Toro kit for power steering on a 520h

[littleredrider 409]

I've wanted to do this for years. But since I put the steering reduction on with tri-ribs, its like having power steering. Even with the snow blower hanging off the front turning on black top isnt hard. I did pick up a JD 318, which is the "smallest" one that uses power steering. But gonna put that P/S on the 250 when i get it, hopefully next couple weekends. One thing I neve understood, why Wheelhorse never put power steering on these. Especially the bigger ones, C-195 and the Ds. 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

2 hours ago, Damien Walker said:

 

Hi Dennis, thanks for your kind comments. It all fitted in quite easily, the only major mod being the motion control lever. On the earlier version and the C Series, it would be an even easier mod. As I did it all piece by piece, I don't have any drawings..stupidly didn't take any before and during pics either, but if anyone wants to know more, just ask and I'll try to provide more detail. The OSPM valve appears to be the smallest on the market and so is very recommended for the space available. The tractor just needs some decals now and it will be finished..more photos coming! (Thanks for the invite...I'll look into 'supportership' )

I have 2 XIs with PS so I appreciate it.  Add some pounds up front an PS becomes even more appreciated.  I hesitate to add a FEL to any tractor without PS and I'm guessing I'm not alone so perhaps some with a 520 might rethink a FEL or 2 stage blower if they had power steering.

And it seems like you have paved an easier path.  So certainly any more pics you have and perhaps when you have time start on a "Step by Step" set of instructions?  They could refer to numbered pictures you already have or could add.

 

Very nice job!

[EricF 589]

Can't speak to having an FEL hanging off a 520, but I do run the two-stage snowthrower on mine. I have a '96 with the swept axle and gear reduction steering. At a standstill on dry concrete or asphalt, the weight makes the steering stiffen up, but add the tiniest creep and it lightens up again. On snow or wet surfaces, the gear reduction keeps it light enough and easy to spin the wheel well enough. All in all, the WH engineers did a good job with the simple gear reduction and steering angles on the 520 re-design. Either that or I just have strong arms and hands; I drove an early-80's F150 pickup with manual steering for years -- anyone who's ever had one of those probably knows what kind of an upper-body workout parking one could be... 

 

Interesting modification, though; I'd missed this series of posts. The 520H is certainly a good platform to put it on, and it's definitely worth the bragging rights, engineering-wise. I can't say I'm surprised that the WH engineers ultimately decided that the gear reduction steering was "good enough" and kept it simple. The xi's were a whole different, more modern beast. Power steering makes a lot more sense on them.

[Damien Walker 241]

On 3/20/2021 at 12:59 PM, DennisThornton said:

I have 2 XIs with PS so I appreciate it.  Add some pounds up front an PS becomes even more appreciated.  I hesitate to add a FEL to any tractor without PS and I'm guessing I'm not alone so perhaps some with a 520 might rethink a FEL or 2 stage blower if they had power steering.

And it seems like you have paved an easier path.  So certainly any more pics you have and perhaps when you have time start on a "Step by Step" set of instructions?  They could refer to numbered pictures you already have or could add.

 

Very nice job!

 

6 hours ago, EricF said:

Can't speak to having an FEL hanging off a 520, but I do run the two-stage snowthrower on mine. I have a '96 with the swept axle and gear reduction steering. At a standstill on dry concrete or asphalt, the weight makes the steering stiffen up, but add the tiniest creep and it lightens up again. On snow or wet surfaces, the gear reduction keeps it light enough and easy to spin the wheel well enough. All in all, the WH engineers did a good job with the simple gear reduction and steering angles on the 520 re-design. Either that or I just have strong arms and hands; I drove an early-80's F150 pickup with manual steering for years -- anyone who's ever had one of those probably knows what kind of an upper-body workout parking one could be... 

 

Interesting modification, though; I'd missed this series of posts. The 520H is certainly a good platform to put it on, and it's definitely worth the bragging rights, engineering-wise. I can't say I'm surprised that the WH engineers ultimately decided that the gear reduction steering was "good enough" and kept it simple. The xi's were a whole different, more modern beast. Power steering makes a lot more sense on them.

 

I would think the reason for WH not going down the power steering route is simply the expense. The orbitrol steering valve is very expensive. Having said that, the various gears and castings on the 520HC reduction set up cannot be cheap. I was extremely fortunate to acquire my Danfoss OSPM valve from ebay for very low cost (£50 I think) because it had a damaged thread on one of the hydraulic ports.....which turned out to be a trivial problem in the end.

 

In terms of front end load....as applied by FEL or Snow Blower, the thing that set me on this route was a powered brush that I am constructing. I am not known for light weight engineering and the C175 is basically unsteerable with that lump on the front. I have yet to restart the brush project but imagine the 518H PS will not have any bother with it...though I have been thinking of making it rear mounted!

 

I looked at a number of steering options and concluded that with my total strip down and rebuild, the hydraulic/Danfoss OSPM route was the best and I certainly still think that, though of course that doesn't help our non-Hydro brethren. The consequence is that I am now working on a solution for the manual machines. I have personally experienced a lot of wear in the conventional steering set up and I know the 520 HC gear reduction system is even worse for this..as it is bound to be really with open, straight cut gears. Even the plain, no bearing castings wear, and in the case of my C175, if I do too much of the upper body work out, it jumps teeth. So, I'm now looking at my C175 with a view to bushing all the no bearing areas at least, may be doing a similar conversion, or designing a bolt on gear reduction system.

 

As Dennis has suggested, I will do a proper step by step write up of the 518H power steering conversion as soon as I can...it is not a difficult project in fact, particularly as I was able to take my time to work things out because it was a spare tractor....if I can set it all out, other folks might be tempted to give it a go on their main machine.

 

[Damien Walker 241]

Hi everybody, I have uploaded my 500H series Power Steering conversion instructions here:

 

Restorations, Modifications, & Customizations/Wheel Horse 500H Series Power Steering Conversion

 

I hope this is of interest!

[ebinmaine 66,562]

On 3/21/2021 at 5:07 PM, Damien Walker said:

or designing a bolt on gear reduction system

I was reading through your excellent work here. It was shown to me when this thread was linked to my Colossus build thread. 

 

VERY impressive.  

 

On my own build I'm not looking to add P/S but a gear reduction system certainly does hold some interest. 

 

Have you made any additional progress with that?

 

 

[Damien Walker 241]

43 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

I was reading through your excellent work here. It was shown to me when this thread was linked to my Colossus build thread. 

 

VERY impressive.  

 

On my own build I'm not looking to add P/S but a gear reduction system certainly does hold some interest. 

 

Have you made any additional progress with that?

 

 

Hello, yes I have, but not really enough to report yet. I looked at copying wheelhorse's system but ruled it out due to it requiring fairly complex castings and bevel gears. 

 

My solution places two sets of spur gears giving an overall reduction of approx 2:1 in the main steering column, just behind the dashboard.

 

It's a C175 so there is quite a bit of room though it is far ideal. For the moment I have two 3D printed bearing blocks (they appear ok but I have no idea if they are strong enough) supporting the column which is now in two halves and a layshaft which carries a cluster of two gears to complete the reduction.

 

Unfortunately I have had many other problems to deal with this year and the leaf collection system season is upon me and so I have just reverted to the original factory set up. It was nearly done too with only a couple of teething problems to sort. Having said that, I'm really not happy with it ...basic issue is the general lack of space, so more deliberation is required.

 

I'll post an update as soon as I can.

 

Apologies

[ebinmaine 66,562]

1 minute ago, Damien Walker said:

update

Certainly no apologies needed. 

I appreciate the time. 

 

The layshaft idea was brought up by @ranger Doug I believe. 

 

If you could photograph that or refer me to a drawing I'd appreciate it.  

 

Space for me isn't the issue it is for most being a custom build. 

I'm planning on using a mid 70s C series dash tower.   

[Damien Walker 241]

Thanks for your very kind comment, by the way...I just try to do a job as well as it is possible to do!

 

The issues that affect the choice are:

 

1) Space, specifically in the region of the hydraulic lift valve and the rocker shaft that transfers the effort from the cylinder to the mower deck. 

2) Strength of the steering column. Because my current solution splits the column in two, it consequently clearly requires proper support....and I'm not confident it does at the moment.

 

I am lucky to have a professional standard workshop (though rather untidy!) and so precision engineering work is relatively easy. My conversion requires lathe work, a 3D printer and keyway broaches etc and so it's not a trivial job.

 

I bought pre-made (Chinese and good quality) gears from ebay but they need machining and broaching.

 

Conceptually, my conversion is little different to WH's in that it alters the turns ratio between the column and the horizontal 'flag' shaft. There probably isn't another way to do it.... You could shorten the dimensions of the triangular Ackerman plate on the flag shaft and whilst that would reduce the required effort, it would also reduce the amount of travel by an equal amount.

 

I have looked at co-axial epicyclic gearboxes but the smallest possible ratio is too large.

 

The best non hydraulic alternative to WH's geared solution would probably to use a steering quickener but they are usually not coaxial, causing a column alignment problem. Steering quickeners also usually use bespoke internal ring gears and I do feel this could be the best way to engineer a coaxial steering reduction. The big problem is the availability of suitable ring gears! (I'm currently restoring a metal shaping machine in the hope that it will give me the ability to cut such internal ring gears 😀).

 

So, I'm working on it but the hydraulic power solution is probably the easiest to implement at the moment.

 

As I've paused my project for the moment I'll try to lay the parts out and take some photos so you can at least see what I'm talking about!

[Damien Walker 241]

Here's a photo of my gear reduction system as it currently is...hopefully fairly self explanatory:

 

518H Steering wheel at the top just to show which end of the column it fits...I'll be using the smaller (neater too?) original C175 wheel.

 

Coming down the column (which is not yet cut to length), you go through the original column top bearing in the dashboard casting (not shown) and then meet the red 3D printed bearing housing (which is bolted to the bottom of the dashboard casting - on top behind the instruments)....this holds two ball races, one for the bottom of the top half of the column and one for the top of the layshaft. Then there's the two sets of gears. The cluster is on the right and these two gears are keyed onto the same shaft (ie locked together). The two gear sets are both 18t and 26t ...giving a 1.44 x 1.44 reduction ( ie  approx root 2 squared)....ie overall just about a 2:1 reduction. As the two gear sets are identical, the first reduction of 1.44 transfers the drive sideways to the layshaft and the second set transfers it back again so that the two halves of the column are back in line. I used metric MOD2 gears which I felt were a reasonable compromise between overall diameter and tooth strength.

 

Underneath the gears is the second 3D printed bearing housing which is bolted underneath the battery mounting plate (there's just room there above the hydraulic lift valve). Finally the lower column runs down to the original bevel gear which engages in the standard flag gear as before.

 

2:1 reduction should halve the effort required to turn the steering at the expense of doubling the number of turns lock to lock. As the original set up is almost direct drive (ie there is no apparent gearing between the column and the wheels, this means you'd have to wizz the wheel around when you reach the rose bed somewhat faster than you would  in a standard machine, or you'd likely flatten your roses! My hydraulic conversion doesn't have this disadvantage in that the turns ratio appears to be about the same...but with almost no effort required.

 

This all looks good in theory but as mentioned there are several issues ....and I've remembered a bit more!:

 

It would all be fairly easy to engineer except that the column is not vertical....so the gears need a larger gap between surfaces and the 3D printed bearing housings obviously need to be designed to accommodate the slope in the column. A half inch thick bearing then needs a housing that is closer to one inch thick...which obviously takes up more precious space.

 

Also as mentioned, the column is now split in two and I have my doubts that my  design supports the top half well enough to withstand the side loads imposed if a large adult were to use it to climb onto the machine...my intention was simply to try it and see but the basic problem is the very short distance between the original top bearing and the new column top-half bottom bearing. (Additionally the original column top bearing is only supported by the rather puny cast alloy dashboard housing which I feel would simply break if the shaft twisted by too much).

 

I feel that a truly concentric design should  be possible with a bit more engineering....using internal ring gears. This could use the same double reduction idea but would use internal ring gears for the larger gear...clearly the same reduction could be achieved within the footprint of the larger two gears and I also feel that it would be much easier to make a self contained gear box this way, and thereby better support the two halves of the column. Ring gears are as rare as hens teeth unfortunately and don't usually appear as standard items in catalogues. When they do, they are prohibitively expensive.

 

I also contemplated incorporating a gear reduction in the steering wheel hub....that implies an epicyclic gear box arrangement but as previously mentioned, you can't make a simple epicyclic gear box with a reduction ratio of less than 3:1 (if I recall correctly)...I had been considering re-purposing a Sturmey Archer bicycle gear box....

 

All in all, I think WH's original gear reduction system is pretty good....it best uses the space available and is quite innovative too. Obviously it would require some serious bevel gears and castings to copy it and anyway it suffers from the known wear/slop issues.....

 

My recollection is that Colussus is only loosely based on WH engineering (apologies, I'll go and have a look to remind myself later) and so you may be able achieve a reduction in steering effort another way. If you have the space, you should  get a similar effect by simply doubling the diameter of the flag gear.....you'd need a larger quadrant because you would also double the distance the column bevel gear had to travel. The big problem with doing this on a standard machine is that there simply isn't the room for a larger flag gear....the angle iron frame and sheet metal above it would obviously interfere.

 

Motorsport steering quickeners are available and would work if you use them backwards. As mentioned though, I don't think I have seen a concentric design and so fitting one would cause difficulties lining the steering column up. Again though, one of these might be a solution for Colossus if you can justify the expense.

https://howeracing.com/collections/steering/products/howe-basic-quickener-2-1-ratio

 

Hope this clarifies what I have been doing and more importantly, I hope it is of some use. I'll add more as soon as I have anything useful to add!

[ebinmaine 66,562]

3 hours ago, Damien Walker said:

my gear reduction

Absolutely excellent description and information. 

 

Thank you!!

[Damien Walker 241]

I had a look at your thread on Colussus...you've made good progress since I last saw it! Yes, @ranger Doug's layshaft idea is near identical.

 

My latest idea is about fitting a layshaft type gearbox immediately under the steering wheel and perhaps incorporating a large bearing in the top of it to support the wheel to address the potential twist resulting from the split shaft. Unfortunately this would also require some butchery of the dashboard to provide an adequate mounting for the whole thing but it could be do-able. Another thought is that if I can machine a suitable internal ring gear, only one reduction stage is required as an internal ring gear does not reverse the direction of rotation. If such a gear box was mounted directly under the wheel, the original column location could be unchanged but the wheel would move closer to or away from the driver by a small amount...which might be acceptable. I'll upload some 3D images when I have created them!

 

Engineering eh? ....is simply a balance of compromises...unfortunately, the Wheel Horse construction appears to mean that each compromise is currently being defeated by a different set of issues. A bespoke gearbox will almost certainly be required I think (sadly I don't think the chain drive diff idea is viable, though it is a great observation). Let's stick at it....any other ideas that pop up could hold the key.

[Handy Don 11,881]

10 hours ago, Damien Walker said:

 

 

Engineering eh? ....is simply a balance of compromises...unfortunately, the Wheel Horse construction appears to mean that each compromise is currently being defeated by a different set of issues. 

Echos my own thoughts. My sense is that WH engineers were a canny lot and over the years honed in on a very workable balance of expense, functionality, ease of manufacture and service, and a compact finished product. To me, that means WHs are great for their intended range of purposes but going "outside the box" means considerable effort to discern and address the sometimes subtly interconnected design elements. Highly extensible tractors were left to the next higher tier--JD, IH, and others. It is that WHs are so downright accessible that we are so tempted to extend their abilities.

[ebinmaine 66,562]

6 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

tempted to extend their abilities

Tempted. And successful. 👍

[Damien Walker 241]

 

Hi everybody, I have put my current thoughts down in 3D CAD form...hope this image is of interest. Hopefully it's fairly self explanatory too.

 

This gear box would fit directly underneath the steering wheel and therefore would require little in terms of modification to the original tractor. This 'design' mounts on an angled flange bolted to the battery mount plate.....and the problem with that is getting access through the dashboard for the flange and column. For  C xx5 series (flat) dashboards this would mean butchering the casting to provide the access.

 

Of note, are the two bearings supporting the top half of the column and the two sets of gears....apologies I intended to colour code the bearings and gears separately to clarify the drawing, but achieving that is not too easy with my CAD package (aka, I'm no expert with it!).

 

Adding the second bearing, simply increases the height of the gearbox and I haven't checked if there is sufficient room between the steering wheel and the dashboard but I feel this would be strong enough.

 

I have yet to work out the details of the gearbox casing itself...clearly the way I have drawn it (obviously in cross-section) it would not be possible to assemble because the large gear won't fit through a bearing mounting hole....perhaps have a side cover plate and gain access that way? There are other details to work out too....how is the gearbox mounted on the stalk down to the battery mount plate and what would it be made from and how would it be machined?

 

I'll continue looking at all this, but hopefully this image shows where I'm up to.

 

I'll now have a go at designing a single stage gearbox using an internal ring gear....that would probably require a much simpler casing but obviously a more difficult to obtain internal gear!

[Damien Walker 241]

And here's the gearbox using a single stage internal gear reduction.

 

Problems:

 

1) It would require similar dashboard butchery to fit.

2) Main gearbox body is around 4" in diameter.....possibly make this smaller if I use a smaller input gear.

3) Not shown is the large top bearing which fits into the cross sectioned housing on the top of the gearbox. I'm thinking of a double taper bearing something similar to a vehicle wheel bearing...but smaller. Hopefully this would support the top half of the shaft well enough.

4) It requires a bespoke internal ring gear.

5) The steering wheel would be off the steering column axis by approx 18mm (which is nearly 3/4") and that doesn't sound bad to me.

 

Obviously the basic gearbox construction is trivial by comparison with the previous design but requires a very difficult to machine ring gear. Additionally, the whole gearbox is only approx 3" tall so should fit under the wheel fairly easily.

 

Clearly I have some more work to do!

[ebinmaine 66,562]

Nice work Damien. The time is appreciated.  

The internal ring gear is entertaining because of the small space and deeper gear ratio. 

 

 

 

 

@Oldskool Mike, you see this thread?

 

[Oldskool 6,596]

46 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Nice work Damien. The time is appreciated.  

The internal ring gear is entertaining because of the small space and deeper gear ratio. 

 

 

 

 

@Oldskool Mike, you see this thread?

 

Very interesting. That is quite close to the gear reduction unit I sent to you via text message. 

The body of this design might actually be smaller

 

 

[Damien Walker 241]

Minor update:

 

Internal ring gears appear to be readily available...

A large number of vehicles have planetary reduction gear sets in their starter motors which use an internal ring gear. This one is off a small British saloon car (Vauxhall Astra) and is probably not strong enough as the teeth are rather small. I'll see if I can find one off a truck or significantly larger vehicle.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Damien Walker
Missed a vital piece of info out...eejit!

[Damien Walker 241]

I also thought it worth posting a picture of a commercial steering quickener:

 

this would have to be installed in reverse of course  to reduce not quicken, and the casing doesn't appear ideal for usual WH dashboard infrastructure. With the expense and effort required to engineer something that does fit, I do wonder whether one of these suitably modified, or with the guts fitted into a custom casing would provide the solution we are looking for. This one appears to be $260 so not exactly cheap (US equivalent is available at approx $160 I think), but then any similar solution isn't going to be cheap either in terms of hardware or time expended on precision engineering.

 

The gear cut into the end of the input shift is a good idea as that means smaller gears are possible (no hub or keyway or spline to consider) thus the overall gearbox can be much smaller in diameter.

 

I have emailed the manufacturer asking for dimensions to see if it would fit.

[ebinmaine 66,562]

31 minutes ago, Damien Walker said:

quickener

Those are available on fleabay over here for under $100 most of the time. 

 

A neat idea to use the guts and reshape or replace the casing. 

 

[Damien Walker 241]

16 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Those are available on fleabay over here for under $100 most of the time. 

 

A neat idea to use the guts and reshape or replace the casing. 

 

And you are not wrong.....there's a couple on for approx $170 inc postage and a much cheaper variety at around $90 but they want the same for postage!

 

Hmm.....should I invest I wonder? Basic dimensions are in the ebay advert too...8 1/4" overall...I need to get out to the tractor to do some measurements.

[Damien Walker 241]

Ok.....It is fairly clear that the above Quickener might fit,  but not without major dashboard surgery. I don't have any drawings yet (I emailed Coleman too) but at 8 1/4" overall length, my guess is approx 1 1/2" in length for each shaft, would put the input shaft in roughly the right place for the wheel if we could get the lower bearing nose to fit through the dashboard. If we could find a splined wheel that would fit directly onto the input shaft, that would take up more of the length, leaving the gear case and input bearing nose to provide the separation between dashboard and wheel.  (Still with me?!). Without one in my hand, I don't think it will be possible to explore this further and I'm not sure I can justify the expense without a guarantee of success.....if I could find a cheaper second hand or even damaged one, that would help a lot! If Coleman are kind enough to send me an adequate drawing, I guess I could make a mock up.....

 

I had another layshaft idea which would help with the weakened split column problem....Why not keep the original column intact and use it to support the bottom bevel gear and reduction gear ie have them run on it with a bearing? This would mean cutting the weld on the bevel gear, welding a large spur gear to it and then running this new assembly on bearings on the original column. The original column would retain it's original top and bottom bearings and it's strength would not be impaired. The problem with this is you'd then have to provide a bearing support for the layshaft at the bottom end and there isn't really anything there to do that with...though it might be possible to weld in a plate similar to the mounting plate for the steering valve in my power steering conversion. Equally you'd need to arrange for a top support bearing (probably under the battery mount plate). As before, the top end  is made more complex with the angle between the battery mount plate and the column and there is the usual problem with the lack of space...and would you run the layshaft above the original column or below it?  Here's roughly how it would look:

 

 

I think the advantages of this design are obvious:

 

1) There's no gear box casing to machine

2) It uses almost standard WH hardware with not much(!) modification

3) The main column retains it's strength

 

Problems:

 

1) The top set of gears have to go below the battery mount plate....the rear edge of the battery nearly touches the column so there's no room for the lay shaft above the plate.

2) There may not be enough room down the side of the hydraulic lift valve for the gears. Perhaps the layshaft bearing can mount on the underside of the battery mount plate but with the top gears set much lower down, nearer to the bottom pair?

3) The original bevel gear is not large enough in diameter to accommodate a bearing for it to run on. The large spur gear is probably big enough so we might get away with a plain bronze bearing supporting the spur gear and a very basic steel on steel bearing for the bevel gear. Not ideal at all though.

4) There's very little clearance between this and the arm on the lift rock shaft....though could perhaps sacrifice one hole on the lift arm to provide more space....

 

I'd need to strip the tractor down again to try this out.....my guess is that this layshaft idea would fit in much the same space as the power steering orbitrol valve and shouldn't interfere with the motion control linkage on the later 518/520Hs. As the earlier 500 tractors are similar to the C-Series, there's a bit more room under the dashboard without the motion control fundungus to get in the way on these.

 

Final thought is that I think my power steering conversion was easier to do as there was very little precision engineering required. I would therefore say that if you have a hydro, then fit power steering.... and you can retain the low number of turns lock to lock with much less steering effort.

 

I'll keep at it and will report back if I make progress.

[Damien Walker 241]

Coleman (they who make the blue Quickener) responded with some dimensions, but sadly not a full drawing. Much of the following image is therefore guesswork.....apologies for any errors!

The red bit is the Cxx5 dashboard superstructure centre spine (cast alloy) and the green bit is the Coleman Quickener. Obviously i haven't worked out a mounting bracket, nor have I drawn the full dashboard casting but I think a suitable bracket would be fairly easily bolted to the underside of the dashboard casting. The distance between the underside of the wheel hub and the opposing face on the dashboard casting would be about 120mm with the Quickener mounted as shown. I think that may be a little high by approx 1" and obviously the quickener would also move the wheel towards you by a small amount....the drawing suggests by less than 1/4" which i suggest is irrelevant. More severe dashboard butchery might see it mounted a bit lower. If i get a moment, I'll try to draw the rest of the dashboard and a mounting bracket. With such a small offset (hope my measurement is correct), I wonder about mounting inside the dashboard...having the steering column out of alignment by only 1/4" at the top might not be a problem.... The wheel would be too low down though, so it is of debatable value, except that the Quickener mounting bracket may be simpler and the whole assembly much more rigid....

 

The original column bearing in the dashboard casting would have to be bored out for the Quickener bearing nose and a new steering wheel would be required with a 3/4" 36 spline fitting. That is apparently standard GM so a wheel should be no problem...I think they are available for silly money from ebay in similarish style to the original C Series wheel.

 

We'd need a splined adaptor to fit the bottom of the Quickener to weld onto a shortened column.

 

I think this would work very nicely and would be easy to do...certainly MUCH easier than the spur gears and layshaft ideas.

 

I imagine the steering forces experienced by the quickener would be no worse than those seen in an off road rally installation so the Quickener should be strong enough.

 

Coleman Quickeners are available in two ratios: 2:1 and 1.5:1...so the next problem is which is preferable? 2:1 would obviously halve the steering effort, whereas 1.5:1 would only reduce it to 66%. Having initially had problems with my power steering conversion having too many turns lock to lock, I am leaning towards 1.5:1 but don't know what would be best really. Here's a link to Coleman just for reference: http://www.colemanracing.com/STEERING-QUICKENER-LIGHTWEIGHT-MINI-P4753.aspx

 

I think hydraulic power steering has to be the preferred option if you have a hydraulic supply and so  I now need to decide which route I'm going to take for my C175....which of course, has a hydraulic supply....I am quite tempted by the Quickener though.....

 

Hope this helps.

[ebinmaine 66,562]

First things first. I want to say thank you for your effort and time putting these posts together. 

Whether I use any of these methods or not I'm really enjoying the information.  

 

IMHO... The position of the steering wheel is not a huge issue to most as long as it's within a good usable range.  

If it moves a bit for a transformation then most folks would just get used to it being in the new position. 

Ups and downs of things, so to speak.  

 

Having never personally driven a C175 I can't say if I'd rather have the steering wheel a little lower or higher.  

 

15 minutes ago, Damien Walker said:

Coleman Quickeners are available in two ratios: 2:1 and 1.5:1...so the next problem is which is preferable? 2:1 would obviously halve the steering effort, whereas 1.5:1 would only reduce it to 66%. Having initially had problems with my power steering conversion having too many turns lock to lock, I am leaning towards 1.5:1 but don't know what would be best really

 

I don't remember what your own issue was with the ratio or if it was mentioned. 

 

The desired ratio would be dependent on driver and machine along with the desired outcome.  

 

IIFF it was me and IIFF it was Colossus I'd actually want TWO quickeners for a 4:1 ratio.  

I'd have one horizontal and one vertical. 

 

9 minutes ago, Damien Walker said:

need a splined adaptor to fit the bottom of the Quickener to weld onto a shortened column

 

One could purchase a u-joint WITH the splines for less than just finding an adapter.