Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal.
| [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310027] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 00:30  |
BobDunahugh
Messages: 2465
Registered: October 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I need to run the rear frame height about 1 to 2 inches above the factory spec. I have the quad bag system. This system seems to be more stable. But also a little more course. Over all I'm very please with it's performance. But when you run above stock at the rear. You start to reduce your front negative caster. And we already have very little negative caster to start with. So I need to raise the front to match the rear extra height. So are there others that have done this?
Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310032 is a reply to message #310027] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 08:31  |
lqqkatjon
Messages: 2324
Registered: October 2010
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
Not on purpose, but my front height seems about 1" too high. Dave Lenzi tried helping drop it with me, but it was determined it could not go down without re-indexing the pork chops, so we just made it even side to side, and I run the rear just a little lower then the front.
I am not a good example as to if it drives good or bad. But I drive it fine with one hand, and my wife does not seem to ever tell me that it handles terrible. There is quite a few parts in my front, that has never been replaced.
so just a thought, I would not think you would notice that much difference, as long as the front is slightly higher then the rear.
Jon Roche
75 palm beach
EBL EFI, manny headers, Micro Level, rebuilt most of coach now.
St. Cloud, MN
http://lqqkatjon.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310034 is a reply to message #310032] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 09:11 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have in the past aired up the rear bags to level the coach and locked
them out at the schraders. I have forgotten several times to open the
schraders when preparing to depart. Rather than feeling the handling
difference then stopping to correct I many times drove for extended periods
with the coach level or slightly higher in the rear and the coach drove
fine.
Sully
77 eleganza 2
Seattle
On Monday, November 7, 2016, Jon Roche wrote:
> Bob,
>
>
> Not on purpose, but my front height seems about 1" too high. Dave
> Lenzi tried helping drop it with me, but it was determined it could not go
> down
> without re-indexing the pork chops, so we just made it even side to side,
> and I run the rear just a little lower then the front.
>
> I am not a good example as to if it drives good or bad. But I drive it
> fine with one hand, and my wife does not seem to ever tell me that it
> handles terrible. There is quite a few parts in my front, that has
> never been replaced.
>
> so just a thought, I would not think you would notice that much
> difference, as long as the front is slightly higher then the rear.
>
>
> --
> Jon Roche
> 75 palm beach
> St. Cloud, MN
> http://lqqkatjon.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310040 is a reply to message #310035] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 11:34 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
The caster change due to rear ride height change that I gave you a while
ago (degrees per 1" = 0.358) was only close (CRS).
Actually, arcsin (1/160)=0.358100953 degrees
Ken H.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Bob Dunahugh wrote:
> Got a lot of Dave's parts. But not his upper A arms. Bob Dunahugh 78
> Royale
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Dunahugh
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 12:30 AM
> To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal.
>
>
> I need to run the rear frame height about 1 to 2 inches above the factory
> spec. I have the quad bag system. This system seems to be more stable.
> But also a little more course. Over all I'm very please with it's
> performance. But when you run above stock at the rear. You start to reduce
> your front negative caster. And we already have very little negative caster
> to start with. So I need to raise the front to match the rear extra
> height. So are there others that have done this?
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310042 is a reply to message #310040] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 13:17 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I contend it should be Tan T = o/a since the wheelbase is the adjacent side not the hypotenuse.
That give a completely different angle
arctan(1/160) = 0.35809395932357108773007102845403
________________________________
From: Gmclist on behalf of Ken Henderson
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 11:34:04 AM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal.
Bob,
The caster change due to rear ride height change that I gave you a while
ago (degrees per 1" = 0.358) was only close (CRS).
Actually, arcsin (1/160)=0.358100953 degrees
Ken H.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Bob Dunahugh wrote:
> Got a lot of Dave's parts. But not his upper A arms. Bob Dunahugh 78
> Royale
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Dunahugh
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 12:30 AM
> To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal.
>
>
> I need to run the rear frame height about 1 to 2 inches above the factory
> spec. I have the quad bag system. This system seems to be more stable.
> But also a little more course. Over all I'm very please with it's
> performance. But when you run above stock at the rear. You start to reduce
> your front negative caster. And we already have very little negative caster
> to start with. So I need to raise the front to match the rear extra
> height. So are there others that have done this?
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310047 is a reply to message #310030] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 15:40 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John,
IIRC with the front end set at the correct OEM ride height the axles are parallel to the ground (or damn near). When Bob raises the
front end both the upper and lower control arms will be higher where they connect to the frame than at the ball joints. They will be
pitched downwards as one looks at them from the front. The inner CV joint will be higher than the outer CV joint and the axles will
be angled down. I agree with you that it probably will be OK.
As far as Dave's offset upper control arms go when I put them on Double Trouble caster went from 1.9° to 4.9°!
Having said all this if Bob raises the front ride height 2 inches and the rear ride height 2 inches they will both be in the same
position relative to each other - I THINK. :-)
Regards,
Rob M.
The Pedantic Mechanic
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@list.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of John Sharpe
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 12:43 AM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal.
Bob, are you running some of Lenzi upper control arms? Should be able to get several more degrees and still keep your cv joints
running in their
sweet spot.
--
John Sharpe
Humble, TX
78 Eleganza II
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310049 is a reply to message #310042] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 16:16 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My expression of the extended accuracy was meant only to assure Bob that I
had indeed checked my top-of-the-head number. I have no idea what
orientation of the triangle in question should be for the standard
definition of caster. But I do know that I'm not about to worry about the
0.00000699367* difference between our answers -- the digital level I use
for alignment only reads to 0.1* anyway. All that without even discussing
the true accuracy based on the input integers -- my math degree is over 50
years too old for that! :-)
Ken H.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Keith V wrote:
> I contend it should be Tan T = o/a since the wheelbase is the adjacent
> side not the hypotenuse.
>
> That give a completely different angle
>
>
> arctan(1/160) = 0.35809395932357108773007102845403
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ruuing a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310050 is a reply to message #310027] |
Mon, 07 November 2016 17:15 |
Scott Nutter
Messages: 782
Registered: January 2015
Location: Houston/San Diego
Karma: 4
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob.
I inadvertently ran my ride about a inch too high in the past. It drove fine, but what John sharpe said, it angeled the cv joints in the front axel out of their sweet spot. My only damaged was to the inner cv boot, which means grease all over the place at highway speed.
So 2 new axels later. .....
Scott Nutter
1978 Royale Center Kitchen, Patterson 455, switch pitch tranny, 3.21 final drive, Quad bags, Dave Lenzi super duty mid axle disc brakes, tankless water heater, everything Lenzi. Alex Ferrera installed MSD Atomic EFI
Houston, Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310070 is a reply to message #310057] |
Tue, 08 November 2016 04:52 |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I set my ride heights a bit differently. Front adjusted to have axels level. Rear ride height adjusted to be the same amount lower than the front per spec.
I have also forgotten to set suspension to "travel" and drove for some extended times. Didn't notice a difference.
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Running a higher ride highth then normal. [message #310156 is a reply to message #310042] |
Wed, 09 November 2016 11:42 |
Jp Benson
Messages: 649
Registered: October 2011
Location: Fla
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Keith V wrote on Mon, 07 November 2016 13:17
arctan(1/160) = 0.35809395932357108773007102845403
From: Gmclist on behalf of Ken Henderson
Actually, arcsin (1/160)=0.358100953 degrees
Ken H.
All well and good but for those who are not so inclined to trig the small angle approximation can be used. That is for angles less than ~5 degrees the sine and tangent are equal to the angle itself in radians.
This only requires multiplying the angle by the radians to degrees conversion factor so:
57.296 * 1/160 = 0.3581 degrees
Hearing what can go wrong with improper front ride height I think I'll go check mine.
JP
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Sep 30 08:20:20 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01075 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
