Fenders, Cuz, Kenny and all involved

I finally got back home today and got to read the summary. It's awesome. I don't know anywhere on the net where this type hands on info is available...

I seriously think it should be offered to one of our truck magazines for publication with the FTE Group as author.. I'll make the contacts if anyone agrees !!!


It's clear, concise and factual. Accurate prices offered and time estimates are from actual home installs... not mfg's advertising. It will be an excellent decision making tool for lots of newbies, rookies, rodders and pros alike.

I wish I could have been more involved, but it just happened at a bad time in my schedule... Thanks to all who participated from the inside skinny to the cut and paste work to the spell checking to the posting... an excellent job well done by a fine group of guys. One of the best parts of the FTE group is their dedication and insistance on sharing good information... Ego's are usually put aside when a helping hand can be lent and this is a perfect example of the cooperative spirit that Ken, Kenny and all the others involved in making this board so great foster every day...

good job gentlemen, good job... I'm proud to be associated with you..

john (cool enough to have friends like you guys !)

 

"I seriously think it should be offered to one of our truck magazines for publication with the FTE Group as author.. I'll make the contacts if anyone agrees !!!

It's clear, concise and factual. Accurate prices offered and time estimates are from actual home installs... not mfg's advertising. It will be an excellent decision making tool for lots of newbies, rookies, rodders and pros alike."

I appreciate the kind words John. Publication in a magazine is a very nice goal. I would be willing to put in some work to get it ready. But it's not ready yet, not in my opinion. It's good enough to be an FTE thread, it's almost good enough to be a tech article, it's a ways away from any magazine publication.

The summary is a document very wide in scope. I expected some backlash when it was posted. For the most part is was met with silence compared to the preparatory thread phase. I don't know what that means, but there is just no way it's perfect yet. We did try to be as factual and unbiased as possible, but there almost have to be some errors. It's my opinion we would need to bring the sections up one at a time for some refining. We currently have some missing information for some of the sections. Folks will have to step up and take issue with statements they don't believe are correct. The problem with reaching a perfect document is it's not possible to do this without injecting opinion. We tried to make it the opinion of many, rather than a few, but subjectivity is required no matter how you slice it. We don't have the capability to measure ride quality or handling, but it's the reason many of us choose IFS. We can't really measure strength, but I know a straight axle is stronger than any MII or Volare, so we have to make subjective statements to that affect.

If you really want to pursue publication, we'll bring up the MII section and start picking apart the details. Let me know.

 

I see your points but disagree... I've seen some of the magazines articles on IFS options. None of them offered the detail, pricing or advantages or disadvantages that the summary did... theirs was a much broader stroke that you guys offered.

i.e. " You can choose from MII or Volare or Dakota... the Volare is the cheaper old school way, the MII is now the most popular but the Dakota is gaining ground..."

that's about as deep as I've seen lately...

With the proper intro... setting the parameters of the information, it would serve well. I agree it's not the definitive ...last word... absolutely most informative summary of all possible options (you left out the I-beam ) but it gives more detail than any thing else I've seen in print... without the marketing departments spit and polish/spin. you underestimate its value !

agreed it needs to be polished a little for flow maybe... but the content is there and viable... it's da_n good work..


trust me... I'm published

for whatever you think ??? thanks for the effort... it's good work by some sharp folks.. and with or without the followup comments by the masses... it IS appreciated


what do you think Cuz ????


john

 

(you left out the I-beam )

What?!?!?

You better take that back right now. Like it or not, we did evaluate most aspects of the straight axle. That is step one in my mind. Before you light the torch you decide whether the features of the straight axle are for you or not. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement?

Anyway, I'll shut up now and hopefully other opinions will follow on the magazine article subject. I'll leave you with this thought. While I agree the magazine articles are lame, why is that the standard? The magazines are owned by the MII aftermarket. That is not even arguable IMO. Collectively, this forum has the experience to bring the article to a higher level than it is now. I am not referring to a little word polishing and political correctness. We could use more preciseness in ride height for some IFS options, expansion of straight axle upgrades, and a dozen other fairly important issues.

Or................ if you don't get adequate feedback on this thread. Start a poll and the forum members can remain anonymous. I suggest three poll options:

1. It's great like it is, attempt to publish it without delay

2. It's got real potential, refine the details with further discussion and then we'll try to publish it in a few months.

3. Don't ever publish it, the article is not a reflection of the 48-60 forum's opinon.

 

Fenders,

I admit that I'm a wee bit confused as to where we should file the ammendments. You know of the one point I brought up. I guess that we need to post each section and let everyone comment and then the original writers can analyze the comments and make the decision to add subtract or leave it alone.

Just My Thoughts

 

Publishing might be a tricky bit of business if you look at option 3 closely, 'fenders. Tightening up the prose is not a problem... there are excellent writers among us. Attribution and citation might be sticky. Is this, indeed, the work of all of us or just a few experienced hands? Surely, its value lies in the information provided by these folk. It belongs to all of us now... it is public.
Publishing would certainly serve the publication and its readers well. Who would it serve on this board? Is anyone here willing to have his ideas watered down to placate the MII aftermarket? Who benefits from all of the hard work that goes into this? Whose byline underwrites the submission?
I am merely asking the questions. Whether or not this is published is irrelevant to me. I would hate to see hard feelings rise in the wake of misunderstanding the implications of publishing a compilation with credit going to a few.
Just some thoughts. Best. Himmelberg

 

Brer Fenders,

Yo modesty is showin' If the esteemed and published Sir John deems it ok, it's gotta be good. I know you have given more than one forum member lots of thoughts, ideas, dreams, schemes, and serious counting of coins to figure how we can stuff the (your suspension choice here) into our trucks.

Hell, I da_n near cried reading all the tech info and flow of ideas as they made the loop fastern crap through a goose.
Seriously, if there are this many people interested in our forum, how many more computer challenged folks (most of my friends and neighbors) could or would have access to the info in written form or at least look at the pictures.

Thnaks for your work and all the others who contributed. Great job folks!

 

Peter

As usual you are "all over it" A couple quick comments. I had considered many of the comments.

1. The article is the work of, includes comments from approximately 25+ people I guess (We could add up the number of posters easy enough). That's why I am being a PITA on a revision. It gives others one more chance to contribute or take issue. We'll never get the entire forum involved. It's not required IMO. I stand by my assertion that it needs improvement. We can do that whether we attempted to publish or not.

2. No I wouldn't like it at all when a magazine editor runs this through the MII filter. Not one bit. I'd deal with it if that's what the forum wanted.

3. If the article is credited to anything less than the 48-60 FTE forum, I'll have no part of it. NONE

 

I think that with some flushing out and some word smithing that this piece of work should be published.
After reading all the initial inputs and the work as it is now I am even more convinced that I have (For the present time) made the right decision FOR ME, to stay with the straight axel with a disk brake upgrade.
That decision was a nearly three year process, searching for information on the web, in mags, and talking to people who had made or faced simular things.
I even considered some alternatives that haven't been done, as far as I know, like the 2 wheel drive Explorer swap (It will work).
Had I had access to the information that has bee assembled here my decision would have come much easier and I'm sure quicker.
As far as "Credit/Byline" if published, everyone on this fourm has in oneway or another, at sometime contributed.
The information and ideas that make up this article didn't just happen with the start of the collection of the information, it goes back to the very first post ever where a question was asked about ANY modification to a front suspension.
It is a collective work of a group of people that arn't afraid of "Doing in the dirt", doing their own imagineering and putting the vehicles on the road.

1. Flush it out.
2. Tech Article quality.
3. PUBLISH

 

By August three summers ago I was convinced that my first task truckwise was to get an IFS stuck under it. No doubt the strong sway of CT magazine had led me down this garden path. Sure, my truck steers hard. Sure, it doesn't stop quickly. The first thing I started pondering was which MII variant I would start saving for....
January last year I joined this outfit. I had read John's tech article. I exchanged ideas, opinions and laughs with a guy from Iowa and others. This was still based on the idea that an IFS was indispensable.
In the fullness of time I have read and re-read about Earl and his restoration... Daryl's red truck, Vern's joy and pain, Carl's vast vintage experience. Across oceans and borders RMF, Kai and Lucas have weighed in with questions and answers. Answers from Tim and Joe and myriad others. What a great place! Fun? Indeed. Informative? Pricelessly. The point? Like Penn Dick, I find that I don't need an IFS. Like George, I don't want one. Like 'fenders, I agree that what is compiled to date is not ready for publication. Getting all of the tech details for each setup is necessary. Each section given deep scrutiny for accuracy and refinement. If we're gonna go public we should put the very best effort forward. If we're subject to heavy editing to keep aftermarketeers happy, we should forget it. himmelberg

 

I have contributed where I could, on different issues over the last couple of years but, I must say with all honesty, have been thoroughly entertained, enlightened, educated, and even amazed at the help one can receive here.

The IFS ‘digest’ is a wealth of excellent information and should be made available to everyone out there with a need. But as is with most joint efforts, 'feelings' will inevitably enter into the picture.

I would hate to see this remarkable effort turn into something less than what it could be.

 

I think Cuzin John actually asked for my opinion so here is my $0.02 CDN –

I am neutral as to whether it gets published in one of the magazines. However, I do have some concerns;

While copyright clearly belongs to the author(s) if it became an FTE Tech article, I’m not sure who owns copyright on the thread in the 48 – 60 forum – I suspect Ken does, so permission might be necessary to take it elsewhere.

Yes it would need a lot of polish to go to a magazine. We gave ourselves a deadline to wrap it up quickly (albeit two sections remain unposted at this time). Given a month or so of critique in the forum and perhaps commitments from experts to polish up each alternative, we could probably have something looking pretty good. It could take months…..I know Penn Dick and myself have AADD, I’m not sure about ‘fenders……..

Magazines would want lots of photos to accompany the article (since many readers like pictures). This might be a problem to properly document each alternative with photos (especially the less popular alternatives). 'fenders has problems with technology so he'd need help to properly insert photos....

Given that many/most magazine articles become advertisements for the builder/supplier featured in the article, I wonder how receptive to “un-biased” roll up they would be? Or what they might do it in editting?

I’m concerned that with or without photos, the article would be too long for a magazine…Although they could possibly break it into pieces and run it over several issues.

I kinda like keeping it here in FTE – what makes FTE (especially 48 – 60) as useful and valuable as it is, is the wealth of info that can be had here. True, the critical mass is key. If it weren’t for the huge number of participants, we wouldn’t have the content….. Anyway, part of the value of FTE is that many times, this is the only place people can find a particular bit they’re looking for. Keeping the article here is just one more wee straw in that haystack. (Did I convey what I was trying to say properly?)

Just a few thoughts……

So put me down for - I don’t care which way this goes…..

Later,

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ferguson777
. (Did I convey what I was trying to say properly?)

Yes,I think you conveyed very properly.
Except you missed a period after "fenders has problems".

Seriously though,I agree with what you say.

I am also impressed by the article and the wealth of info and help on this site.Just want to thank everyone.

 

I am just throwing out ideas here based on what I am reading on this thread. How's this sound?

1. We agree to refine the article with the goal of producing one of the finest FTE articles ever. It will grow in length and quality, of that there is no doubt. We bring the threads back up for discussion, no more than two at a time. When ten threads are going at once, we can't focus very well.

2. In the meantime we can debate whether this thing potentially goes to a magazine. We can ask Ken for permission etc. My gut reaction is that RMF is correct. The document will be WAY too long for a mag. We would have to condense it. I think our article will not be aftermarket friendly and will never be published in a manner we care for. But I don't know that for sure, Niolon can find out for us.

3. Speaking of technology challenged, we get Himmelberg upgraded from his current word processor which is older than Mr4Speed (free of course) He can help us smooth out the words without killing RMFs writing style (which I find quite easy and entertaining to read)

4. 'fenders is not formally in charge of anything. I'll be my usual high strung self and try to take over, but I am not the project boss. The arguments will be a lot higher quality if nobody is in charge. I would be happy to try to co-coordinate this.

5. This is going to take a minute to get to a high standard but we'll have something when we are done.

 

hi guys...

after reading some replies and thinking on it some more I agree with the consensus ( I think it's a consensus) it would take some work and probably a few pics(but not that many) to make it publishable... not that it isn't doable... but with some effort... I certainly don't want to take away from Cuz's work... He did an excellent job editing the posts into something concise and useful.

My initial comment about publishing was merely to get this information to the throng of people who are trying to decide which side of the multi sided fence to jump off on... I of course, have jumped around with a pogo stick till it stuck in the MII side. The decisions by Penn Dick, George and others about the SA are made with a great deal of research and consideration... I just wanted all the others out there to profit from their/our hard work and hopefully make the right decision for themselves.

This is just the beginning of what I know will be an original piece of tech art... I've searched, read, talked IFS for a while with anyone who acted like they knew something and a few that actually did...and I haven't found this type detail anywhere in print or the virtual world. (especiallywithout the marketing departments adjectives)..

I think with more specific tech input and real life comments it could be the best information found. It might help to entertain some comments/questions from some folks that don't know diddly... sometimes questions from the rookies/newbies make you see something that a knowledgable person takes for granted

When you guys (we guys ?) are happy with it ...content, pics, flow and speech I'll be happy to approach Rich Boyd (CCT)and Kevin Lee (CT) with the idea or even a draft if you like. It would make a great multi month article and could bring in some readers for them.. The reaction of advertisers would be something they have to weigh into the decision themselves... I will say that they (CCT)weren't shy about using my negative comments on the Fairlane flip unit and Fairlane is a regular advertiser... ( they ain't Heidts and Fatman but they pay their way also)

The byline would have to be the FTE/48-60 forum since so many contributed to it... (some even through their lack of input ). I don't really think Ken would have a problem with copyright... and I think payment (if any) should go to the FTE for maintenance/operation (IMHO).

Again, initially I just wanted to thank all those who worked so hard on it... the cooperative spirit is what makes this place so great...

soapbox stored... end of text

john

BTW if HIMMEL will tell me what version of DOS he's running... I'll try to find him a copy of a real word processor that uses all the known letters