Offset ascender axles?? any interest??

[CODYBOY]

I just wanted to test the waters to see how much interest there would be in me designing some thing? I have heard a few of you talking a little about it. I'm already working on a proto type but being a little guy in the building world, I don't want to put to much money into a design that doesn't appeal to you guys. I will be able to vary the offset and make it left or right? Let me know your thoughts, and they will be brass weighted. And please throw some ideas at me. I haven't seen where ascender design is changing so I thought I could help a few of my ascender family out with this.
Ernie

[SHOme]

Never thought about it. Maybe you should send me a prototype so I can test:-)

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[CM9000]

Subbed.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

[Shinchu]

to quote myself from "the other thread"...

Originally Posted by Shinchu

LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i know i want at least 1 front for a certain 79 ford build...
core exchange program?

and possibly a pair (front/rear) IF i get a certain... VERY pricey rig? but if i get these axles it wouldn't be as pricey as it would have been.
(chassis set + VFD + Lunsford Links + CODYBOY offset = VS4-10 ULTIMATE!)

[Itali83]

Hey Ernie, I have done two offset front axles two different ways. Both to make room for a custom low motor mount design. So that would be a selling point, but also the need for you to make said motor mount too hahaha.

I will say that if someone wants an axle for a leaf spring truck, you may want to use the ssd center section with another manufacturers gears to get rid of axle wrap from the ascenders lack of gear reduction. 1.85:1 ascender or 3.75:1 from brand X. Just sayin...





The second one I also used stock ascender axles to keep things simple and less labor intensive. I did have to lengthen the one side but that’s easy enough.

Ben


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CM9000]

Its not an ascender if its not using ascender gears anymore now is it? In the future not so near, I have plans on building a vaterra based 2.2 sporty. Ascender front gears wraith width with enigma portals, twin hammers rear gears with portals xr10 width, or just shy of wraith width.

The pumpkins being tested, can be flipped over if had without link mounts.

[CODYBOY]

Originally Posted by Itali83

Hey Ernie, I have done two offset front axles two different ways. Both to make room for a custom low motor mount design. So that would be a selling point, but also the need for you to make said motor mount too hahaha.

I will say that if someone wants an axle for a leaf spring truck, you may want to use the ssd center section with another manufacturers gears to get rid of axle wrap from the ascenders lack of gear reduction. 1.85:1 ascender or 3.75:1 from brand X. Just sayin...





The second one I also used stock ascender axles to keep things simple and less labor intensive. I did have to lengthen the one side but that’s easy enough.

Ben


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CM9000

Its not an ascender if its not using ascender gears anymore now is it? In the future not so near, I have plans on building a vaterra based 2.2 sporty. Ascender front gears wraith width with enigma portals, twin hammers rear gears with portals xr10 width, or just shy of wraith width.

The pumpkins being tested, can be flipped over if had without link mounts.

Thanks for the input Ben your ideas are always some of the best I get! For now I will stay with the ascender gears. One of the high points of the axle is being able to keep the pumpkin smaller for better clearance.

Anthony did a really good job with the design to do just that. Pics will be up in a few minutes.

Ernie




So working on the brass and getting the right length for correct axle width.




Housing is a two piece design.





A couple shots of offset left and right and not sure I'm going with angled shock/link mount but it will offer some different options for link geometry.





I just ordered another housing that will be a front axle without the upper link mounts. So third link mount will be a stand alone that can be used for left or right pumpkin, if I go with wraith chub and knuckles.



Here is how it looks right now, I will do a little tweaking tomorrow before I start the uni machining.





So any input is welcome gang!
Ernie

[Itali83]

Originally Posted by CM9000

Its not an ascender if its not using ascender gears anymore now is it? In the future not so near, I have plans on building a vaterra based 2.2 sporty. Ascender front gears wraith width with enigma portals, twin hammers rear gears with portals xr10 width, or just shy of wraith width.

The pumpkins being tested, can be flipped over if had without link mounts.

He’s using less ascender parts than my axle. Just saying.

Now that I got that out of my system, back to the post.

Ernie, I guess I’m curious as to what is the goal of this axle? I know it’ll be heavy, strong, have awesome wheel cut like your others do. So why go with offset pig? In my mind, you’d go with an offset pig for scale or to make room for low front mount motor position, also a scale reason. But with that 3D printed center section, it’s about as non scale as can be. So that’s why I’m wondering what the goal is. If it’s just because, that’s plenty reason, just trying to understand.

Ben

[CM9000]

Ben,
That housing is what I had designed. Codyboy came to me for this opportunity. I wasnt going for scale looks, nor could I. This housing setup is strictly for performance. So left, right, or center, it gets more clearence than even the stock housing. The ASC60 is 1mm shorter in height from the ascender housing.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

[CODYBOY]

Originally Posted by Itali83

He’s using less ascender parts than my axle. Just saying.

Now that I got that out of my system, back to the post.

Ernie, I guess I’m curious as to what is the goal of this axle? I know it’ll be heavy, strong, have awesome wheel cut like your others do. So why go with offset pig? In my mind, you’d go with an offset pig for scale or to make room for low front mount motor position, also a scale reason. But with that 3D printed center section, it’s about as non scale as can be. So that’s why I’m wondering what the goal is. If it’s just because, that’s plenty reason, just trying to understand.

Ben

I've had several guys asking about offset ascender based axle so I just thought I would try it! You know me, give me a challenge and I will take it on. Most of the bigger after market builders/ designers weren't offering so I decided to give it a go. I know it doesn't look to scale but I'm ok with that. Thanks for your input.
Ernie

[Shinchu]

Oh. It's not going to be an ascender pumpkin?
Hmm...

[SHOme]

Ernie, I'm leaning with the other guys as far as scale. I would want a pumpkin more scale. That's my personal opinion. Even if I was building a performance based rig I would want that. Which I intend to do. I want to hear more about the motor lowering though. Where is the link to that? Are we talking scale trans lowered in the chassis? That is something on my list of "to figure outs" but if has been done that will save time. When you posted this, the clearance to lower the engine was first thing I thought of and then there it is. Thanks for bringing in up Ben.

[Natedog]

Super cool what Ben's done with offset front axle pumpkin and what Ernie and Anthony are doing with it! Watching what you're going to do next! I prefer more scale appearing pumpkin, but this is very intriguing too.

[CM9000]

With brass axle tubes being visble, I dont really see the point for a scale pumpkin.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

[CODYBOY]

Originally Posted by SHOme

Ernie, I'm leaning with the other guys as far as scale. I would want a pumpkin more scale. That's my personal opinion. Even if I was building a performance based rig I would want that. Which I intend to do. I want to hear more about the motor lowering though. Where is the link to that? Are we talking scale trans lowered in the chassis? That is something on my list of "to figure outs" but if has been done that will save time. When you posted this, the clearance to lower the engine was first thing I thought of and then there it is. Thanks for bringing in up Ben.

Originally Posted by Shinchu

Oh. It's not going to be an ascender pumpkin?
Hmm...

Thanks for the input guys, I can also do them with ascender pumpkins, I'll post some pics in a little while. We are just stepping out of the box a little with this design.
Ernie

[Natedog]

Paint will hide the brass (powder coat would be better obviously) and can be reapplied as they wear. I"m not discounting anybody's nice parts, just giving input.

[HumboldtEF]

Why have an offset pumpkin at all then? Is that for scale too?
In my mind it would be nice to look close to scale still, I would likely blacken the brass anyway.

I'm intrigued, but the pumpkin does put me off to be honest. I realize its a 3D printed part and you need to add strength for the design to work and hold up. GCM Racing has done a good job on this front good looks and tough.

[CM9000]

Originally Posted by HumboldtEF

Why have an offset pumpkin at all then? Is that for scale too?
In my mind it would be nice to look close to scale still, I would likely blacken the brass anyway.

I'm intrigued, but the pumpkin does put me off to be honest. I realize its a 3D printed part and you need to add strength for the design to work and hold up. GCM Racing has done a good job on this front good looks and tough.

Driverside drop pumpkin will work with the high altitude performance trans, and the vfd trams very well. Not for scale, its for function. Im a function over form kind of guy..

Ernie said he can give you guys a scale pumkin.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

[Natedog]

Offset front pumpkin is better for performance (ground clearance) and forgot to mention the brass black stuff that can be rubbed on too.

[SHOme]

Plus Bronco's have offset axles. Not that I like Bronco's
[ATTACH]
[/ATTACH]