MOSS BROTHERS 79 BRONCO CLASS 3 RACER

[philofab]

I thought class 3&4 required working 4wd? Wasn't that the reasoning behind the Duralast/Rough Riders truck with the Dana 28 center section and equal length beams? Working 4wd that wouldn't last more than a mile of racing?

[PaulW]

I thought class 3&4 required working 4wd? Wasn't that the reasoning behind the Duralast/Rough Riders truck with the Dana 28 center section and equal length beams? Working 4wd that wouldn't last more than a mile of racing?

=====
My point is that 4wd is not necessary for the race so make the front as light as possible, but strong enough to withstand the course hazards. The example you cite. Meet the rules per the above and avoid shifting into 4wd.
I know the last 4/8 trucks had no low transfer internals just 4hi. Save weight where ever possible.
PW

[MOSS2]

I thought class 3&4 required working 4wd? Wasn't that the reasoning behind the Duralast/Rough Riders truck with the Dana 28 center section and equal length beams? Working 4wd that wouldn't last more than a mile of racing?

=====
My point is that 4wd is not necessary for the race so make the front as light as possible, but strong enough to withstand the course hazards. The example you cite. Meet the rules per the above and avoid shifting into 4wd.
I know the last 4/8 trucks had no low transfer internals just 4hi. Save weight where ever possible.
PW

Which is pretty much where we are now except we still retain unnecessary low range. Only use sparingly and not in the chop. You can argue all day that 4wd is not necessary...but ... it has prevented a few DNFs and won a few big races for us. Cant say it has lost us any races by being functional but too heavy..yet.

Ken

[Deleted Account]

How much does your Bronco wiegh Ken?

[300]

I thought class 3&4 required working 4wd? Wasn't that the reasoning behind the Duralast/Rough Riders truck with the Dana 28 center section and equal length beams? Working 4wd that wouldn't last more than a mile of racing?

=====
My point is that 4wd is not necessary for the race so make the front as light as possible, but strong enough to withstand the course hazards. The example you cite. Meet the rules per the above and avoid shifting into 4wd.
I know the last 4/8 trucks had no low transfer internals just 4hi. Save weight where ever possible.
PW

Which is pretty much where we are now except we still retain unnecessary low range. Only use sparingly and not in the chop. You can argue all day that 4wd is not necessary...but ... it has prevented a few DNFs and won a few big races for us. Cant say it has lost us any races by being functional but too heavy..yet.

Ken

Until we quit running the back side of the Summit, we need that low range for engine braking! Truck is right around 5000 lbs. With the life span we have had with front gears lately, use of 4wd is pretty much emergency use only anymore. I just saw the videos of the silt around RM 300, holy cow! I see now why #500 didn't win his class.

[MOSS2]

Until we quit running the back side of the Summit, we need that low range for engine braking! Truck is right around 5000 lbs. With the life span we have had with front gears lately, use of 4wd is pretty much emergency use only anymore. I just saw the videos of the silt around RM 300, holy cow! I see now why #500 didn't win his class.[/quote]

Yes I forgot about how handy low range is when you have lost the brakes and trying to do the mountain downhill sections! (after Uruapan worse than Simpsons I think) Yes I saw the same silt videos I think. Now I see that going left like we did was not the hot line. Craig and I probably went about 100yards in a dark silt shower

[PaulW]

I hate silt.
For the 500 marking I had the mile marker sign for RM 164. And the good guy I am I drove the exact track an buried the Bronco. I was already in LO LO and just sat there grinding the silt. I was able to back out and I drove all around and finally got to the place for the sign a little further down track. The other marker guys made a wide birth of the silt and had no issues. They all laughed.
When we marked after Uruapan the track was dry slick and I slipped sideways in slow motion a couple of places.
PW

[toddz69]

Using a TTB center section and fabricated housing is being considered because between the stock 78-79 housings we have destroyed and the EB guys using them as a conversion, the stock housings are getting very hard to find.

Plenty of 78-79 front housings here in AZ. Let me know if you ever need any.

Todd Z.

[flyinbronco]

A little love on RDC for the Moss Brothers.
http://www.race-dezert.com/home/win-num ... 32122.html

and at Ford Racing[urlhttp://racing.ford.com/more-racing/news/articles/moss-brothers-take-record-40th-score-class-3-victory-1293054770904/][/url]

[MOSS2]

How to give away 1st position and get it back in 5 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9o2byXg2I0

[BajaDale]

Where were they going? Good for you bad for them!

[300]

Getting this out of Bill's thread, and in response to CT754's question about the steering links on a 78-79, here is the issue in the picture. The drag link attaches very close to the end of the tie rod on the passenger side. There is not enough room for a standard heim adapter and keep the drag link attached in the same place. There is also an issue with how to keep the tie rod from rotating if the drag link attaches to it. The stock stuff uses washers to limit the rotation, and you can see the washers are blown out in the picture. Most aftermarket stuff I have seen runs the drag link over to the steering arm. I have looked at this, but it definitely causes more bump steer at full droop than the stock geometry does. I just don't know if it would be objectionable to drive.

[toddz69]

Getting this out of Bill's thread, and in response to CT754's question about the steering links on a 78-79, here is the issue in the picture. The drag link attaches very close to the end of the tie rod on the passenger side. There is not enough room for a standard heim adapter and keep the drag link attached in the same place. There is also an issue with how to keep the tie rod from rotating if the drag link attaches to it. The stock stuff uses washers to limit the rotation, and you can see the washers are blown out in the picture. Most aftermarket stuff I have seen runs the drag link over to the steering arm. I have looked at this, but it definitely causes more bump steer at full droop than the stock geometry does. I just don't know if it would be objectionable to drive.

Other than washers blowing out, how much longevity are you getting out of the stock steering linkage, Don? I know Chuck at BC always says that theirs went away in one B1K and they switched to heims after that. I have the F150 setup (flipped on top of the knuckles) on my EB and it's lasted for many years although I'm not racing. Chuck has that saddle mount that could give you some flexibility as to where the drag link attaches to the tie rod - I'm not sure whether it forces rotation of the tie rod as force is applied or not - it probably does. That's one downside to the T-linkage compared to the Haltenberger linkage - we have more of a dead spot on-center as the rotational slop has to be absorbed before the actual steering starts.

The stock linkage has a fair amount of understeer built into it (drag link is below the roll center of the front suspension) and taking the drag link over to the knuckle would bring it closer to a neutral steering condition, although as you say, the bump steer would likely be more of an issue with the increased delta in lengths and angles between the trac bar and drag link.

Todd Z.

[ChaseTruck754]

Thanks for the pics. Makes a lot more sense now.

Kind of basing a thought off what Todd posted - are you not able to flip the tie rod to above the mounting ear on the knuckle? That would allow a tabbed style connection for the drag link, thus allowing the connection point of the drag link to the tie rod in the same spot as factory? The downside is the connection would most likely have to be in single shear based on where the connection is made & how the steering cycles.

As for how to stop the drag link from causing rotation on the tie rod - that is a trickier fix. Possible thoughts on that are tack welds on the jamb nut to heim & then from tie rod tube to jamb nut. Not a perfect solution by any means though.

[PaulW]

I have that problem with the link from the driver side to the passenger relay.
It has to have a big gusseted bow and the drivers heim is continually coming loose and the link drops down.
Really hard to get the thing tight because one has to hold the link and the heim when tightening the nut.
Cheaters are required for the nut and the Heim while bracing the link to a fixed position.
It really takes more than one guy for really tight nut. (1.25" nut)
Then the whole issue is made worse when I drive in a hole even with a reasonable
speed then the stress on the link just makes to issue worse and the result is a loose nut.
I use shock donuts to hold the thng in place when the nut is tight, but when loose it droops low when the nut gives up the grip.
I wish there was a better way than tack welds.
I am open to suggestions.
PW

[hobbyturnedobsession]

Green loctite?

[300]

Been thinking about using a link from the tie rod to the knuckle to keep things from rotating but hate to add more moving parts. So far sloppy steering has only been annoying and has not potentially ended or lost our race like broken spindles have, so the attention goes to the bigger problem.

[PaulW]

Green loctite?

==
Used red. Now to do over the thing has tocome apart and toe and S wheel center has to be done over.
Takes lots of time.
PW

[300]

Just had a crew member send this link to me:

http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/product/CL ... nco#videos

Watch the video, it explains it pretty well. Those cartridges look like ball joints that are commonly used in circle track stuff and should be strong enough in use as a tie rod end. The end links are a beefy part that is apparently forged for them for this application. They are also taking care of the rotation problem with their "rock lock" washer. That price will get your attention, but it is just over twice the cost of Napa stock replacement parts.

[ChaseTruck754]

now that looks like a pretty sweet solution. I wonder how long the "cartridges" (ball joint type assembly) hold up & how much they cost.