Truck kingpins

[Oldtech]

5 hours ago, WPVT said:

Thanks. Can you tell me what the steering ratio is on yours ? That would be the ratio between the number degrees on the steering wheel (turns times 360 ) relative to the number of degrees that the wheels arc. 

I loosened the top to bottom clearance on the kingpins (it was zero), put 90W oil in where the washers are located, then alternately jacked up and lowered the axle, theoretically giving the lubricant an opportunity to get in between the washers. Pretty remarkable really, to put the entire front end weight of the  truck on two 2 1/2" washers. That's not much surface area. The designers knew more than I do, however, so who am I to question their work. 

I would have to jack it up and check. It's stored for the winter, It's pretty quick by modern standards. I'll try and find out. 

[ojh]

15 hours ago, WPVT said:

Thanks. Can you tell me what the steering ratio is on yours ? That would be the ratio between the number degrees on the steering wheel (turns times 360 ) relative to the number of degrees that the wheels arc. 

I loosened the top to bottom clearance on the kingpins (it was zero), put 90W oil in where the washers are located, then alternately jacked up and lowered the axle, theoretically giving the lubricant an opportunity to get in between the washers. Pretty remarkable really, to put the entire front end weight of the  truck on two 2 1/2" washers. That's not much surface area. The designers knew more than I do, however, so who am I to question their work. 

Maybe I'm dense, but, I can't get my head around the tapered kingpin, how you can loosen it, what the kingpin locking nut tightens against and the entire arraingement?  Can you take a picture of it?  

Here's a pic of the truck I putt around on and it has 4 wheel steering:

On a brighter note, with only 12K miles on the truck, maybe it isn't broken in yet?

 

 

[edinmass]

18 hours ago, WPVT said:

Edinmass,

       I'm greatly impressed by your work on steering boxes. Clearly, you know what you are talking about. Thanks for your helpful advice.

 

 

I learn more and more every day. The best piece of advice I can give fixing anything pre war is simple.........do NOT try and spot fix a system. Have a steering issue? Go through the entire system. I don't recommend anyone adjust or remove a box. A steering box can be a big can of worms. If the rest of the system is as good as new, a box with a slight to moderate issues can be lived with if necessary.............I understand the difference from Pebble Beach work which is our "shop normal" to preservation and driving cars. The problem is sometime you just have to swallow hard and take the medicine..........usually the medicine is a 'horse pill" .......expensive, difficult, and time consuming. 95 percent of the pre war cars going down the road have mutiple issues.......usually some of them are severe. It' a shame most people never experiance a properly sorted vehicle.......they are a joy to drive. In the end, its worth the time and effort......you just need to keep your eye on the prize. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[edinmass]

OJH.....love the Nash Quad. You get a very rare three thumbs up from me...........interesting, obscure, and just pure fun!👍👍👍

 

 

PS- I have never seen a tapered king pin........I suspect its a tapered lock pin holding the king pin in that is pressed. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

I think it was Buick (I'm not absolutely certain of that) that experimented with tapered king pins in the brass era - fairly early on. The idea was that they would be self-adjusting...it was a really poor idea and I'm surprised it lasted long enough to go into even limited production because the whole idea of using a taper to lock a piece in place was well known at the time. They could work if the exact position of the pin was fixed (which eliminates the self-adjusting part) so it couldn't move but the added expense of fitting it properly, for what can only be, at best, of marginal benefit, must have made it a short-lived technique.

[Walt G]

15 minutes ago, edinmass said:

The problem is sometime you just have to swallow hard and take the medicine..........usually the medicine is a 'horse pill" .......expensive, difficult, and time consuming. 95 percent of the pre war cars going down the road have mutiple issues.......usually some of them are severe. It' a shame most people never experiance a properly sorted vehicle.......they are a joy to drive.

ED your last line says it all, all reading this should take note and heed Ed's words. DO it correctly and thoroughly the first time , or have some one do it for you that you know has done it before and the results are proven and work well. The cars drove well when new - especially the luxury cars - they can perform even better now with the quality of the roads we have had for 80+ years. I have never personally had an interest in awards, but am adamant that the cars I own are in the best possible condition because I drive them - never had a trailer nor vehicle to haul a trailer with , have driven the pre war cars I own since I got my first one on the road in 1965. For me that drive is total satisfaction and is what old cars / vehicles are about , especially if you have friends along to share the experience. Don't blame " that old car" if it ceases to go the way you want it to "because it is old" . It doesn't go well because it wasn't treated well or fixed properly the first time around. Get them to the proper level and as Ed says "they are a joy to drive".

WG

[Terry Harper]

1 hour ago, ojh said:

 

Quote

Here's a pic of the truck I putt around on and it has 4 wheel steering:

 

 

Love it! Solid rubber tires make an interesting ride in themselves. Easy to steer on a firm surface yet in soft ground it can be quite the challenge.

All the more reason to have respect for the drivers of the day! 

 

Looks like a Wood (aka Gar Wood) hydraulic hoist?

[edinmass]

1 hour ago, Walt G said:

ED your last line says it all, all reading this should take note and heed Ed's words. DO it correctly and thoroughly the first time , or have some one do it for you that you know has done it before and the results are proven and work well. The cars drove well when new - especially the luxury cars - they can perform even better now with the quality of the roads we have had for 80+ years. I have never personally had an interest in awards, but am adamant that the cars I own are in the best possible condition because I drive them - never had a trailer nor vehicle to haul a trailer with , have driven the pre war cars I own since I got my first one on the road in 1965. For me that drive is total satisfaction and is what old cars / vehicles are about , especially if you have friends along to share the experience. Don't blame " that old car" if it ceases to go the way you want it to "because it is old" . It doesn't go well because it wasn't treated well or fixed properly the first time around. Get them to the proper level and as Ed says "they are a joy to drive".

WG

 

Walt......a properly serviced CCCA Classic is 100 PERCENT reliable......100 percent. Dumping between four and thirty grand during the classic era people would NOT tolerate a car costing as much as a Leer Jet today breaking down. We took a Model J out last summer and did 1800 miles in 14 days.......never touched the car...except to fill the tank, and check oil and water.......it didn’t need any.........except fuel, which would make you wish you owned stock in Exxon. My favorite thing is to be on tour, and show them my tool kit.......(no tools, just my bare hands) properly prepared cars drives fine, without issues. All of this talk makes me want to go drive a car.........I think I will!

Edited November 11, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Walt G]

Ed, I would put 1,200 miles on in a week for decades driving my 1931 Franklin Derham bodied victoria to the Franklin meet each year from my home on long island to central NY state near Syracuse, NY. This was usually in 80+ degree summer heat up and down rt. 17 that runs along the bottom of NY state and has some impressive long grades both up and down. It was 350 miles one way just to get there. Only service I had to do was to add oil to the felt pads under the top cylinder valve covers for each cylinder as it would thin out after 400 miles ( an air cooled car running 100 degrees hotter then a water cooled car - plus add in that 80 degree outside air temperature) . I thought nothing of it - I would easily cruise along at 55+ mph up or down hill. ( engine had been tweaked a bit when restored regarding the cam and the timing chain moved up several teeth over normal) Engine was restored by the master Franklin engine rebuilder Dutch Kern of Coopersberg, Pa. who told me that he remembered the car when it sold new in Allentown, Pa. just north of him (!) as a kid but also told me that he sometimes would do some "adjusting" internally to compensate for modern road travel. My reply was " do what you want as long as I can't see it but I don't want any electric fuel pump, electronic ignition etc. He smiled and did his magic. I don't like electrical stuff, no one ever called me Mr. Sparky-  mechanical stuff I was fine with.  After I drove it there the first time after the engine was rebuilt he asked how it ran and I answered very very well, he went for a drive with me and he drove and his comment was " this was one of my better jobs". We both just smiled.

[edinmass]

The joy of driving a well sorted car is immeasurable.........and the enjoyment of driving without the least though of breaking down is fantastic. There is nothing in the world that is better than a great car, and nothing in the world worse than an undependable one...........I have experienced them both............

[WPVT]

8 minutes ago, edinmass said:

The joy of driving a well sorted car is immeasurable.........and the enjoyment of driving without the least though of breaking down is fantastic. There is nothing in the world that is better than a great car, and nothing in the world worse than an undependable one...........I have experienced them both............

Thanks. That's something to aspire to. It's more or less my approach....I try to have every part of a vehicle working properly, or at least working. 

[WPVT]

OJH and others,

     I agree, the idea of a tapered kingpin sounds screwy. I'll attach a schematic. The taper is just a refined way of fixing the kingpin in the axle....it doesn't rotate. The detail shows the setup with the thrust washer. The castle nut was screwed down tight , hence zero vertical clearance. I backed it off a little, thinking that this would allow some lubricant to reach the thrust washer bearing surface. That may or may not have had an effect. 

 

 In my research I came across a post on a heavy truck forum that indicated that Mack truck kingpins had a similar design. 

 

 A few weeks ago I was convinced that my kingpins were rotating, a situation that would explain steering difficulty when they came under load. A great theory, I still think. Unfortunately it wasn't the case. 

[Oldtech]

Now that is a setup I've never seen before. Weird. Nothing like the International that uses straight pins with a bearing for the weight.  It looks to me like the weight is supposed to ride on the washers on  the bottom of the pin.  18 and 19.  If they are worn it may put weight on the top ones 8 and 9, which aren't made to be load bearing. They need to be free when the truck is sitting on it's wheels.  On any I've seen with "washers" the upper one (19?) has a pin to stop it rotating, and the lower (18) will have a pin so it rotates with the spindle.  My  $.02 worth

[ojh]

Thanks for posting, very interesting setup and I think you diagnosed it proper, the thrust washer #20 is where I'd be looking, theoretically you make the castlenut wrenchtight you could pull that washer out if not for the kingpin, it would have a few thou clearance from top of the axle to the spindle.  Its probably set up on the tight side from the factory and probably a coating of oil (parafin based oil now turned to wax?), remember that truck really is on the 'new' side mechanically - maybe nobody wanted to drive thing because it steered so hard and it just sat at the yard and other trucks were used?

I bought a used machine that had an oil leak, they used parafin based oil for lubricant and some of the parts are literally glued together with that oil, I kept some to show people, 2 large plate washers 3" diameter each about 1/2" thick, and you cannot separate them by hand.

Again, thanks for posting the setup, I really have been pondering how the castlenut could get to wrenchtite without jamming the spindle, what looks like washer #8 must be a shim so that the nut pulls the spindle tight without transfering the load to the top of the spindle.

[WPVT]

58 minutes ago, ojh said:

Thanks for posting, very interesting setup and I think you diagnosed it proper, the thrust washer #20 is where I'd be looking, theoretically you make the castlenut wrenchtight you could pull that washer out if not for the kingpin, it would have a few thou clearance from top of the axle to the spindle.  Its probably set up on the tight side from the factory and probably a coating of oil (parafin based oil now turned to wax?), remember that truck really is on the 'new' side mechanically - maybe nobody wanted to drive thing because it steered so hard and it just sat at the yard and other trucks were used?

I bought a used machine that had an oil leak, they used parafin based oil for lubricant and some of the parts are literally glued together with that oil, I kept some to show people, 2 large plate washers 3" diameter each about 1/2" thick, and you cannot separate them by hand.

Again, thanks for posting the setup, I really have been pondering how the castlenut could get to wrenchtite without jamming the spindle, what looks like washer #8 must be a shim so that the nut pulls the spindle tight without transfering the load to the top of the spindle.

I've spent some time myself staring at that diagram. At one point I think I grasped what was intended. They were very good engineers. The fact that they used a castle nut meant that they wanted it not too tight. I can understand using a washer instead of a thrust bearing, just the way plain bearings are sometimes used when there are large low speed loads.  I believe #8 is the thrust bearing, as is the one on the bottom. They were called out that way in the parts list as I recall. That's why I filled the upper cap with 90W. 

 

Long story short....I think the kingpins are working the way they were intended.

[WPVT]

My 1929 White Model 61 steering gearbox was made by Hannum. I'm attaching a schematic. 

The steering ratio on this truck is approximately 13:1.  2 1/8 turns of the steering wheel (1035 degrees) results in about 80 degrees of arc at the wheels.

I don't know what a typical steering ratio would be in a 1 1/2 ton truck of this era. I wondering if this is a low ratio, making it quick steering yet requiring more effort.

 

After all of my troubleshooting and speculation, it may be that this particular truck model was designed to steer quicker than most large trucks, and hence, requires more effort. 

 

 

  

[edinmass]

It’s not a low ratio.....it’s about average for a big car in the 1929-1930 era. Interesting box, and the wheels should easily move the box when jacked up with no load. Your truck is low mileage, check for lubrication and I would leave it alone after that. I doubt the issue is in the worm and sector. 

[WPVT]

15 minutes ago, edinmass said:

It’s not a low ratio.....it’s about average for a big car in the 1929-1930 era. Interesting box, and the wheels should easily move the box when jacked up with no load. Your truck is low mileage, check for lubrication and I would leave it alone after that. I doubt the issue is in the worm and sector. 

Thanks Ed. I did try the wheels again today. With the axle jacked up, I was able to get the wheels to move the box and steering wheel if I really jerked them to get things moving. I didn't feel like I was fighting friction, just the wrong end of a 13:1 ratio. 

I think you are probably right, but I've never driven an old truck that steered as hard as this one.  

 

However...since you are unquestionably the steering box expert, I have one concern about the gearbox. The steering lever that's connected to the half-nut has an adjustment for end play. I can run the adjustment screw in or out and it has no effect on the end play, which is about 3/32". That doesn't seem right. That's screw #28 that bears against the trunnion thrust ball, #27. Unless I'm mistaken, this would control the clearance between the half-nut and the worm, an important dimension. If the 3/32" end play in that shaft is translated to 3/32" clearance between the half-nut and the worm, that's a lot of clearance and could possibly be causing problems. 

 

 

 

 

[Oldtech]

On 11/11/2020 at 3:26 PM, WPVT said:

I've spent some time myself staring at that diagram. At one point I think I grasped what was intended. They were very good engineers. The fact that they used a castle nut meant that they wanted it not too tight. I can understand using a washer instead of a thrust bearing, just the way plain bearings are sometimes used when there are large low speed loads.  I believe #8 is the thrust bearing, as is the one on the bottom. They were called out that way in the parts list as I recall. That's why I filled the upper cap with 90W. 

 

Long story short....I think the kingpins are working the way they were intended.

Thinking a bit... The weight has to be carried either on the bottom of the kingpin, or on the bottom of the axle where it rides on the spindle. The castle nut doesn't carry the weight. It looks like load is on the bottom of the pin down in that cup.  Is that well lubed? 

 

Hudson had a variation of that where the weight was carried on TOP of the pin, but it had bearing balls running in a race machined in the top of the pin.  Old stuff is interesting!

[WPVT]

11 minutes ago, Oldtech said:

Thinking a bit... The weight has to be carried either on the bottom of the kingpin, or on the bottom of the axle where it rides on the spindle. The castle nut doesn't carry the weight. It looks like load is on the bottom of the pin down in that cup.  Is that well lubed? 

 

Hudson had a variation of that where the weight was carried on TOP of the pin, but it had bearing balls running in a race machined in the top of the pin.  Old stuff is interesting!

Thanks Oldtech. The parts list calls washer #8 and washer #20 thrust washers.  It helps to imagine the wheels sitting on the pavement, and the weight of the axle and truck hanging on the steering knuckles. If you look closely at the drawing, you'll see clearance between #8 and the top surface of the upper steering knuckle, and #20 and the bottom surface of the upper steering knuckle. Note that the bottom of the axle and the corresponding surface of the knuckle have no real bearing surface to carry weight. The only place designed to carry the weight of the truck is the surface between #8 and the top of the steering knuckle. 

 

I loosened the castle nut one notch and filled the housing with 90W oil. Then I alternately loaded and unloaded the axle while rotating the steering wheel. This was my best effort to allow some lubricant to get between the thrust washer surfaces and the steering knuckle faces that they bear against. 

 

Because the wheels are movable and the axle stationary, it's easy to imagine that the wheels are hanging on the axle, but it's actually the opposite, unless the axle is jacked up.  It also helps if you just ignore the bottom part of the kingpin altogether and focus on the top. The hanging weight load also tends to keep the taper housed in the axle.

[edinmass]

The adjustment on #28 isn’t your problem. Do not over adjust it, put it back where it was. NEVER adjust a steering box in the vehicle. It should only be done on the bench after disassembly and the box is dry. I can’t tell if it’s a tapered pin or a peg following the worm. If it is a fixed follower, a poor design, and it should be on a double tapered bearing to prevent binding. The fact that the pin is fixed will cause much more difficult steering. I’m certain you issues are not in the worm. Like I said before. Disconnect the center and drag links, and check for spindle binding. It’s a common problem that people adjust boxes with no reason.........if the box was left alone, and with 11k miles on it, the box adjustment was fine, and only needed to be checked for lubricant. The spindle load is high with that strange design..........I bet the issues is binding of the spindle. I recommend disassembly of everything but the box and steering wheel hub. Clean everything and reassemble. That’s every link, ball and cup. The grease is probably rock hard, and the springs are probably bound in the joints. Part of what I preach is to NOT spot fix a system.......go through the entire system once.....it’s easier in the long run. Also, the cover of the box should be removed when the box is out of the truck, and clean the box WITHOUT adjusting it. I just went through this on my 1917 White that sat for 81 years.............no free lunch when it comes to fixing these things. If it were mine I would do the following:

 

Total disassembly of all the front end components, clean, grease, reinstall. Leave king pins in place.

Remove box, clean out box and lubricate, do not adjust. Check adjustment dry before you add new lube.

Align to modern specs............and run 45 pounds air pressure in front tires, 40 in rear.

Check ride height side to side, front and back.

Check shock links and shocks.....rebuild as necessary.

Bearings for the box should not be needed with low miles unless water got in the box.

My guess is this truck steered heavier than you expected when new.......overall the design is crude for 1929, especially when you consider the reputation of White......I would check to see what the truck used for a box in 30 & 31.......I bet they made a change. 
 

PS- Check that the shackles are not bound.........upper and lower pins.......just went through that on a car that steered well, but not perfect. They were seized and causing spring deflection......which caused poor ride and the springs were captured instead of floating. Also, be sure the leaf springs are not rusted to each other......another common problem.

Edited November 13, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[WPVT]

Thanks Ed. That's good advice and undoubtedly the result of many years experience. Unfortunately too late regarding adjustment of the box. That was one of the first things I tried. The worm shaft endplay is back where it was. The steering shaft adjustment screw, as I related, doesn't seem to have an effect.

I'll probably just accept the steering as it is. The truck isn't something I drive around for pleasure....or drive very much at all. I just like to have everything working properly and the steering was last on the list.

 

Your advice reminds me of what a tractor mechanic told me his dad used to say about repairs. "Sometimes the long way is the short way". Good advice.   

Again, thanks for all your help.   

[ojh]

Back on the kingpin, That capnut really shouldn't be tightening down against anything, its there to keep the kingpin from dropping out, I'll bet the original assembler used a hammer to seat the kingpin in the taper, #20 the thrust washer, #8 machined step washer to register the kingpin, #9 washer to protect #8 from the capnut so that the capnut is tightened to the kingpin and NOT the spindle.  If the capnut is tightened to the spindle then the kingpin would want to turn with the spindle and steering will be difficult.

 

[edinmass]

The kingpin is held in with the taper and the cross swage locking bolt. It not gonna turn. I find it interesting that White used that style king pin set up............also the particular steering box.......when better off the shelf stuff was available, but past experiance with all things built in Cleavland is the manufactures tended to source everything locally............I'm guessing they were not big fans of Detroit and it was a "buy local" type of attitude. My 1917 White car steers better than 90 percent of the cars that were built in 1932. And the car used a traditional king pin set up...........and all were about just as heavy as what you would see on a two ton truck. To be honest.......I think what they were putting out in 1917 was a better set up than they were running on this truck. But then again, the car was five grand, and a home was 1200 at the time. I expect the truck in 1929 was around 1000 dollars.........does anyone know the retail prices of them back then?

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[WPVT]

1 hour ago, ojh said:

Back on the kingpin, That capnut really shouldn't be tightening down against anything, its there to keep the kingpin from dropping out, I'll bet the original assembler used a hammer to seat the kingpin in the taper, #20 the thrust washer, #8 machined step washer to register the kingpin, #9 washer to protect #8 from the capnut so that the capnut is tightened to the kingpin and NOT the spindle.  If the capnut is tightened to the spindle then the kingpin would want to turn with the spindle and steering will be difficult.

 

Thanks. That's why I backed it off one notch. 

[WPVT]

Just one last word. I drained the gear box and as I suspected, out came the thrust ball. I reinstalled it and took up all but a little of the backlash with the adjusting screw. "Just like old". 

This has been a fun and educational thread. Thanks to you all.   

[Phillip Robinson]

I have a 29 chev, and when looking at my front end and king pins, I found it hard to turn, but very easy once jacked up. However, I did have some up and down movement. I decided to redo king pins, engineer to fit in the spindles with new king pins. Once I put together, no up and down movement, easy to turn with wheels jacked up, BUT still hard to turn on the ground. The pins do have a bearing on the bottom that was being shredded, and the new pins come with these bearings. SO, if there is a bottom bearing, and it worn, it did NOT effect the end result- the stearing was/ is still stiff on the ground, and my machine is the chev tourer, a lot lesser weight than yours. Hope this helps.

If I knew the bottom bearing was being chewed up, I would have replaced it,  but it did not appear to make any difference, and car travells very well on roads, even at 60 mph.