Innovative IFS

Toyhoarder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
182
Reaction score
232
Location
The west
Vehicle(s)
Early Bronco, F-150, F-450
I’m still partial to a SFA, but if it has to be IFS, why couldn’t Ford design something like these instead of just a wide-armed Ranger IFS?






Advertisement


 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
902
Reaction score
1,607
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
I’m still partial to a SFA, but if it has to be IFS, why couldn’t Ford design something like these instead of just a wide-armed Ranger IFS?



that second one is using the same concept the TTB was designed around, by having the differential inside/as part of the driver's side suspension
 
OP

Toyhoarder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
182
Reaction score
232
Location
The west
Vehicle(s)
Early Bronco, F-150, F-450
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #3
that second one is using the same concept the TTB was designed around, by having the differential inside/as part of the driver's side suspension
Yep, only with the improved driving characteristics of double A-arms.
 

TeocaliMG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
352
Reaction score
875
Location
Dearborn Michigarn
Vehicle(s)
1987 f-250 6.9 idi diesel, 2004 jeep liberty sport
I would absolutely love it if they pushed the edge a little bit like this. I have drawn up some unique designs myself I would love to implement someday. (maybe you'll see it on my version of a heavily modded Bronco R someday ;) )

As for why they didn't, there is probably a few reasons. The most important being manufacturing, both cost and assembly time. The optimist in me says that with the right engineers more creative IFS designs could be designed practically, but having seen how much work it is to even take baby steps at a huge OEM I am at least somewhat happy with what we have.

A big hurdle related to the stuff I work on is the steering. Right now everything Ford uses is EPAS racks or columns with the exception of super duty. Given the trajectory of steering at Ford lately I would be very surprised to see them develop a pitman/RCB gear for a clever suspension design. Traditional EPAS rack architectures are among the limiting factors when it comes to cradle width (engine package or crash may be the more dominant factor realistically). So the arms can only be so long. The lowers on the Bronco though are decently long for a stock vehicle, its the uppers that really limit the travel, and its hard to move the shock towers inboard for a number of reasons, though I would be in favor of doing so. Anything to make SLA a little bit closer to LLA is good in my book.

In short there are a lot of reasons they didn't do anything too crazy, but mark my words i'd be all for it! Similarly there are some cool things you can do with SFA from a linkage stand point but right now, that's all aftermarket too.
 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
902
Reaction score
1,607
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
I would absolutely love it if they pushed the edge a little bit like this. I have drawn up some unique designs myself I would love to implement someday. (maybe you'll see it on my version of a heavily modded Bronco R someday ;) )

As for why they didn't, there is probably a few reasons. The most important being manufacturing, both cost and assembly time. The optimist in me says that with the right engineers more creative IFS designs could be designed practically, but having seen how much work it is to even take baby steps at a huge OEM I am at least somewhat happy with what we have.

A big hurdle related to the stuff I work on is the steering. Right now everything Ford uses is EPAS racks or columns with the exception of super duty. Given the trajectory of steering at Ford lately I would be very surprised to see them develop a pitman/RCB gear for a clever suspension design. Traditional EPAS rack architectures are among the limiting factors when it comes to cradle width (engine package or crash may be the more dominant factor realistically). So the arms can only be so long. The lowers on the Bronco though are decently long for a stock vehicle, its the uppers that really limit the travel, and its hard to move the shock towers inboard for a number of reasons, though I would be in favor of doing so. Anything to make SLA a little bit closer to LLA is good in my book.

In short there are a lot of reasons they didn't do anything too crazy, but mark my words i'd be all for it! Similarly there are some cool things you can do with SFA from a linkage stand point but right now, that's all aftermarket too.
I would love to see a modern dual arm take on the cross body TTB setup. the arms would of course have to be offset to cross each other, and complicated by the axle between them, but I think I can see how it cold be done. Of course the steering can get very convoluted doing this as it was on the TTB (and is on many IFS designs) as compared to SFA steering setups. Of course, if you could design a way to provide proper feedback through the wheel on a full hydro or full electro system, that would be great. (should be fairly simple with a full electro given todays processing and sensing powers)
 

TeocaliMG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
352
Reaction score
875
Location
Dearborn Michigarn
Vehicle(s)
1987 f-250 6.9 idi diesel, 2004 jeep liberty sport
I would love to see a modern dual arm take on the cross body TTB setup. the arms would of course have to be offset to cross each other, and complicated by the axle between them, but I think I can see how it cold be done. Of course the steering can get very convoluted doing this as it was on the TTB (and is on many IFS designs) as compared to SFA steering setups. Of course, if you could design a way to provide proper feedback through the wheel on a full hydro or full electro system, that would be great. (should be fairly simple with a full electro given todays processing and sensing powers)
an inevitable part of the future is steer by wire. I don't yet know how long it will take but its coming. It will be one of those things that everyone despises until its the only option and then you will wonder how you lived without it. You could simulate, mute, or augment any amount of real feedback to the driver, while offering full independent wheel control without having to deal with a rack or a pitman arm. It will offer all the design possibilities of hydraulic set ups without sacrificing feedback or precision. Why don't we have it now? $$$
 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
902
Reaction score
1,607
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
an inevitable part of the future is steer by wire. I don't yet know how long it will take but its coming. It will be one of those things that everyone despises until its the only option and then you will wonder how you lived without it. You could simulate, mute, or augment any amount of real feedback to the driver, while offering full independent wheel control without having to deal with a rack or a pitman arm. It will offer all the design possibilities of hydraulic set ups without sacrificing feedback or precision. Why don't we have it now? $$$
not just money, but mechanical safety as well. You'll need to implement some type of forced re-centering wheel position upon loss of electrical control. If you had some type of backup mechanical linkage safety system, then it defies all purpose/benefits of going full electric in the first place.
 



Similar threads





















Top