2027 Bronco RTR revealed as part of 2027 model lineup

[SierraBronco]

My original post was a satirical response and not meant to accurately assess the increased wheel travel due to wheel spacer size. A 2nd order effect at best. Fairly certain it would be small numbers.

Since you brought it up, it is interesting to quantify the actual value. I am going to add the wheel hub centerline location to the 3D kinematic motion when I get a chance. I now have a matlab program that automatically calculates the front IFS kinematics.


A basic analysis suggests small numbers.

assuming hub centerline location at zero offset more accurately defines wheel motion, as apposed to lower ball joint location.

lower ball joint motion is identical regardless of wheel hub location; ie, spacer length. Motion ratio is not affected by spacers but hub location is.

the additional wheel travel from wheel hub centerline location is only due to the knuckle orientation and the perpendicular distance from king pin axis to hub centerline (the cantilever length).

Assuming just the camber plane. if camber angle remains zero during entire LCA kinematic motion then there would be no additional wheel travel regardless of cantilever length to hub centerline. Spacer size could be infinite without any gains in wheel travel.

However this is not the case since camber angle varies throughout LCA motion; ie, knuckle orientation changes. For OEM control arms and knuckle, camber angle varies nonlinearly in an “elliptical” motion. Peak changes is no more than 3-4 degrees.

Assuming a max 3 degree camber angle change, the additional vertical wheel travel from a 10” cantilever length is; 10 sin(3) or about 1/2”. That is where my original number comes from. Granted the SAS configuration may have a cantilever 10” arm for the oem rims. So adding a 10” spacer adds another 1/2”. So maybe 1” additional wheel travel with a 10” spacer.

I will add this to matlab program and get an accurate number. But I don’t see how realistic 1-2” spacers can add more than fractions of an inch, <1/8 at best.

The wide trackness of the 10” spacers is going to be epic. All the poke. Remove the fenders for extra points.

Sponsored

 

[87-Z28]

The wide trackness of the 10” spacers is going to be epic. All the poke. Remove the fenders for extra points.

I see a profitable business plan making concave fiberglass fenders in your future.

 

[Altitude]

I really dislike Ford advertising this as a 'Raptor-lite' or a model that bridges a gap between what's available today and the Raptor, because it absolutely doesn't. Just marketing to people they hope don't know better.

 

[SierraBronco]

I really dislike Ford advertising this as a 'Raptor-lite' or a model that bridges a gap between what's available today and the Raptor, because it absolutely doesn't. Just marketing to people they hope don't know better.

Bingo.

Adding “wide track” to try to further perpetuate the Raptor-lite designation is absolutely shameful when that track width increase comes from the wheels, not suspension and axles. I really don’t care about any of the other stuff I tease the RTR package about-the wide track thing though? Not cool and very misleading

 

[HighVelocity]

I really dislike Ford advertising this as a 'Raptor-lite' or a model that bridges a gap between what's available today and the Raptor, because it absolutely doesn't. Just marketing to people they hope don't know better.

The Raptor is already 'Raptor lite' enough.

When it coms with a 700+ HP V8, THEN that moniker will apply.

What we have now is just an overweight, birthing-hipped station wagon.

 

[swamp2]

My original post was a satirical response and not meant to accurately assess the increased wheel travel due to wheel spacer size. A 2nd order effect at best. Fairly certain it would be small numbers.

Since you brought it up, it is interesting to quantify the actual value. I am going to add the wheel hub centerline location to the 3D kinematic motion when I get a chance. I now have a matlab program that automatically calculates the front IFS kinematics.
...
I will add this to matlab program and get an accurate number. But I don’t see how realistic 1-2” spacers can add more than fractions of an inch, <1/8 at best.

Oh sure, any reasonable spacer will not add appreciable wheel travel. But I do think a big ol' stout 10"er will add significantly more than 1/2". No models nor math beyond what I posted prior, just a hunch. I was also thinking for my rig, Raptor. Whether Raptor or non-Raptor, let us know the actual number.

 

[swamp2]

The Raptor is already 'Raptor lite' enough.

When it coms with a 700+ HP V8, THEN that moniker will apply.

What we have now is just an overweight, birthing-hipped station wagon.

And this is the same overweight, birthing-hipped station wagon that is the finest, factory stock, off roading vehicle ever manufactured for both high speed work and crawling? And the same one that trounces your rig at any on road or off road contest you might put them to?

Cool, glad I have this one myself. I'll consider removing my Raptor badge .

But wait there is more. I guess all F-150 Raptors don't deserve the name either? Well at least we have the Raptor R, the worlds only 700+ hp "true" Raptor. Oh... but wait.... its stinking wheelbase is so long it sucks at crawling - it's not a real Raptor either!

You've just personally erased the most iconic off roading factory brand ever made. Good work. Well unless the Ranger Raptor is a "real" Raptor.

 

[SierraBronco]

Oh sure, any reasonable spacer will not add appreciable wheel travel. But I do think a big ol' stout 10"er will add significantly more than 1/2". No models nor math beyond what I posted prior, just a hunch. I was also thinking for my rig, Raptor. Whether Raptor or non-Raptor, let us know the actual number.

Are you guys using “wheel travel” the same way? It seems one might be referring to how far the wheel travels up and down in relation to the shock, and one is talking about how far the wheel goes down the road after breaking free from the vehicle.

 

[87-Z28]

Oh sure, any reasonable spacer will not add appreciable wheel travel. But I do think a big ol' stout 10"er will add significantly more than 1/2". No models nor math beyond what I posted prior, just a hunch. I was also thinking for my rig, Raptor. Whether Raptor or non-Raptor, let us know the actual number.

I am going to politely disagree. No ill intent

if knuckle is not attached to upper ball joint and wheel remains at zero camber during entire LCA travel. Then you could add a 10 mile long spacer and never affect vertical wheel travel. Since knuckle orientation doesn’t change. In that case spacer only adds to horizontal track width.

Changes in knuckle orientation is what causes additional wheel travel from spacer length. As you said, r sin(theta), theta is the change in knuckle orientation NOT the LCA angle change ( there is a ball joint). Camber only changes 3 degrees max. So a 10” spacer only adds 1/2” vertical wheel travel.

motion is 3d so there maybe some out of plane gains. Another couple degrees. I will concede another 1/4” at most.

Very small gains in vertical wheel travel., even for a 10” spacer.

 

[SierraBronco]

I am going to politely disagree. No ill intent

if knuckle is not attached to upper ball joint and wheel remains at zero camber during entire LCA travel. Then you could add a 10 mile long spacer and never affect vertical wheel travel. Since knuckle orientation doesn’t change. In that case spacer only adds to horizontal track width.

Changes in knuckle orientation is what causes additional wheel travel from spacer length. As you said, r sin(theta), theta is the change in knuckle orientation. Camber only changes 3 degrees max. So a 10” spacer only adds 1/2” vertical wheel travel.

motion is 3d so there maybe some out of plane gains. Another couple degrees. I will concede another 1/4” at most.

Very small gains in vertical wheel travel., even for a 10” spacer.

Okay but if it breaks off…it has the potential to travel a great distance

 

[87-Z28]

Okay but if it breaks off…it has the potential to travel a great distance

but only in a braptor

 

[87-Z28]

I am going to change my opinion on the “raptor lite” marketing campaign. The only misleading thing about it is the RTR will kick the snot out of a braptor. It really should be more like “braptor killer”

Bracing for an attack by @swamp2 and hoping he looses steam on the spacer length physics thing.

 

[SierraBronco]

I am going to change my opinion on the “raptor lite” marketing campaign. The only misleading thing about it is the RTR will kick the snot out of a braptor. It really is should be more like “braptor killer”

Bracing for an attack by @swamp2 and hoping he looses steam on the spacer length physics thing.

Testing continues on the badlands/wildtrak Braptor Killer

 

[87-Z28]

Perhaps you should try wheel spacers to get similar wheel travel in the front.

 

[zuke]

What's really needed is a hydraulically driven, telescoping spacer! Track width on demand! That's the ticket....

Sponsored