• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Solo Motorsports radius arms

Apogee

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
6,063
Todd, those are pretty cool, though I'm surprised that they're relying on cores from parts that haven't been made since 1979, approximately 43+ years ago. I would think a casting would be cheaper than the labor to "save" the heads off of old radius arms, not to mention more reliable. I have a set of the CAGE arms with the billet steel ends they manufactured when the foundry company they used burned to the ground, so billet could be an option as well, though I can't imagine it's cost effective...though what is on an EB really?

I'm curious what they're getting for a pair of those...maybe somebody has them and knows.

Tobin
 
OP
OP
toddz69

toddz69

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
10,260
I'm surprised at that too, Tobin. I should probably run down to Driven and grab all the radius arms they have before they close at their current location in a few months!

I'm guessing Duffs are still using a foundry somewhere for the caps and pieces they're using on their radius arms.

Todd Z.
 

ngsd

Bronco Guru
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
2,560
It looks like they should help with larger tire clearance as well as the inward angle looks good. Duffs do so I assume these will too. I need tire clearance on my 68!
 

Apogee

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
6,063
It looks like they should help with larger tire clearance as well as the inward angle looks good. Duffs do so I assume these will too. I need tire clearance on my 68!

The tire trend towards gnarly side lugs on everything from all-terrain to competition crawler tires has certainly made those types of tire interferences all that more obnoxious, that's for sure. I love the turning radius allowed by my CAGE (basically Duff) long-travel arms.
 

lars

Contributor
Been here awhile
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
3,108
Loc.
NorCal flatlands
Perhaps liability insurance company rules have changed, or perhaps they don't have any, but the last time I looked into some of that many years ago, liability insurance was unobtainable if fabricating suspension components based around core parts.

They look cool but another negative is the built in caster. Sounds good until you discover that 5 degrees of caster built in to the arms means the pinion angle sucks (way low) and may lead to upper u-joint bind at full droop. Which could lead to instantly flinging a front driveshaft. Nasty.
 

ntsqd

heratic car camper
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,390
Loc.
Upper SoKA
I think that the 5° built-in Caster is a mistake. It is true that these trucks don't have enough Caster as-built, but adding Caster at the expense of the front drive-shaft U-J's isn't high on my list of good ideas.
 

JB Fab

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
1,263
The pair I looked at were top notch!
Solo didn't just decide to start making radius arms in their garage like some folks have in the past. Solo's core business is building race trucks, and they have decided to make parts for our EBs. With their experience and expertise I trust their stuff....
 

ntsqd

heratic car camper
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,390
Loc.
Upper SoKA
I have some Solo stuff on my FSB and am contemplating replacing my garage built camber-comp'd beams with some of theirs. Their fire extinguisher seat mount bracket is really cool (& I am the reason that the RS version is now listed on their page), but that doesn't mean that the 5° built-in caster isn't a mistake. The correct way to deal with this is a cut and turn of the 'C' brackets. That keeps the pinion angle where the front D-S U-J's will not bind and can live a reasonably long service life.
 

JB Fab

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
1,263
but that doesn't mean that the 5° built-in caster isn't a mistake. The correct way to deal with this is a cut and turn of the 'C' brackets. That keeps the pinion angle where the front D-S U-J's will not bind and can live a reasonably long service life.[/QUOTE said:
Absolutely! I was referring to the fabrication quality.
 

bchesley

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
327
I think the 5 is a mistake too. I hate that my Duff arms have 4.25 degrees built in theirs. I am running bushings in backwards to push the pinion back to factory, but I also cut and turned the outer C's 10 degrees for caster. It would be really cool if they had a pair with factory caster as well.
 

Apogee

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
6,063
The 5° caster built into the arms seems like a non-issue to me, at least for my EB, which is running the CAGE arms with 4.25° built-in caster correction. There was no way for me to get good caster and pinion angles on my '77 with a 3.5" lift, so cutting and rotating the knuckles and wedges was really my only choice to get good angles in both places. I limped along with an offset u-joint and okay caster numbers for years, but am addressing it correctly now with a HP D44.
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
48,106
Not sure why you would need zero offset arms any more than offset arms. Sure, that would be fine as it would then work with offset C-bushings. Just like putting them in backwards to reduce the arm offset.
So nothing wrong with building the caster correction into them either, if that's what would work with a particular Bronco. Put the C-bushings in whichever direction works best.

As said, if it's too much, or if you're going to cut-n-turn anyway, then just put the bushings in backwards to correct pinion angle, turn the yokes to get the correct caster and you're done. Same as zero offset arms.
No need for them to make different part numbers with different caster offsets then, just to get the same end result via a different method.

Unless you prefer to run rubber C-bushings that is. But that's rarely a good idea for anything but a casual use street driven Bronco anyway. Poly is the way to go for harder, or questionable uses. With no price penalty for different offset ratings.
So neither here nor there as far as pinion angle is concerned.

Maybe there are other reasons? But rubber bushings is the only one I can think of off hand.
Speaking of which... Someone should make rubber c-bushings with side flanges to keep them retained in the arm caps. Maybe a little metal reinforcement for the shoulder. Best of both worlds possibly.

Paul
 
Top