LocostUSA.com

oh boy no kidding!! the jacking effect is what defined the outer limit of traction for me, once i learned to stay under that point i was fine but before then? weeeehaWWW where's my hat! ya gotta have a finely tuned gluteous mass deflection sensor array though, i couldn't do it anymore.

And it looks like the Allard has a strap from near the backing plates up near the headlight mounts to restrict the amount the axle can drop. I'd hate to see the result if one of them let loose in the middle of a turn!

My Renault Dauphine (swing axle) had a heavy canvas looking strap that went from the body work around the axle and back up again as a limit to the axle drop. The old VW swing arms used to contact a lip under the swing arm as the stop.

Just to set the record straight though, we were talking about solid axles but it is interesting to see what happens when you mess with mother nature.

kf2qd,

HERE ARE A FEW LINKS FOR USED MIDGET, SPRINTS AND SILVER CROWN ITEMS, WHERE YOU CAN GET A CHEEP FRONT AXEL SHOULD YOU GO THIS DIRECTION.
ASPHALT CARS, LIKE THE SIVER CROWN CARS USUALLY USE 2 FRONT BRAKES

http://hoseheadsclassifieds.com/
http://www.racingjunk.com/

I'VE BEEN CONSIDERING THIS DIRECTION ALSO..... BUT, TILL I SELL MY KIDNEY.
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=9208


AND FOR ALL THE EUROPHILES HERE...... GET OUT OF THE SUN AND STOP WATCHING THE JUMBO TRON, AND GET YOUR DIRT ON.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxCyRsDjYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76OK0mySmdk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okpj28E55U4

Here's a lot of detail of how a guy converted A arms to a solid front axle. There's lot's of good info that might be useful for picking and matching parts.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/show ... p?t=230636

A friend of mine suggested I take a look at your site (since my name was mentioned...LOL) and am impressed with the effort you guys show.

If you have specific questions for me, feel free to ask away.

Best regards,

Bob

That's how big-truck alignments are done. They chain the beam to the chassis and break out the bottle jack, or use the floor anchors and hydraulic pullers.

There's such a place a few towns over, that is also the go-to place for people with beam-axle Econolines, street rods, etc. Back in the day, they also aligned those newfangled MacPherson struts; on my autocross Capri, they bent the forged knuckles to give me more negative camber without slotting the strut mounts, which wasn't legal in the class I was running in.



Some OEMs (older Chryslers come to mind) have separate left/right side alignment specs that differ by more than that.

The ancient solid forged steel beam axle has two fundamental problems, very high weight, and the narrow based king pin arrangement allows the wheels to flap about, once the very highly loaded king pin wears a little bit loose.

But how about a pair of modern ball joint steering knuckles, with a PAIR of light upper and lower thin wall tubular beams as a single rigid structure ?
With care, I am sure it could be built as light and as rigid as an IFS.

If you are planning on very wide, very low profile front tires, they would remain vertical to the track, and there would be zero front track width change, over extreme suspension movement and body roll.

You can even place the front roll centre below ground level if you wished to do so, by locating it laterally with a Mumford linkage.
viewtopic.php?t=77

Dare to be different !!!

We are getting pretty far off the original question/idea, which was,
So high loads, wide tires etc are not really that important in this case.

The only purpose of camber variability is an attempt to keep the heavily loaded outside wheel vertical as the chassis rolls in that direction. A beam axle does that automatically.

A single large diameter "hot rod" type tubular beam axle still suffers from having a narrow based king pins of some type.

The modern wide spaced ball joint steering knuckle is an excellent solution to the old original king pin design, with all it's problems.

What I am suggesting is a slim upper beam to tie the two top ball joints together, and a slim lower beam to tie the two lower ball joints together, and both beams rigidly triangulated together into a stiff bulkhead type of structure.
If thin wall tubing were intelligently used, the whole thing could be made extremely stiff and very light weight.

I have never seen anything like that on a Volkswagen, don't know what you mean there ???

Sure it would take up more vertical room, but the type of car we are discussing here has the front wheels ahead of the engine where there may be sufficient space to do it.

On a "book" chassis there is 11" between the front frame rails. If we allow 1" of clearance for the minimum clearance between the top and bottom of the axle(s) so they don't hit the chassis, that leaves 9" max from the top of the upper tube to the bottom of the lower tube as the maximum axle(s) separation dimension. Whatever you can take out of the 9" will be the bump/droop the axle(s) can move. If you want 2-1/2" up/down as the max suspension movement (5" total) you are back to about the length of the Ford kingpin (4").

It just seems to be easier to use one tube and make the distance between the ball joints as large as you can to fit into the rims if that is the end result desired.

It most certainly does compensate for it via using caster. You turn the steering and you gain neg camber. The problem with a solid beam is that same "neg camber giving caster" also at the same applies the incorrect amount of camber to the inside tyre and while not as important does take away some of the beam's advantage.

Read more on the Championship winning Welsor Clubman car on one way to solve that inside wheel camber problem ...
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... or+is+flat
(Clubmans are very similar to Locosts by the way)

I have totally resolved the problem with my own unique design and now presently have the worlds first semi-independent beam that gives all the benefits of both beam and IFS without the drawbacks of either including weight.

Aerodynamics do not allow for beams in F1, nor do the rules now and please note that the last serious pre aero/winged Lotus was actually built with beams at both ends (the 1968 Lotus 58). Clark was due to test it the weekend after he was killed, Hill did and didn't like it much and then the wing race started so it simply got left behind but we had the most successful F1 car designer of the time turning his attention to beams in the hope of getting higher levels of mechanical grip. Personally I don't like the way he did it and it never went down the development path anyway. There was a very interesting Can Am car too with a front beam but I forgot it's name...

The way you reply with quotes to people is very confusing.

Caldwell. Sam Posey ran it, but it looked like it was down on power.

I have one very grainy shot of the front end with the bodywork off, but I've never found much else about how the car was arranged.

My memory (for what it's worth) of the caldwell was that it was described as having 'front and rear de deions' in its day. I think that camber was adjustable (not under way of course) and recall that there were reported problems with gyroscopic bump steer.

One further thought on beam axles and chassis design.
Yes indeed, beam axles take up a lot of room, especially if a lot of suspension travel is required, and it has to cross over, through, or under, the main chassis structure somehow.

Or does it ???

Why does the main load bearing chassis structure have to extend way out beyond the axle centre lines ?
Why not have the chassis end at the suspension pickup points (within the wheelbase) and cantilever the beam axle(s) out beyond the chassis where vertical movement is completely unrestricted?

The crazy hot rodders have been doing this for about a century at the front, it is about the only practical way to get the front of this type of vehicle down really low without losing suspension travel.

If you build a shortened chassis, it will not only probably weigh less, but it completely frees you of any suspension travel constraints regarding getting the steering linkages, drive shafts, or a beam axle, past or through the main chassis structure.

Behold, the classic "suicide" hot rod front end.