Tie rod mystery: solved by the spindle mystery

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2013: Tie rod mystery: solved by the spindle mystery
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Monday, January 28, 2013 - 02:09 pm:

I wondered why the tie rod on my roadster had been lengthened by almost two inches with ugly welding.

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/338215.html?1359354727

Today I found out why.


The right spindle has the hole for the arm perpendicular to the axis of the spindle shaft. But look at the left one. The hole leans back at an angle of about 80. I looked at about two dozen other spindles, both left and right, and the number I found with that angle is zero. I also didn't find any reference to it in my Rodda books or the encyclopedia. That's not to say the info isn't there somewhere, but I didn't find it. Can anybody ID the odd spindle?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By A. Gustaf Bryngelson on Monday, January 28, 2013 - 03:01 pm:

I think the odd one is the one on the left.
Best
Gus


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jeff Hood on Monday, January 28, 2013 - 03:10 pm:

I seem to recall a discussion maybe last year about a spindle like this and whether it was bent, or twisted, or made that way. I can't see how it could be anything other than made like that.If you find the old thread, maybe you'll find a mate to yours!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Monday, January 28, 2013 - 03:23 pm:

Charles Little has an early one bent just like that: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/257047/310756.html?1347336296


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Tomaso - Milton,WA on Monday, January 28, 2013 - 05:59 pm:

I've got one hanging on the wall deformed the same way ????????? Missed the "Quality Control" portion in the assembly line !


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Todd on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 11:14 am:

Any numbers on that odd spindle?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Charles W. Little South Paris, Maine on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 02:50 pm:

As mentioned in the thread referenced above, the one that I have has the Transue/Williams logo and the part number 203-204 and then what looks like a backward 7. I looked the number up and 203B and 204B were the numbers for the "bare spindle".

Steve, is yours a TW and is it marked with numbers?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 03:52 pm:

I haven't been able to detect any marks. I'll include it when I sand blast some parts and see if that uncovers anything.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Tomaso - Milton,WA on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 04:08 pm:

My oddball spindle is genuine "Ford" script with a part number of T-203, I believe.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 06:07 am:

The first contact in a collision with a T is the front wheels (and the crank) Then if the wheel is turned slightly it will turn as far as it will go - until the steering arm on the spindle stops at the axle somewhere. If the collision occurs above X mphs, the spokes will break too, even if they are hickory - perhaps the bent spindles are remains from old wrecks?

Sometimes bent parts were kept for later repair even if Ford discouraged that practice - man hours were cheap back in those days. Later on perhaps someone used the bent part without noticing, he had to improvise later on to get the tie rod to fit, but in reality the steering geometry was all wrong, not following the Ackermann principle:

ackermann principle


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Trevan - Australia on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 02:49 pm:

Have you thought about the wide track ''T'. It would require a different angle to comply with the ''ACAMAN ' steering principal.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 03:11 pm:

Wide tracks - hmm, they should really have the steering arm more inward to point at the center of the rear axle, but these examples are more outwards instead.. Would make more sense on the longer wheelbase TT's, but TT's are not known to have any different tie rods than the standard T.. My guess is that Ford just ignored the problem, the TT's steered good enough at their slow 18/24 mph speed, and the rare wide tracks got so much better stability so nobody noticed any Ackermann deviation when cruising the cotton wagon ruts down south :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Randy Driscoll on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 10:08 pm:

I don't see how a car could have left the factory that way. I don't think there is enough adjustment on the tie rod to correct that much toe out. On the other hand, maybe the car made it as far as the original owner before the problem was noticed. In that case the dealer would have replaced the spindle. I don't know what Fords' policy was in those days, but I would think they would want any warranteed defective parts returned to the company for numerous reasons.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration