Geoff Weeks

It isn't a question on how to measure (or shouldn't be) it is a matter of holding tolerance over a longer distance. Even supposed identical torque arms, when replaced will throw off alignment a bit. Having a aligned rear suspension makes a huge difference in the trucks ride and tire wear. The further up the frame your data points are the better they will show a thrust alignment problem. lasers (laser pointer even) can be a big help in being sure if you are working on a good level concrete floor.

Never did a Camelback but have done walking beam. I don't think the specs are a loose for the walking beam, but regardless the closer to true the better the truck will be.

10-12 years ago I got a low mileage walking beam with optional transverse torque rods on a long frame cut-off. Complete axles less drop-out for $700. Had 40K Eaton axles.

I know what you are saying, but it still requires getting the alignment correct, some suspension have more adjustment possible than other. Both axles have to be aligned to each other, and the whole tandem has to have the thrust line, aligned with the rest of the truck. Some, like Z spring have a lot of adjustment possible, a few thousandths of welding mis-alignment when attaching the cut-off can be "shimmed" out when the job is done, On older walking beam you have little to no adjustment possible. On Neway there is a slotted hole on the front hangers, you align and weld the heavy washer to the hanger, You can move the axle forward or back. On Z spring there are shims that can be placed on the fore-aft torque rod either at the axle end (move the axle back) or at the hanger end (move axle forward) on all four attachments. It gives a lot of adjustment possible. On walking beam, the OEM old style bushing were concentric and required the install to be right on the money, you can't correct after the fact. I guess aftermarket has some eccentric bushings for the through bolt style that will allow a little movement. With my ARDAB the bushing have worn and the thrust alignment has suffered, it chews through steer tires 'cause the rears are trying to push the truck down the road sideways.

No, I think you are correct on the newer walking beam ends, I just never had any newer style, and was talking from memory/experience on my old stuff. I remember talking to Rob Swallows about having to re-do a cutoff change that some else had done. They got the thrust alignment so far out, there was no other choice but to cut it off and re install.

The point I was making is either the whole cut-off or the suspension alone, With walking beam, you have to be extra careful to make sure they are aligned before welding. Unlike Z spring where there is a fair bit of adjustment possible to compensate for any mis-alignment (within reason). I am reading that there may be some aftermarket eccentric axle adaptor bushing made to correct some very small mis alignment in the older style. OEM's were concentric. So I may not be technically correct but walking beam is more critical on initial set-up than many other suspensions. On the Z spring, you shim the fore-aft torque arm and have a lot of adjustment.

I'm not sure what you are refering to? Axle mount is a weldment on the axle with a rubber bushing, I don't remember any shims there? https://www.stengelbros.net/RT-RTE-380-400-440-460-RT2-RTE2-400-460--Tandem-Suspensions_c_978.html The newer style must be what you talking about, my stuff is all the older style with a round hole and through bolt at the axle connection. I forgot about those that bolt on. My bad, good catch.

If walking beam has a drawback, it is that there is no alignment possible after the brackets have been welded onto the axle housings, and the brackets are attached to the frame. So choose a good installer that can be sure the suspension in alignment.

There are several good suspensions that have been around for years, and parts are readily available, for years after they have fallen from favor. Then there are the odd ball ones that never lived up to expectations. I think the choice has to be made to either get rid of the truck or put something else under it. Hendrickson Air ride (Z spring) has been around for decades, and used by almost every Mfg in some form or other, including Mack. Good air ride for on/off road combo. Camelback and Hendrickson beam are both great off road and fair on road suspensions. Various 4 springs are fair on road and lousy off road (not enough articulation for off road) I have never seen the one in question on a truck. The 1st one shown that wasn't the one in question I knew as Volvo T ride, but I guess it went under other names as well. My experience has been fixing it once, it will just push the problem down the road, and that is if parts can be had. My ARDAB once took 18 months to get a part for it.

It says right on the form, his mother was from Kansas, not on any "visa". That and the fact he was born in a US state both makes him a citizen

It reminds me of a totally different suspension that was supposed to be new and great, only to have no support and sky high prices on replacement parts. The Neway ARDAB or "Air Beam" suspension. What a piece of crap, and I can say that 'cause I own one, and have had to build some replacement parts for it. My advice is decide if it is worth putting something else under the truck, or get rid of the truck and get a better supported truck/suspension. Truck suspensions are a "wearing" part, so if you fix it today, you'll go thought the same hassle down the road when it needs something else done. BTW the ARDAB also used twin bushing on top of the axle, and they wear and are very hard to find.

Jesus Christ, where do you come up with this stuff? Obama's mother was a white woman from Kansas, his Father from Kenya, and a student. His mom and father met in HI where he was a student. He was raised in Kansas by his grandparents. There never was any question about it.

1st what makes you or I a citizen? If I were born with one parent a citizen and one not, does that make me 1/2 a citizen? If a similar child was born into such a family, and the citizen abandons the family does the child loose his citizenship? We don't require our children to grow up and take citizen test before they are protected by the rights in the constitution. No matter what, we consider the child an innocent, and receives the full protection of the constitution. Regardless of the child having citizenship, it doesn't give that to the parents, if they were not already. In our society, you are born a clean slate, not burden with the sins of your parents. Our constitution put into writing that fact. Took it from subjective to a clear,"you are born here, you are a citizen" which applies as much to me as someone else. When I pop out onto US soil I am a citizen. The ridiculous argument trying to evade the 14th is that the child is somehow not subject to US law, but can be deported under the same US law? The only foreigners not subject to US laws while here are "invited guests" of the state, Diplomats, their staff and foreign military personnel invited in for training. These people can not be held on most if not all US laws, military are dealt with in the military justus system and Diplomats can be expelled but not prosecuted. Children of these people born here are not US citizens, as they are not subject to US law. That is how the 14th is written. Only Native Americans can claim their lineage weren't subjects of other countries, the rest of us came from somewhere else.

4 wire is for the tractor lights, 7 wire is for the trailer.

Unless Mack is vastly different than most other transmissions, the driver has a far bigger effect than the engine in terms of transmission life.

There were "employment" brokers that took people right off the docks. Study a little history, people did come without having someone here.

It was written exactly the way it was so someone in power can't decide who and who is not when they are native born. Until its passage it kept blacks and American Indian's from citizenship! Can't get more native born than American Indian! How would you feel if Biden suddenly said all Republicans are not citizens? He could not, and the constitution was there to prevent it. If you want to change what is written, then follow the procedure to do so. BTW it is very clear and has be upheld multiple times by the supreme court.

Many here seam to mistakenly think "birthright" in someway conveys legal status on the parents, it does not. It applies to the baby, they are not "stateless". If your father is a convicted murderer, that doesn't make you one by birth. Sins of the parents should not be applied to the children. What make you or me a citizen? Is it that our parents were? or that we were born here? In that respect we are all birthright citizens.

No, you don't nor did you ever need a sponsor, most that came though didn't have one, Think about it, if you are the 1st how do you get a sponsor? Many came with next to nothing, then started bringing their family after they got settled. A Sponsor makes life easier but not a requirement. I personally know someone who emigrated from Britain and didn't have a sponsor.

May be so, may be not, but the process has to be followed to amend, it can't be done by one persons stroke of a pen! 1st it has to go though congress, then approved by 75% (I think) of the states by popular vote.

You can't become a citizen the moment you are allowed into the country, it can take years, for the process to work though. It is 100% legal to be a resident alien. Those who are permanent aliens, are not prevented from having kids until they are citizens! Children of these people are citizens if they are born here.

Most came and took 12-17 or more years to become naturalized, in the mean time worked and started a family, those children were citizens via birthright, even if their parents remained resident aliens. I know plenty, some in my extended family, that never became citizens, they were resident aliens, held a "green card" paid taxes etc, just couldn't vote.

As I said both sides need to respect the constitution, otherwise we end up snapping from one extreme to the other. The right always brings up the 2nd amendment when firearms are talked about, the left in this case it is the 14th. You can't argue that the founding fathers (the 14th was after the civil war) didn't know about immigration but by the same hand could foresee all the new firearms! Constitutions are rigid for a reason, hard to change without bringing the country together to decide. As I said, both side of the isle need to learn this lesson.

But for birthright citizenship, very few of us would be citizens today, most of our ancestors came from somewhere else. I know my mothers family came around the turn of the last century, but both her and her sister were born here and US citizens.

My point is birthright citizenship is a right conferred by the constitution, if you want to end it, you have to do so through amending the constitution. Our constitution is not something that you obey when it is convenient and ignore when you don't like what it says. As you point out, if you are in another country you are subject to their laws, that is precisely what the 14th amendment says. IF you are subject to US law and born in this country, you are a citizen. It conveys citizenship to the child born here not the parents.