightly larger it is a minimal amount and FOR ME the gain in strength is not worth the effort; now if they had built a D60-TTB! YA-Baby:D
However...
The Hi-9 is a vastly stronger 3rd then the D44 and would only take a little more effort, though a bunch more $$$$$ to do.
Just my aughtwo
Dust
Blanco
06-15-2007, 02:33 PM
Jerry beat me to the queston. :rolleyes:
or what about in stead of using a complete D50 TTB just using some of its parts?
Jerry beat me to the queston. :rolleyes:
or what about in stead of using a complete D50 TTB just using some of its parts?
What parts?
I was told by FORD that the D50-TTB was 10% stronger then the D44-TTB...
10% of not enough wasn't worth it to me.
Even SAS'ng I would skip the D50 and just go to the D60...
Dust
RelentlessPursuitRacing
06-15-2007, 03:18 PM
However...
The Hi-9 is a vastly stronger 3rd then the D44 and would only take a little more effort, though a bunch more $$$$$ to do. Dust
The high nine is another idea we are kicking around, but, besides the cost and work involved (that alone won't stop me) we were wondering about the driveshaft being too high and limiting up travel, what type of shafts to use,and all that other fun stuff. We were thinking high nine, equal length beams with some kick ass axles would be sweet.
On the plus side, much stronger center section, higher pinion (driveshaft angle), and I believe the snout is shorter on the nine than the D44 TTB which means a little longer driveshaft for a little better angles.
Darn it!
Can't locate my D44-TTB Center!
The 9" is 10.50" CL or axle to CL of U-joint.
A D44 Ford solid is 11.75" C2C...
The diameter of the case is about 0.37 larger on the 9".
(pardon my tape and eyeball)
Well I have to jet.
I'll be down SD way for about a week, and don't know if I'll have time or access to the web.
I hope that you all will work out all the details as that when I do get back I can just start fabrication:)
IF I offended anyone with this thread please accept my most sincere and humble apology.
I know that I am an Aholie, that should not be an excuse and I did not mean any offense! :o
FWIW:
In the future, if I do decide to build a =TTB...
I will make all of the specifications and drawings available to any C3 competitor that wants em at cost!
So that would be basically shipping of a CD.
Hubz-in!
Dust
steveG
06-15-2007, 07:51 PM
BUT the OE TTB design has just all kinds of goofy camber curves and they are not the same side to side
You sure?
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/475918/fullsize/ttbsymetry.jpg
pigracing
06-15-2007, 08:37 PM
Maybe I missed the point but I don't get it. I mean when it comes to desert racing fords ttb system has always been regarded in great favor for it's simplicity and strenght. I know I'd have no problem running any one of camburgs, autofabs, solos, or etcs quality systems with out fear of it not holding up the abuse of desert racing.
flyinbronco
06-16-2007, 02:56 PM
If I'm not mistaken the Smith/Ashley Bronco used a Ranger Dana 30 differental for weight savings and more clearance at the frame for more up travel. The whole bigger is better mentality should be left at the truck pulls. The TBB has numerous advatages over any solid axle set up in the desert, but, if your pulling horse trailers up a dirt hill with a full load of hay in the bed you might want a straight axle in your farm truck.
Brokenbronco
06-16-2007, 06:59 PM
If I'm not mistaken the Smith/Ashley Bronco used a Ranger Dana 30 differental for weight savings and more clearance at the frame for more up travel. The whole bigger is better mentality should be left at the truck pulls. The TBB has numerous advatages over any solid axle set up in the desert, but, if your pulling horse trailers up a dirt hill with a full load of hay in the bed you might want a straight axle in your farm truck.
Now that's a good reply! Bravo!
151FAB
06-18-2007, 12:06 PM
Dust, I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know what you were talking about or that you didn't have legitimate reasons for your choise of suspension systems. I meant that I think a lot of people that trash on the TTB do so after reading about it on a forum. They then puke out what they read without having any personal experience. The reference to scary steering was, again, meant toward the masses and specifically toward those that have earned the right to be included in the following website... http://128.83.80.200/taco/scarysteering.html
As a fellow Tool and Die man myself, die cast molds, I realize we share an above average intelligence and rum tolerance.:) :) :)
If your hand is wet when you pick up the shot glass, how many shots until you can unstick you hand. :D :D
You sure?
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/475918/fullsize/ttbsymetry.jpg
The simple answer is not 1-billionjillionpercent.............
&-Yes, enough to sat that I fail to see how two desperate length beams that pivot off one end can possibly swing through the same arc as described by their end point (spindle when viewed along the pivot axis)...
I'll draw it up here in a bit... CAD is wonderfull for this!:)
Dust
If I'm not mistaken the Smith/Ashley Bronco used a Ranger Dana 30 differental for weight savings and more clearance at the frame for more up travel. The whole bigger is better mentality should be left at the truck pulls. The TBB has numerous advatages over any solid axle set up in the desert, but, if your pulling horse trailers up a dirt hill with a full load of hay in the bed you might want a straight axle in your farm truck.
If you do not use 4WD then I'd have gone with a D28 (there was no D30TTB) or D35-TTB (later Ranger). The key here is that the TTB is being used as an IRS in place of the Beam axle, and NOT being run in 4WD!
I already said this someplace above in this post... Basically: IFS is faster in the desert I make no bones about that!
My point is: What happens if I want to generate MAXIMUM WHEEL TRAVEL in not only 2WD but in 4WD AND if I want to run a 39" BFG Project! Oh and I'll be pushing 700-BHP easy.
Looky if the Ford TTB is good'nuff; then Good Nuff!:)
When I decide to build a C3 I want it strong enough, and built to take EVERY ADVANTAGE of the white spaces between the rules!
So, if life inside the box is good enough then fine.
But, I'll always look outside the box before I settle for what has been done! :D
No Offense is intended here!!!!!
Dust
SNIP<
As a fellow Tool and Die man myself, die cast molds, I realize we share an above average intelligence and rum tolerance.:) :) :)
If your hand is wet when you pick up the shot glass, how many shots until you can unstick you hand. :D :D
The answer is no problem 151 is a natural anti-freeze! But if you fingers are real stuck then just leave a tick in the shot and flick da-Bic!:)
Best so far... is to pack it full of dry powder snow and then fill it with "Tres Generaciones" while cutting for the New Years Bone Fire!
There is nothing finer then good Tequila over powder snow!
Though...
This year I will try da Rum! Just didn't have any last winter.:eek:
Dust
Now that's a good reply! Bravo!
AGREED!!
Dust
The key here is that the TTB is being used as an IRS in place of the Beam axle, and NOT being run in 4WD!
Dust
Note to self....
Add IFS to spell check!
Duh...
Dust
Blanco
06-24-2007, 07:46 PM
Oh and I'll be pushing 700-BHP easy.
Might you care to explain in detail how you plan to get that? http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/humm_smilie.gif
As an experienced engine machinest I'd like to hear your platform to easily build your +700 HP? :confused:
Might you care to explain in detail how you plan to get that? http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/humm_smilie.gif
As an experienced engine machinest I'd like to hear your platform to easily build your +700 HP? :confused:
Well, I'm not going to put certain things into print. Some things I'll give away and others... I was lucky enough to spend over a decade in a racing engine development house. Horses are also made in the white spaces around the ink that comprise the rules... From my limited reading SCORE's rules are (compared to many) WIDE OPEN!
I know, not the answer you are looking for... But as much as I'll put into print. Let's just say that the key is to get outside of the box!
When it comes to engines what you know(!) Isn't what you may think it is.
Consider where the valves spend the longest amount of time, at any RPM and put air flow there...
Dust
Blanco
06-24-2007, 09:31 PM
about 13 years here......
No offense but.. :rolleyes: http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/76.gif
At least tell me this fuel injection or Carb? :confused:
about 13 years here......
No offense but.. :rolleyes: http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/76.gif
At least tell me this fuel injection or Carb? :confused:
Well, if I have to stay with the Ford EFI Manifolds then it has to be a Carb!:D
Bout all you'll get with those pieces of JUNK is 350 horses and it takes a bunch of metal out to do that; and different injectors and box and fuel pump and lines and...
Unless you take a reading a fraction of a second after you cut the load on the Dyno! Not that anybody would ever do such a thing...:rolleyes:
I do not understand the EFI rule... With a Carb I can run any manifold and or Carb. But with EFI I have to run factory manifolds, etc... :confused:
I just do not get it!
Dust
retroblazer
06-25-2007, 06:13 AM
Well, if I have to stay with the Ford EFI Manifolds then it has to be a Carb!:D
Bout all you'll get with those pieces of JUNK is 350 horses and it takes a bunch of metal out to do that; and different injectors and box and fuel pump and lines and...
Unless you take a reading a fraction of a second after you cut the load on the Dyno! Not that anybody would ever do such a thing...:rolleyes:
I do not understand the EFI rule... With a Carb I can run any manifold and or Carb. But with EFI I have to run factory manifolds, etc... :confused:
I just do not get it!
Dust
IMHO, SCORE wanted to keep a lid on costs. This rule was in place before you could go out and buy aftermarket fi setups. It would have only been the oems that could have made custom set-ups.
IMHO, SCORE wanted to keep a lid on costs. This rule was in place before you could go out and buy aftermarket fi setups. It would have only been the oems that could have made custom set-ups.
Yes, I understand the reasoning 20+years ago...
But it ain't about TTB so we can cover it elsewhere.:)
Dust
Blanco
06-25-2007, 09:11 AM
I do not understand the EFI rule... With a Carb I can run any manifold and or Carb. But with EFI I have to run factory manifolds, etc... :confused:
I just do not get it!
http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/13.gif http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/hesaid.gif
steveG
06-25-2007, 10:41 AM
The simple answer is not 1-billionjillionpercent.............
&-Yes, enough to sat that I fail to see how two desperate length beams that pivot off one end can possibly swing through the same arc as described by their end point (spindle when viewed along the pivot axis)...
I'll draw it up here in a bit... CAD is wonderfull for this!:)
Dust
You really don't need CAD to figure out. Print the picture and use a ruler.
In stock form the TTB wheels travel in the same arc. The only inconstancy is the toe change. Adding longer radius arms upsets this geometry but doesn't seem to (appreciably) affect handling. Of course, at Trophy Truck speeds this would probably become an issue, but so would other TTB issues....
Lets say we've worked out an equal-length, equal-geometry TTB and perfect steering. Now what do we do about the fact that one axle-housing is carrying a 50lb (I don't know the actual weight) differential and the other weighs hardly anything at all.
You really don't need CAD to figure out. Print the picture and use a ruler.
In stock form the TTB wheels travel in the same arc. The only inconstancy is the toe change. Adding longer radius arms upsets this geometry but doesn't seem to (appreciably) affect handling. Of course, at Trophy Truck speeds this would probably become an issue, but so would other TTB issues....
Lets say we've worked out an equal-length, equal-geometry TTB and perfect steering. Now what do we do about the fact that one axle-housing is carrying a 50lb (I don't know the actual weight) differential and the other weighs hardly anything at all.
Steve.
The TTB design is no more then a single A-Arm that pivots around the axis created by the RA-Pivot and the TTB-Arm Pivot. Aprox, the Red lines in your Pix.
To have these two arms describe the same Camber rate by the fixed spindles:
The triangles of the "A" must be the same side to side.
The RA's are the same length for one side of the triangle.
The other 2 sides of the triangle are not the same from side to side...
The lengths between the TTB pivots and the ends of the RA (bolts) must be the same side to side. They are not.
The length between the RA Pivot and the TTB Pivot would need to be the same and they are not...
I fail to see how a fixed spindle can swing through a 3D arc on two different sized triangles and have the the same radius...
I may be wrong but my quick plot of the geometry shows that the longer TTB arm swings through a larger arc or radius and thus the camber change is different then the shorter arm.
I'll work on this when I have time. and maybe I'll prove you right!:D
Dust
151FAB
06-25-2007, 02:08 PM
SteveG, you bring up a good point about the weight, unsprung at that. I know you could run an aluminum center section with the 9" and that the 8.8 independant rear from the T-bird SC was aluminum also. The t-bird center used an odd three-point u-joint type cv hybrid but the axles pop out easily because they are held in with a spring steel c-clip. Also the housing has cast-in mounts all over it but it might be an interesting piece to use. I have an iron one stting in my garage I'll have to look at closer.
SteveG, you bring up a good point about the weight, unsprung at that. I know you could run an aluminum center section with the 9" and that the 8.8 independant rear from the T-bird SC was aluminum also. The t-bird center used an odd three-point u-joint type cv hybrid but the axles pop out easily because they are held in with a spring steel c-clip. Also the housing has cast-in mounts all over it but it might be an interesting piece to use. I have an iron one stting in my garage I'll have to look at closer.
Less then total unsprung weight though and if one was smart one would shift it to the center as much as possible to reduce it even further...
I may have screwed this thread up in the start but it seems to be coming around ok...
Dust
BajaBronco13
06-25-2007, 05:11 PM
I may have screwed this thread up in the start but it seems to be coming around ok...
Dust
No kidding Dust, I thought you were going to get a pimp slap with an extended beam. lol.
steveG
06-25-2007, 06:47 PM
The TTB design is no more then a single A-Arm that pivots around the axis created by the RA-Pivot and the TTB-Arm Pivot. Aprox, the Red lines in your Pix.
Dust
Exactly. Because the A-arms (beam and radius arm assemblies) are pivoting on the red lines, the only point that needs to remain consistent is the wheel/hub. Assuming it's in the same fore and aft location and the same distance from the pivot axis (red line), the radius arms and beams could attach anywhere on the pivot axis and the wheel would still travel in the same arc.
Exactly. Because the A-arms (beam and radius arm assemblies) are pivoting on the red lines, the only point that needs to remain consistent is the wheel/hub. Assuming it's in the same fore and aft location and the same distance from the pivot axis (red line), the radius arms and beams could attach anywhere on the pivot axis and the wheel would still travel in the same arc.
In 3D CAD says otherwise.... But I'm still fiddling with it.
Based solely on a 2D plot you are correct.
In the real world...
I refuse to commit....
yet...
151FAB
06-26-2007, 09:25 AM
Getting the beams as long as possible, to reduce the camber change, without making the track width any wider (class3 rule limit) would mean moving the frame pivot out. If you moved the pivot to under the frame rails that would put them 38" apart and make the beams 53.3" long (still with 68" between the centers of the tires). No matter where you move the pumpkin on that beam you'd need about 6"-10" of plunge and about 45 degrees of misalignment at the CV (must use CV at this point) to get a minimum of 24" travel and 51 degrees to get 30" travel. Nothing would live for very long at those angles if you could get there at all.
The other option would be to mount the pumpkin to the frame at center. Assuming you could get a diff with 14" width between the CVs. You could get 30" travel, stock track width, 5" plunge with the same extreme angles. Your beams would be like the two wheel drive units at this point; huge weight savings and there would be much less problems clearing the beams of each other for travel. Still the CV angle problem though...
Take those same parameters and apply them to 6" wider per side beams and you end up with some amazing numbers: 60 inch beams, 36" travel, 5.5" plunge at the CVs. No more than 30 degrees of camber at drop.
There are a lot of assumptions here so to narrow down the search for the best set-up we need some data...
What is the maximum misalignment a CV or U-joint can sustain?
What is the maximum camber angle you want the wheel to be at?
What is the maximum plunge you can incorporate into the axle?
What is the narrowest, usable center section you can find?
Getting the beams as long as possible, to reduce the camber change, without making the track width any wider (class3 rule limit) would mean moving the frame pivot out. If you moved the pivot to under the frame rails that would put them 38" apart and make the beams 53.3" long (still with 68" between the centers of the tires). No matter where you move the pumpkin on that beam you'd need about 6"-10" of plunge and about 45 degrees of misalignment at the CV (must use CV at this point) to get a minimum of 24" travel and 51 degrees to get 30" travel. Nothing would live for very long at those angles if you could get there at all.
The other option would be to mount the pumpkin to the frame at center. Assuming you could get a diff with 14" width between the CVs. You could get 30" travel, stock track width, 5" plunge with the same extreme angles. Your beams would be like the two wheel drive units at this point; huge weight savings and there would be much less problems clearing the beams of each other for travel. Still the CV angle problem though...
Take those same parameters and apply them to 6" wider per side beams and you end up with some amazing numbers: 60 inch beams, 36" travel, 5.5" plunge at the CVs. No more than 30 degrees of camber at drop.
There are a lot of assumptions here so to narrow down the search for the best set-up we need some data...
What is the maximum misalignment a CV or U-joint can sustain?
What is the maximum camber angle you want the wheel to be at?
What is the maximum plunge you can incorporate into the axle?
What is the narrowest, usable center section you can find?
Engineering manuals will say...
That a U-joint will fail above 15-Degrees... LOL!
That a CV will go about 35-Degrees... Right...
It is true that power transmission is reduced with joint angle.
However if you read the book there is no way that we do what we do!
Then again the book says the bumble bee can't fly too!
While plunge is not desirable, and less is more, there are some roller designs...
With just a YoYo... A D44 could be less then 14" and the 9" could have 2 annular contact bearings outboard of the mains and be under 14.5".
If you stay with the TTB architecture I think the design is self limiting.
This goes back to my earlier question does the Diff have to be attached to the arm? Why not float it between the two arms?
Dust
steveG
06-26-2007, 10:19 AM
I must be slow.
I'm still not getting what the goal is.
I must be slow.
I'm still not getting what the goal is.
Why do the kewel kids that just happen to be fast spend serious $$$ to replace their non-equal length 2WD beams with equal length beams?
If I decide to go with a TTB chassis, I will do so because it is a better alternative to a solid when in 2WD... If I can run faster in 2WD then there is the advantage.
So simply stated I'm looking at the rule that says 4WD and seeing an advantage in using the TTB as it was intended by the engineers that designed it... 2WD IFS with a limited 4WD capability that rides better then a solid...
No Offense:cool:
Heck I'm starting to think that a Dana28-TTB would be a better choice and never engage 4WD at all. Just build an extremely lightweight assembly and concentrate on getting max WT...
Dust
The white spaces around the ink...
steveG
06-26-2007, 11:27 AM
So simply stated....
LOL, I don't think I've ever seen you state anything simply. Including now. Don't make us read between your lines ("The white spaces around the ink...") to make sense of a post, just come right out and say what you mean... please? :)
So seriously, what's the goal?
BTW: I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm trying to clarify a few things so we can all follow along and maybe even contribute.
BajaBronco13
06-26-2007, 11:45 AM
I'm with you Steve. Not sure where this is going? If you're not a fan of ttb, then run your solid axle and be happy. I'm all for an open forum to discuss alternative set ups but your posts just appear to be one ttb bash session after another. So make your point and lets move on.
CP
151FAB
06-26-2007, 12:54 PM
I hope you all don't think I'm bashing the TTB. I'm a TTB loyalest to the end!!!
The point I'm trying to make with my posts is:
Are there configurations (retaining the TTB concept) other than unequal-length D44 TTB that would generate a better quality of suspension travel?
Are there better configurations using the stock geometry that are unexplored as of yet?
I think that the stock configuration has been exploited to the best of its abilities already by Spirit, Camburg, Autofab, H&M, etc. so this has led me to explore equal-length TTB set-ups and TTBs with a center-hung (chassis mounted) differential.
Other relevant subjects would be: moving the radius arm-to-frame mount rear-ward and in-ward to lessen the caster change and replacing the radius arms all together with linkage that would allow you to adjust your caster curve. Also, upgrading pivot points with spherical bearings, replacing balljoints with spherical bearings, using rack-and-pinion steering, using CVs instead of u-joints, using a different ring and pinion/carrier, etc..
steveG
06-26-2007, 01:05 PM
I didn't think anyone was intentionally bashing the TTB (not that it matters). I simply want to know what the ultimate goal is.
Is it maximum wheel travel?
If so, how much do you want?
Is it to make a TTB as fast as a TIB?
If so, which TIB?
Is it to eliminate all geometry and unsprung weight differences between the two (left and right) axle-housings?
Is it to simply over-think the TTB? LOL.
BajaBronco13
06-26-2007, 01:07 PM
Hey 151,
I don't think anyone would accuse you of bashing on ttbs. And you make some great points that should be explored. I think we can all appreciate the out of the box thinking when it comes to our rigs and what we can do to help us build the best rigs possible for the type of use we have planned. But when Dust follows every post with a slam on ttb, it gets old and his points get lost in the BS.
Steve.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
From you I take no offense.:D <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
FWIW:<o:p></o:p>
I took some time and did some research on the TTB in desert racing, a little reading and some talking to some racers I know that have raced on the TTB in the past. I needed to learn how TTB is used in desert racing to inspire the cult like devotion on display here. Conclusion, in the racers view the 4wd component is not the important part of the design; rather it is the IFS that is important.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Therefore, per your request above:<o:p></o:p>
My goal is NOT what I thought it was! Now it is to examine the potential of making a better LT IFS that retains just enough of the drive capability to pass tech as a 4WD. <o:p></o:p>
Equal length is a mandatory design constraint.<o:p></o:p>
Steering would be a swing-set to address the Toe issues of the OE TTB design; I just don’t see getting any R&P to do it.<o:p></o:p>
Forget about strengthening the TTB as a drive; rather look to reducing its weight even at the sacrifice of strength. Running a D35 makes a ton of sense at this point just for the drop in Unsprung Weight.<o:p></o:p>
By minimizing the drive’s importance in the design many of the parts could be dramatically lightened. In the drive design conceptually it is possible to make the shafts such that they would break in defined spots before the failure point of the dif and gears. The shaft(s) then ether fall harmlessly out or could be carried in the arms when a failure occurred thus not rendering the rig immobile. Further if the drive was required later in the race the set up could be made such that replacing the dead parts could be done quickly... even 'no tools'...<o:p></o:p>
Possibly change the shaft alloy to something that would forgive an overstress NiTi ‘springs’ to mind….<o:p></o:p>
Tire size and power are no longer even remote constraints.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Steve, what I just outlined is the white around the ink. I do apologize that it took me so long to see it! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Dust<o:p></o:p>
Hey 151,
I don't think anyone would accuse you of bashing on ttbs. And you make some great points that should be explored. I think we can all appreciate the out of the box thinking when it comes to our rigs and what we can do to help us build the best rigs possible for the type of use we have planned. But when Dust follows every post with a slam on ttb, it gets old and his points get lost in the BS.
For someone that has contributed NOTHING to this thread you sure have your panties bunched. So have it your way!
TTB is awesome as it is!
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO IMPROVE IT and TTB should be mandatory everything including Pit coolers!
Above all NO ONE should be allowed to point out the weak points and poor geometry because they do not in fact exist.
TTB Heretics should be forced to convert or drive AMC Pacers!
I'll go stand in a corner now:rolleyes:
BajaBronco13
06-27-2007, 02:56 PM
For someone that has contributed NOTHING to this thread you sure have your panties bunched. So have it your way!
For the record, I wear boxer briefs. And since I haven't contributed anything to this thread doesn't mean I can't comment on the fact that you seem to type ten paragraphs per post but no one can figure out what your point is. Does that tell you something? I'm not here to have a pissing match with you but come on already.
steveG
06-27-2007, 03:54 PM
Now we're getting somewhere Dust!
[COLOR=#24313f]Conclusion, in the racers view the 4wd component is not the important part of the design; rather it is the IFS that is important.
Exactly. The fact that the TTB gives you a 4wd option is just gravy. For me, the TTB 4wd system is plenty strong and I don't have a need for upgrades. There are people, though, that use and abuse the TTB that would like (and benefit) from stronger axles, larger U-joints, etc. The problem is the differential limits axle-shaft options (even custom).
My goal is NOT what I thought it was! Now it is to examine the potential of making a better LT IFS that retains just enough of the drive capability to pass tech as a 4WD.
I think most will agree, the best high-speed 4wd set up is an A-Arm front end (Terrible Herbst style), but I think you're looking to stick with a TTB?
Equal length is a mandatory design constraint.Steering would be a swing-set to address the Toe issues of the OE TTB design; I just don’t see getting any R&P to do it.
I'll agree that equal geometry should be a goal until you prove to me that equal length is necessary.:) Crossover (swing-set) steering is a must for high-speed use. After the radius arm and beam pivots are set, determining the steering is relatively easy. Although I've seen some serious efforts to build a rack and pinion steering for a TIB, I've yet to see any success come out of it.
Forget about strengthening the TTB as a drive....
Agreed. In a desert race application, I agree strengthening the 4wd system is not necessary.
rather look to reducing its weight even at the sacrifice of strength. Running a D35 makes a ton of sense at this point just for the drop in Unsprung Weight.
Personally I'd rather look into making an aluminum differential housing for the D44 TTB. Although, the D35 is smaller, potentially making packaging a bit easier.
By minimizing the drive’s importance in the design many of the parts could be dramatically lightened. In the drive design conceptually it is possible to make the shafts such that they would break in defined spots before the failure point of the dif and gears. The shaft(s) then ether fall harmlessly out or could be carried in the arms when a failure occurred thus not rendering the rig immobile.
Maybe they could be lightened and still retain most (or enough) strength. Gun drilled axles would be trick! I don't think I've ever heard of a broken TTB axle-shaft making a truck immobile. If they break where they endanger surrounding parts (slamming around), something as simple as taping them to the beam would keep them out of the way.
Further if the drive was required later in the race the set up could be made such that replacing the dead parts could be done quickly... even 'no tools'....
That's going to be tough.
Blanco
06-27-2007, 04:03 PM
Out of curiousity....
How much weight do you figure a D35 would save you over a D44?
steveG
06-27-2007, 04:05 PM
For what it's worth, I know a guy that supposedly had most of the design work done to build an equal length TTB. He worked on it for years and ended up with an unequal-length beam set up with stock pivot points.
Here are a few pics of the hub/rotor assembly he ended up with:
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19565&d=1171011544
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19566&d=1171011544
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19567&d=1171011544
Out of curiousity....
How much weight do you figure a D35 would save you over a D44?
I gave away the last D35 that was replaced in my shop with a LT Coil-over Solid. So I can't just go weigh one. WAG would be maybe 10# but that is a WAG!!
You don't happen to have a front or rear view of the most awesome TTB like your top view?
Dust
steveG
06-27-2007, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure which TTB you're refering to.
In reality they are all the same just scaled... Don't matter. ;)
151FAB
06-27-2007, 06:57 PM
Dust, are you drunk-posting?:D
SteveG, while your at this thread tell us all what you think is the ultimate TTB setup. It doesn't have to be =length or even a D44. You've had experiance with D35, D44, exploders, broncos... wheres your next TTB fix gonna come from?
Dust, are you drunk-posting?:D
In a woyrd... NO! But thanks for asking:D
steveG
06-27-2007, 10:16 PM
You don't happen to have a front or rear view of the most awesome TTB like your top view?
Dust
I haven't come across it yet. I've seen some really nice very capable TTB front ends out there, but nothing that I'd consider the cream of the crop.
SteveG, while your at this thread tell us all what you think is the ultimate TTB setup. It doesn't have to be =length or even a D44. You've had experiance with D35, D44, exploders, broncos... wheres your next TTB fix gonna come from?
Like Dust said, the D28, D35 and D44 are all basically the same, just smaller or larger. The geometry is all essentially the same. My next fix... not sure. Several years ago I built, but never quite finished, a D44 TTB conversion on my old Explorer. Toward the end of the project I decided to move all my pivot points just enough that all my work to that point wouldn't work so I cut it all up and threw it in the trash. Since then I sold the Explorer and all the parts for it to my younger brother. Now I'm waiting for him to put it together so I can compare it to my Bronco. I have a feeling his truck will blow the doors off mine. If so, the Bronco might go away and I'll build another Explorer with some custom touches (he ended up buying some conversion parts from Autofab rather than wait for me to build it).
As far as the ultimate TTB... I'm probably the wrong guy to ask. I'm into simplicity. I'm anti-bling. I simply want things to work. Beside that, I've ridden in a couple extremely fast TTB trucks that were incredibly simple, further pushing me toward simplicity.
Soooo, for me, the ultimate TTB is a simple TTB. Although I love big-travel trucks, I just don't think it's necessary for every application. I've seen trucks with 15" of front end travel completely embarrass trucks with 20+" of front end travel and twice the horsepower.
Again, no offense meant here, but when I hear about guys like Dust that have set out to build the end-all TTB, I wonder if they have ever ridden in a well-built, properly set up fast TTB truck. I know a number of people that have ambitously worked on this Holy Grail TTB for years and end up with a traditional front end. Hopefully Dust will succeed and show us something new and shut me up!
Blanco
06-27-2007, 11:07 PM
In a woyrd... NO! But thanks for asking:D
As a TTB guy I must make this comment.......:o
Have you noticed that a Straight axle has been kicking our ass for the past 5 years? :confused:
Brokenbronco
06-27-2007, 11:21 PM
As a TTB guy I must make this comment.......:o
Have you noticed that a Straight axle has been kicking our ass for the past 5 years? :confused:
then undo all that you have done, and do a sas:p
BajaBronco13
06-27-2007, 11:25 PM
Is the Blanco going up on the "For Sale" section? I think I saw a 1979 Bronco on Craigslist. :)
As a TTB guy I must make this comment.......:o
Have you noticed that a Straight axle has been kicking our ass for the past 5 years? :confused:
Did you notice that I never went there?:D
Again, no offense meant here, but when I hear about guys like Dust that have set out to build the end-all TTB, I wonder if they have ever ridden in a well-built, properly set up fast TTB truck. I know a number of people that have ambitously worked on this Holy Grail TTB for years and end up with a traditional front end. Hopefully Dust will succeed and show us something new and shut me up!
Steve, et al...
I haven't set out to build a better TTB. That has been done it's called a "Double A-arm" an all around better design they use it all the time in TT!
For independent front suspension it is my first choice BUT it ain't real legal on a Bronco in C3 is it?:( I like the Bronkz because they are cheap, power is easy as is the rest of the drive train... Oh and they are just cool!:)
What I set out to do is to look at whether the TTB can be improved upon for a C3 racer build.
If it can then maybe it justifies the expense.
In a Pre Runner no way unless you just want too, in a racer maybe... I did find several party's that have started this or are looking hard at it, time will tell. Really it has all ready been done both by Ford and private party's.
IF the Design won't work then it seems to me that someone contemplating building a new C3 racer from scratch should look hard at the C3 Champ's rig. OR perhaps the rigs that are in the next wave... Toyota...
Nope, no TTB's there...:o
steveG
06-28-2007, 07:06 AM
What I set out to do is to look at whether the TTB can be improved upon for a C3 racer build....
It seems to me that in it's current, traditional form (slightly extended, extended radius arms, good spring rates and shock valving) the TTB is already capable of speeds faster than a short-wheelbase vehicle can handle.
That said, there's always room for improvement, so hopefully you or someone else will come up with something new. Maybe you could shed some light on these people you say are working on new tricks for the old TTB.
FWIW, If I was trying to build a better TTB I would start by shedding weight. I don't think I'd use the D35 unless I could figure out a way to eliminate the taper in the axle-shafts where they enter the differential. Like I said earlier, I'd have an aluminum housing cast then seek out some lighter internals. Maybe a spool for its light weight. I would definitely look into gun-drilled axle-shafts. The stub axles seem to be an issue with these, so a larger hub with a larger inside diameter would be a good idea. I would definitely stay away from the trendy, and in my opinion unecessary, huge trusses that a lot of shops add to the TTB. they seem redundant and heavy.
As for improving geometry, I would look into making the drivers beam as straight as possible (eliminating the bend forward at the pivot end). Then move the passenger beam pivot in front of the drivers (this has already been done). There might be some interference issues with the steering gear box, but I'm sure they could be worked out.
I've had a few other ideas over the years but I can't think of them now, if I remember I'll post them.
retroblazer
06-28-2007, 07:25 AM
As a TTB guy I must make this comment.......:o
Have you noticed that a Straight axle has been kicking our ass for the past 5 years? :confused:
There has only been one ttb bronco racing in the last five years. Ken has not been a full time competitor and has had reliability problems that have largely been unrelated to his front suspension. Ricardo's Bronco will be the first, well built ttb truck out since Ashley's totally dominating ttb Bronco. It is the arrival of Ricardo's truck that prompted me to push for a rules change. It will be a new game.
steveG
06-28-2007, 07:55 AM
Ricardo's Bronco will be the first, well built ttb truck out since Ashley's totally dominating ttb Bronco.
I'm really looking forward to Ricardo completing and competing his truck. So far it looks like a first-class build and I'm sure his prep will be up to the challenge as well.
The Moss Bro's are a perfect example of what it really takes to win... an overall package.
It seems to me that in it's current, traditional form (slightly extended, extended radius arms, good spring rates and shock valving) the TTB is already capable of speeds faster than a short-wheelbase vehicle can handle.
For me that is the issue that would stop the deal cold "in this application".
Steve I would tell all on the =TTB's that I know of.
However it would not be right to do so when I was asked not too; except to say that they are not aimed at C3 type rides, & not the layout I am thing about.
Dust
Brokenbronco
06-28-2007, 08:53 AM
For me that is the issue that would stop the deal cold "in this application".
Steve I would tell all on the =TTB's that I know of.
However it would not be right to do so when I was asked not too; except to say that they are not aimed at C3 type rides, & not the layout I am thing about.
Dust
:confused: :mad: :confused: :mad:
steveG
06-28-2007, 09:28 AM
For me that is the issue that would stop the deal cold "in this application".
What do you mean by "stop the deal cold"?
Steve I would tell all on the =TTB's that I know of. However it would not be right to do so when I was asked not too; except to say that they are not aimed at C3 type rides, & not the layout I am thing about.
Dust
Through friendships I'm privy to a lot of TTB information and measurements that I won't share, so I respect that. A couple shops have talked about a wazoo front end they were working on but I haven't seen anything revolutionary come out of either. Maybe they will soon though.
:confused: :mad: :confused: :mad:
I can dig that! Completely understand!
Nothing I can ethically do bout it...
BajaBronco13
06-28-2007, 01:05 PM
There has only been one ttb bronco racing in the last five years. Ken has not been a full time competitor and has had reliability problems that have largely been unrelated to his front suspension. Ricardo's Bronco will be the first, well built ttb truck out since Ashley's totally dominating ttb Bronco. It is the arrival of Ricardo's truck that prompted me to push for a rules change. It will be a new game.
Chris,
I know Off Road Design is one of your sponsors. Have you had a chance to see their four link / coil over set up for Blazers?
CP
retroblazer
06-28-2007, 01:48 PM
Chris,
I know Off Road Design is one of your sponsors. Have you had a chance to see their four link / coil over set up for Blazers?
CP
I saw a picture of it in 4 Wheel & Off Road mag recently. I have been talking to Watson about it for awhile. I'd love to swap my front leaf springs for that type of set-up any day.
[quote=steveG;3645]What do you mean by "stop the deal cold"?
The simp... easy answer is:
"IF" I decide to build and race C3 then I will build the best rig out of whatever I start out with. If the Bronco with TTB as it comes from the factory is good enough... Then why built capability that is not usable:confused:
BajaBronco13
06-29-2007, 03:07 PM
I saw a picture of it in 4 Wheel & Off Road mag recently. I have been talking to Watson about it for awhile. I'd love to swap my front leaf springs for that type of set-up any day.
Chris,
Not that money is no object but have you thought about building a Blazer pre-runner with a four link up front?
CP
retroblazer
06-29-2007, 03:23 PM
Chris,
Not that money is no object but have you thought about building a Blazer pre-runner with a four link up front?
CP
I'd love to build one, but my real debate is do I build another race car and turn my race Blazer into a pre-runner? I keep thinking a Jeep Unlimited with coil-overs on all four corners is the way to go.
BajaBronco13
06-29-2007, 03:29 PM
Interesting choice. A Jeep Unlimited would make for a unique race truck. Reminds me of Mike Duncan's old CJ8 Scrambler racer.
Blanco
06-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Interesting choice. A Jeep Unlimited would make for a unique race truck. Reminds me of Mike Duncan's old CJ8 Scrambler racer.
Would be nothing like Mikes...
Mike had leafs at every wheel just like Chris's Blazer does..
The Jeep Raffo is talking about, would be able to run coil overs at each corner. :cool:
BajaBronco13
06-29-2007, 03:42 PM
Would be nothing like Mikes...
Mike had leafs at every wheel just like Chris's Blazer does..
The Jeep Raffo is talking about, would be able to run coil overs at each corner. :cool:
Uh...... Never said it was exactly like Mike's, just said that it reminded me of Mike's. Because of the body style.
You didn't forget that I own a CJ7 did you?
Brokenbronco
06-29-2007, 04:30 PM
I'd love to build one, but my real debate is do I build another race car and turn my race Blazer into a pre-runner? I keep thinking a Jeep Unlimited with coil-overs on all four corners is the way to go.
Chris, there's a jeep dealer just 1 mile from my house. Go ahead and wire them the money for the rubicon unlimited, and i'll keep it safe and sound at my house for ya...ok? :D
BajaBronco13
07-03-2007, 11:47 AM
Has anyone ran heims instead of uniballs on their beams? I've never seen heims on a 4wd ttb set up but wondering if anyone has gone that route.
CP
Blanco
07-03-2007, 01:31 PM
Has anyone ran heims instead of uniballs on their beams? I've never seen heims on a 4wd ttb set up but wondering if anyone has gone that route.
CP
Rodd does that, he showed me them & it allows adjust ability to them.
BajaBronco13
07-03-2007, 01:33 PM
Cam,
Did he give you any pros and cons other then the built in adjustments?
Blanco
07-03-2007, 01:53 PM
We did'nt talk about it too much, I looked at them & thought it was a great set-up...
& he told me this & that about them, but I dont remeber enough to in anyway quote him..
Sorry. :o
DavidWymore
01-31-2008, 06:44 PM
A centered diff would be the hot ticket. Often thought about it for a go fast or crawl truck. The hangup is the engine is in the way. It's gotta go back and the diff's gotta go forward. The work and expense isn't something I'd want to mess with.
I saw an 80something F250 for sale the other day. Big rear end, D50 TTB front, big block engine, stick shift. Cage and some suspension, 37" or so tires and you're ready for it all. Kinda. Be a blast to drive.
billy1911
02-01-2008, 09:07 AM
The new camburg beams run hiems. back to the topic are you considering a leaf sprung straight axle or a linked straight axle? There is a huge difference.
DavidWymore
02-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Yep. This thread on RDC should be required reading for this thread on C3. Check out the flyfishing truck with the Dana 60 front axle.
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18352
The new camburg beams run hiems. back to the topic are you considering a leaf sprung straight axle or a linked straight axle? There is a huge difference.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.