Anyone here??? Split bones or Hairpins??
- Thread starter TrueBlue
- Start date
fletcherson
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I wish they would show construction detail. Guess I will have to do my own homework!
choppinczech
Well-Known Member
I agree. They're crazy expensive.
But what a difference in the articulation and movement.
If I had seen this demo before doing my rear suspension, I would have gone with heim joints instead of bushings.
Fletcherson wrote,
Interesting. I wish they would show construction detail. Guess I will have to do my own homework!
If you go on their website and look the rod ends up you can see how they come apart, I'm assuming they're rebuildable. Don't see the need for the complexity when a QA1 (or NMB or similar) will do the same job just as well.
Interesting. I wish they would show construction detail. Guess I will have to do my own homework!
If you go on their website and look the rod ends up you can see how they come apart, I'm assuming they're rebuildable. Don't see the need for the complexity when a QA1 (or NMB or similar) will do the same job just as well.
old round fart
Well-Known Member
I had the old style 4 bar in my ‘32 and it worked great. I suspect he tightened down the cross bolts to make his stuff look better. Never heard squeaking but I did replace bushings after about 40,000 miles.
choppinczech
Well-Known Member
And if the crush tubes are a hair wider the bushings should rotate freely.
I see a lot of bushing ends on the market where the crush tubes look to be the same overall width as the bushings.
fluidfloyd
Active Member
If all you have would be the ladder bars then yes, you will need a centering devise of some kind. A rear cross spring won't keep the housing centered. A panhard bar is usually the easiest to mount but those chassis and housing mounts need to be strong and not flex. The longer that bar is the better. A watts linkage is sometimes easier to package and can be located behind the housing, above the housing or below the housing Much smaller tubing can be used due to their fairly short lengths. You can find a lot of information on either system with the help of google. Good luck with your project.
George
I would say yes.
Ted Brown, who forgot more about T's than any of us will ever know, always said to run a panhard if you only have those springs.
It's a safety thing.
You don't want that axle to move from side to side no matter what.
I because of my setup, I have a panhard on both front and rear.
Some say it's not needed... I say it's like insurance, should anything come loose.
The triangulated setups are basically a bunch of panhards in all directions, if you look at them...
fluidfloyd
Active Member
If he had a IRS rear suspension then that outer wheel hub will see no torque reaction on acceleration or braking and will work fine. When you attache hairpins, radius rods or ladder bars to a housing tube solidly you have turned that housing into a big anti roll bar with long arms. Big torque engines can and will cause strange things to happen including the bending of those hairpin, solid mounted radius rods and even ladder bars although the usually fail in the front rod end bearing threaded shank. That system can also cause frame rail/mounting bracket flex and vehicle torque steer. You can do it and get by with it if everything is well thought out and strong but I for one see no advantage to doing it. And just because you might be running a small inch motor you need to think like it is a torque monster. Small motors applying torque through either a torque converter, low 1st gear transmission and low rear end gear ration can really surprise you. Manual transmissions, final rear gear ratios can be just as bad at times. Calculate all of those combinations before you get committed. Articulation is really the best way to go in my opinion and I've been building cars for a living since 1973. Hope this will give you something to think about. Good lick with you project.
George
oldskoolguy
Member
That’s basically a 4 link setup and will handle an incredible amount of torque as is. No pan hard bar needed because the links are triangulated. With regard to using rear wishbones like 36 ford for example, they will work but an upper torque arm will be required to keep from twisting those bones into a pretzel. Wishbones were designed to be used with the old ford closed torque tube, which acted like a giant ladder bar. When you go to an open driveline, you need to be able to prevent the axle from rotating. Bones by themselves are not enough.
oldskoolguy
Member
The answer is no....the ladder bars are triangulated, so no pan hard needed. Ever try to collapse a triangle? If the ladder bars were parallel, yes you would. Lots of hot rods built this way with no pan hard bar.
