Lets talk axle wms

Scottal

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2016
Location
Knoxville area, TN
Getting ready to start cutting axles for the JHF chassis. Front and rear steer. Axles are the typical 69" gm wms. So what's everybodys opinion on what wms they should be for cone dodging? I've had toyota axles of different widths in the past and all worked pretty well. Based on this, I am knocking around 65" front 64" rear with 4.25" back space 9" wide wheels. Thoughts? Opinions? No right or wrong answers :dumbass:
 
Sounds to narrow to me personally but I'm not in the cone dodging world. I'd run some link numbers and plot some 2d top views for tire clearance. That's how I would pick what width I went width. I know most comp buggys run in the relm of 50° steering which doesn't leave much room for your ordinary triangulated lowers. What do most of the JHF buggies run? If there's already one similar to how you want to run, some of the hard stuff may be solved already.
 
Prolly wont be in the 50 degree steering range because of the budget, but will push for the most I can get. I'm fine with some wacky lower link locations also if that's what it takes. Most toyota axles with spacers are in the 62" wms range so anything over that already has more wiggle room.
 
Beyond overall width, also consider front pumpkin placement within that width.
Available tube on the chunk side will also determine LCA placement and angle which will contribute to tire clearance and such.
FWIW- last narrowed axles I ran were a 65" Chevy 60 up front and a C&C 14 rear. Up front, I could steer 42* with clearanced shaft ears and no steering stops.
I narrowed the long side so I could angle the lower link in and clear the tire better.
 
Mac5005 said:
Wheelbase, tire size, and steering angle, plays a huge roll in wms. Need more details.
Click to expand...
Ehhh I'm more of a wing it guy:driver: Shooting for a 108ish wb. This is my first build of this style nature. The chassis link mounts have a formula from goat built but are moveable to a certain degree. Pretty sure the lower chassis mounts and lower axle mounts can be moved enough to allow for max kingpin steer angle, wherever that falls in the 40 degree range with 43" sister effin tires. In the worst case, 65" wms wont work but im optimistic so i've got that going for me anyway :dumbass:
 
I’m with @Bebop on this one. I’m an amateur at hackfab but the last WeRock I was at, the vast majority of the competitive buggies ran a deep backspaced wheel to help with the scrub. Now the ackerman and steering angle is a whole other rabbit hole to go down, but it seems the common denominator looks to be minimize the scrub radius.
 
Scottal said:
Ehhh I'm more of a wing it guy:driver: Shooting for a 108ish wb. This is my first build of this style nature. The chassis link mounts have a formula from goat built but are moveable to a certain degree. Pretty sure the lower chassis mounts and lower axle mounts can be moved enough to allow for max kingpin steer angle, wherever that falls in the 40 degree range with 43" sister effin tires. In the worst case, 65" wms wont work but im optimistic so i've got that going for me anyway :dumbass:
Click to expand...
I think 65-67 is fine for what it sounds.

63” is sometimes a pain to work around getting the tires to clear the shocks at full lock and full articulation, especially if front engine with LS.

I’d say no less than 3.5” backspace wheel.

A lot of the pro come Dodgers are running portals and 5-7” backspace wheels so very little/no scrub.

It’s not super difficult to plot your king pin inclination line and find the center of zero scrub based on your tire height and find wheels that are the closest backspace.

X2 on above leave them wide and just get as much backspace as you can and still clear the links using the most of your steering angle.
 
Back
Top