Suspension Assistance

[Moyock13]

Question for the group.

If the pictures load... I'm looking for advice on the correct, if there is a correct type of coil over shock, for the rear of the Top Notch T. I guess not so much a question as some advice.

Thanks ya'll.

 

[choppedtop]

I don't quite get the mount brackets on the frame. They should be closer together to sandwich the top of the coil over. Depending on where you want the tire to be fore and aft, would determine where the coil over mount would be on the frame. Probably need to mock things up to make that decision. I would just make some dummy shocks out of some strap first to figure out the mounts for the frame. Those look pretty high to the bolt hole. Speedway catalog will show you coil over lengths to give you something to work off for ideas.

 

[choppedtop]

Since I waited to long to edit, I had to start over. Here is a shot of my shock mounts on my frame. Maybe it will help you, maybe not.

 

[tfeverfred]

Major bad. Those brackets should have be closer together. Take a look at Chopped Top's brackets. That's how they should be.

 

[tfeverfred]

Like so. This is my frame and rear coil spring set up.

 

[Moyock13]

Thanks fella's. It's just a strange setup, even the panhard bar, or bars in this instance are a little different.
I had asked previously if anyone was familiar with a Top Notch T-Bucket frame.

 

[old round fart]

There is no suspension movement in that picture!

 

[choppedtop]

That is what I see also John, very little if any. Moyock, you only need one bar for that style panhard. Again, the mounting bracket for the panhard, could be lowered on the frame, so they don't interfere with the rest of the build. Looks at other frames manufactured by some of the suppliers listed on this forum for ideas. Simple mods will make the build easier and cleaner looking.
I never heard of Top Notch, nor can find anything on them either.

 

[Zandoz]

The panhard brackets look to me like someone was once trying to do a Watts Link instead of a Panhard. If it were me. I'd try to see if a Watts would still be viable. If not just use one of those bars. The one that ends up being closest to level at ride height, with no obstructions, would be the way to go.

For the shock mounts, just use spacer(s) with a grade 8 bolt to get the shock lined up with the axle mount. I've seen off-roaders do that regularly, with up to 3" gap between the brackets.

 

[fluidfloyd]

Question for the group.

If the pictures load... I'm looking for advice on the correct, if there is a correct type of coil over shock, for the rear of the Top Notch T. I guess not so much a question as some advice.

Thanks ya'll.

Moyock13...Really an odd combination of brackets that have no known design intent that I can see. If it was me I would decide what type of rear suspension system I wanted and start over. I think you would be far ahead of the game to remove ALL the existing brackets and start fresh. I know that's what you didn't plan on but over the years I have found trying to sort out someone elses flawed or unfinished designs to be a major problem. These cars can be as simple or as complicated as you want. Based on your own ability and equipment only you can decide what path you want to take but there are a lot of people here with various designs that will be more then glad to help you. Just something to think about. Good luck with your project.

George

 

[tfeverfred]

Moyock13...Really an odd combination of brackets that have no known design intent that I can see. If it was me I would decide what type of rear suspension system I wanted and start over. I think you would be far ahead of the game to remove ALL the existing brackets and start fresh. I know that's what you didn't plan on but over the years I have found trying to sort out someone elses flawed or unfinished designs to be a major problem. These cars can be as simple or as complicated as you want. Based on your own ability and equipment only you can decide what path you want to take but there are a lot of people here with various designs that will be more then glad to help you. Just something to think about. Good luck with your project.

George

Times 2!

 

[Moyock13]

Thanks ya'll. Yea, it is a strange setup. Sort of intriguing to see if there's a way to pull it together. I've got a long way to go with the build and we're now just mocking up the suspension. What ever we come up with I'll provide picture.

 

[Moyock13]

Here's an interesting link that explains the difference between a Panhard bar and a Watts Link. Good call Zandoz!
http://www.turnology.com/tech-stori...ences-between-a-panhard-bar-and-a-watts-link/

 

[Gerry]

The middle bracket is in double shear and a has a bolt through it that seems to me, made for a pivot.

Personally I would go with the Watts. No sideways movement. A number of Ts I have been in, squirrel sideways on a hard shift, using Panhards. You can also feel the rear end moving sideways on rolling bumps. Course its always personal choice.

 

[Moyock13]

There was a Watts Link post maybe two years ago discussing a Total T and the fact that the design allowed the rear to bottom out. Anyone remember that?

 

[Zandoz]

There was a Watts Link post maybe two years ago discussing a Total T and the fact that the design allowed the rear to bottom out. Anyone remember that?

Can't say that I remember it, but it may have been before my time here.

But if bottoming out against the frame, or bottoming of the coilovers, there are many types of bumpstops that will prevent that.

 

[fluidfloyd]

The choice of a Watts Linkage versus a Panard Bar is really a personal choice in T-Bucket type cars for the most part. A Watts Linkage system is much more precise in lateral location of the rear axle housing. The Panard Bar design can be made to have very little axle shift if it is long and parallel or level with the ground at loaded ride height. The shorter that bar is the more left to right movement the chassis will see. Due to the nature of bucket frames being so narrow limits the length of the Panard Bar. A lot of people use a bar that bolts to a bracket on the pinion nose of the third member making for an even shorter bar. This short length bar decreases its effective length as the rear suspension moves up or down. A Watts Linkage systems always keeps the housing centered in the car. This is one of the main reasons that so many road racing cars have and still do use the Watts Linkage design. They are looking for absolutes in suspension design if possible. Like wise, many of the road racing cars did and still do use the Panard Bar design but they are always long and level. They can also be adjusted to cause various actions and reactions needed for their particular desires. For most all of our needs either design will work. Keep it simple and install it correctly and you will be good to go.

As to one system allowing your suspension to bottom out...That is not controlled by the centering devise. That is an issue of shock/spring travel. Hope this will be of some value or at least give you something to think about.

George

 

[Zandoz]

The choice of a Watts Linkage versus a Panard Bar is really a personal choice in T-Bucket type cars for the most part. A Watts Linkage system is much more precise in lateral location of the rear axle housing. The Panard Bar design can be made to have very little axle shift if it is long and parallel or level with the ground at loaded ride height. The shorter that bar is the more left to right movement the chassis will see. Due to the nature of bucket frames being so narrow limits the length of the Panard Bar. A lot of people use a bar that bolts to a bracket on the pinion nose of the third member making for an even shorter bar. This short length bar decreases its effective length as the rear suspension moves up or down. A Watts Linkage systems always keeps the housing centered in the car. This is one of the main reasons that so many road racing cars have and still do use the Watts Linkage design. They are looking for absolutes in suspension design if possible. Like wise, many of the road racing cars did and still do use the Panard Bar design but they are always long and level. They can also be adjusted to cause various actions and reactions needed for their particular desires. For most all of our needs either design will work. Keep it simple and install it correctly and you will be good to go.

As to one system allowing your suspension to bottom out...That is not controlled by the centering devise. That is an issue of shock/spring travel. Hope this will be of some value or at least give you something to think about.

George

The only contact problem with Watts link setup is the Watts bracketry on top of the pumpkin hitting the bottom of the bed or tank above it. That may be what is being referred to as bottoming out <shrug>. When I was working on my now abandoned suspension design, the issue of requiring extra overhead space was the reason I abandoned using a Watts Link in favor of a wishbone locator.

 

[PotvinGuy]

Or if you feel daring, try a Mumford linkage...

 

[choppinczech]

The only contact problem with Watts link setup is the Watts bracketry on top of the pumpkin hitting the bottom of the bed or tank above it. That may be what is being referred to as bottoming out <shrug>. When I was working on my now abandoned suspension design, the issue of requiring extra overhead space was the reason I abandoned using a Watts Link in favor of a wishbone locator.

I went with a wishbone setup. I've seen them run on top or underneath.



These guys have kits or just components.
QM Bolt-On Wishbone Kit