Using a locomotive wheel style coupling rod to offset the steering column?

Put the steering column and wheel in there.
Now how does that work ? Or are we talking 3/8 turn from center to lock for a steering ratio?

 

That would be the steering column on the right, supported by bearings at both ends, and the wheel goes on where it says steering wheel.

 

WOuldnt the input and output torque curve be a sine wave on a locomotive link?

 

Anybody ever hear of a guy by the name of Rube Goldberg, maybe we could incorporate some Vice-Grips with this monstrosity! Maybe you could use crankshafts from a couple of Briggs and Stratton twins. How about using a crank with 3 throws and incorporating a piston and cylinder from a Briggs and Stratton and calling it power steering?

Edit I just had a better idea! You're going to have a straight axle, right? Just hook up 2 ropes to it!

 

Some how some way, the rod is going to "two block" itself on one if those center mounted objects , steering wheel or steering shaft. Right now I don't see the rods being able to pass over the center of circles.

Give me a good side view, with the bearing the bearing attachment, the step in the rod to clear the bearing and the same for the other wheel. I see maybe 7-8" from the face of one wheel to the back side of the other.

I don't know but I can't see it working without being a 2000.00 solution for a 20.00 problem

 

Dont do it take your time and do it right.

 

that would be scary as H* L L I wouldn't want it

 

Heard NSRA won't give a safety certificate with chain steering.


Ago

 

http://www.wizardsteerclear.com/

Here you go, check this out

 

Is this what your looking for ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCeOVcYL0I

 

Here is another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARs3y3i0enE

 

One must remember that the NSRA must be very conservative with their rules because of liability. I'm surprised that they haven't gotten sued into oblivion because of their safety certifications.
The best solution is to engineer the car in such a way that no more than 2 U-jounts and 2 shafts will get you from steering wheel to steering box shaft.
In our quest to get "outside the box" we sometimes thumb our noses at good engineering. In this situation using cranks and connecting rods is probably the poorest method of transferring motion from one shaft to another with the possible exception of friction wheels.
Let's all go find a different subject to beat to death!

 

Why don't you have the room ? Lets see photos or forget it and delete this thread.

Toxic Waste

 

My computer drawing skill are lacking, obviously. As someone mentioned, just think of a Model A crankshaft with just two journals, the rod journals 90 degrees out of phase from each other. No center bearing, no 'wheels'. Just a bearing at each end.



Same thing for the other side that runs to the steering box. The two rods would need only be 1/2' thick at most, I would think the whole thing could be put in a case not more than 2 inches thick, similar to the chain drive ones.

It's actually doesn't seem that "rube goldberg" to me, only four moving parts and two of those are the steering shafts. However, I'm no engineer, there could be a darn good reason nobody does it!

 

Wow that is cool!

 

Any idea that doesnt manage to incorporate vise grips at some point isnt worth bothering with...

 

Having been a machinist for the past 30 years and built one off oddball stuff, I see hundreds of dollars in machining to make a housing that holds everything precisely so you can adjust out all slop, plus you have to use bearings that have "0" clearance. Clearances of Model A bearing will be too sloppy, you will need a set-up with motorcycle crank roller bearings. There is a reason why we pay big bucks for Borgeson U-joints rather than cheap pin & block U-joints, any slop in the system is multiplied by the diameter of your steering wheel.
I would like for you to build one and tell us how it works and how the cost compares to a roller chain set-up that I could build for about $50

 

Nah, too simple...

 

Fat chance, I have other things to do. I never said it was any improvement in cost or operation over a chain, 31 Vicky asked for conceptual form and that's what I provided.

The Steer Clear chain units are $600-$700 btw. If you make them for $50 you should be in business!

 

Very logical explanation of why not to use the loco method idea. Keep you nose between the ditches etc.

 

This pretty much does the job.

Related is the triple-eccentric cam drive used on NSU motorcycle engines:

 

I didn't read all this but is steer-clear or whatever they're called still a round?

 

Spoon fed link in post 39

 

Thanks Ned, that is the motorcycle I was thinking of. Notice that the eccentric drive does rotate in complete circles. The eccentrics are not 180 apart.

There are only 2 drivers, the 3d rod is a distance piece to keep the bearing a constant distance apart in spite of heat expansion.

Bentley dealt with the expansion problem with stacks of washers. They were bolted together loosely and oil took up the spaces in between while allowing the rod to grow longer or shorter as necessary.

You wouldn't need any expansion compensation in a steering box.

I still think it would be best to design a proper steering mechanism, second best would be chain, 3d best would be a 3 gear drive, eccentrics would come last.

 

Nobody brought this up? Starts with reply/post #44


http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5653678

 

WOW, that's simply McRAD!

 

Ford tractors had twin steering arms in the 40s so I guess we should call it traditional. LOL
They didn't use the bell cranks, but the principle is similar. Ever try to get a 9N Ford steering lined up after a few years being beaten to death in the fields.

 

Is there a limit on how many universal joints a steering may have?

Would they approve a system with two angled gearboxes to offset it away from the engine?

 

If you use more than 2 U joints you need a reaction point in other words, a bearing in the middle of the shaft that is mounted rigidly to the frame.