le earlier today reading some of the posts below about the rack & pinion and the nice looking new control arms in the new TW....I thought hmmmm, maybe I'd better look at that again! Ok, with page 48 here in front of me......well here goes.... This design will have "very bad" bump steer! Period. Although may go unoticed by most Stude drivers because the Stude design is also not exactly correct. But actually a better design than this. While the control arms themselves look nice, the R&P installation is, well, leaves a lot to be desired. On the plus side, uppers now have good adjustability. The rearward angle of the control arms add to the problems, although not greatly. The pivot point of the R&P arms needs to be very close to the pivot point of the lower control arm and about the same height as the arms on the spindles. Much deviation from this will give you bump steer. The assembly on pg. 48 as you can see has a bad angle front to rear, and very bad steering arm (or what ever it's called!) length compared to the lower control arm length. Sorry this is so long, but I thought maybe this might help some with a R&P installation or....... There's good books out there on modifying/designing front suspensions. Even a few computer programs to aid in design. There's also mechanical aids out there to help with the verification of existing bump steer. Mike -------------------------- When you think about it, it only makes sense that it's hard to improve on the factory set-up, even with modern parts. I know Studebaker did not have the resources of the big three, but they did have a bit more than a Studebaker vendor :) I'm sure with enough computer design time and the right parts you could improve on the factory, but at first glance, the unit we're talking about looks a bit flimsy compared to the factory unit and you seem to point out some possible design problems. ------------------------ Not to be argumentative, but IMHO darn near anything would be an improvement over the Stude front suspension/steering but I don't think this setup is the answer. I agree totally with Mike's observations, this setup looks like bump steer in the making and I can't believe it will have a decent turning radius with full length steering arms. I searched the Flaming River site for dimensions on the rack travel but didn't find any. Anyone know the rack travel? As a veteran of several failed R&P installations, color me skeptical. John ---------------------- John I don't want to be a veteran too. Can you elaborate a bit more on the failures? I mean, was it rack placement, steering arms, and what if anything, could you do, or did you do to correct it? Thanks in advance. -- Sonny & "Studbuster" S/P Corp. Powered '50 Starlight Coupe -------------------- My first attempt was a Pinto/Mustang II front mount with reversed spindles and shortened steering arms, lots of bump steer, geometry problems (Ackerman) and limited travel. Next I tried a Mopar (don't know the app) rear mount. It worked, with some bump steer and still had limited travel even with shortened arms, just not enough travel in the rack. My last attempt was a Citation rear mount. This appeared to be ideal because the tie rods mount near the center of the rack just like the Stude bellcrank, and this would eliminate all bump steer. I shortened the steering arms as much as possible and this caused a severe problem with the geometry as the stubby steering arms would go over center at the extremes of steering travel. If the rack could have been moved rearward, the over center could be prevented but the oil pan restricted rearward placement. If the arms were lengthened to prevent over center, the travel was limited to a ridiculous turning radius. I've watched, with interest, all the R&P conversions. As discussed often, the standard racks with the outboard tie rod mounts are going to have some bump steer because of the difference in the pivot point brought about because of the Stude's ultra long lower control arms. The only way around this is the center tie rod attachment like the Citation family of racks, but these just don't have sufficient travel for the standard length steering arms or any usable shortened ones. As I said, I'm watching with interest but am skeptical. John -------------------- Hmmm, you just shot a couple of ideas that I had in the butt. I guess it's just a try, and try again thing. Man, I hope I can get it worked out, bad steering is a real pain. Thanks John, I really appreciate it. ------------------- Bill Eckenrode said he solved all those problems on a 54 with a center steer Pontiac type rack. He did have a Caddy engine, so I don't know if it would clear a Stude pan or not? He has picture and notes. Alex M -------------------- Stupid questions: Could you take a center steer rack and connect it to the bellcrank? Would this not address the geometry issues? Even if you had an additional link or two, wouldn't it still be less sloppy than a stock steering linkage? -------------------- n effect, what some have done is eliminate the bell crank and hook the center steer right to the tie rods. I don't see any way to connect to the bell crank itself? Maybe one of those later bell cranks with the arm in front could be used. Not sure if there is enough room in front for a rack and pinion though. Alex M ----------------------- That's the R&P I'm using. Cut and welded my 3rd arms. No over center problems. Same turning radius as original. Car is not finished. Rolled car out into the parking lot and turned steering wheel left to lock and rolled around in a circle. No scrub between tires and pavement. Had same results with wheels locked to right. Less bump steer than original. R&P travels less than 6 inchs. Original Stude linkage travels 8 inchs. -------------------------- Hmmm, different results for someone else. I can see that I had better get my azz back under my car and get busy. It almost sounds like a case by case deal here fellas. I definitely will let ya know what I find on mine. Thanks to the both of you, John and Jerry, for the help. I don't have any excuses not to be workin on it now. Sonny ------------------ Hi Mike, I have read that the pivot point had to be exactly on a line between the upper and lower arm pivot points. Kind of hard to tell from the picture exactly where the pivot point is. I'm more concerned about what looks like weakness in that long mounting plate and a lack of power steering. Flaming Rivers site says their unit are designed for 1750 max front weight. The coupes are over that a bit. I don't know if that weight limit is for safety or just for steering ease. I would like to see how they work out. Alex M ----------------- Alex, your right. Although it sometimes is hard to get that "exact" point. Frame in the way, tie rods too short, etc. Mine on my Corvette parts in my Lark are about a half inch off. We'll see how it works. I want it as good as I can get it (perfect!?). I may have to do some modifications later. In any case it's light years better than 5" or 6" off as we've seen in "other" places ! And yes to the R&P mounting plate on that setup also....up, down, twisting. Even eventual ovaling of the mounting bolts in the frame because of the moment put on it by the side loads during turning actions. The arms themselves are nice though. Make it a front steer setup, use spindles that have the steering arms in the front, move the R&P right up against the cross member. That'ed help! ------------