fordsbyjay
Active Member
I went to the Blue Suede Cruise at Summit Racing Motorsport Park today and there was a cool looking orange T with a twin tube front axle. I'll post some pics below. I like how he hid the rack with the license plate.
Twin tube front end
- Thread starter fordsbyjay
- Start date
fordsbyjay
Active Member
Scott Rods was also there with one of their bucket kits.
I love the innovation factor, and it looks very nice, but I'd have to think there would be a fair amount of bump steer because of the large difference in pivot points between the ends of the axles and the joints at the ends of the rack.
Russ
Russ
fordsbyjay
Active Member
I wondered about the bump steer as well. The owner said it drove and steered well.............lol. I think our cars are so light that the suspension never really travels very much.
EX JUNK
Moderator
Not only that but it is not channeled and the rear kick up is curved. It also looks to have a rack & pinion type steering.
Jim
EX JUNK
Moderator
As a side note, that track is in Norwalk, Ohio and I was there for their first Blue Suede Cruise back in '03 with my '37 Chevy. Sha-Na-Na was the featured entertainment on Saturday night, we had front row seats, and my wife, Nan, was asked to dance with them on stage that night and the following day she was quite the hit of the show.I went to the Blue Suede Cruise at Summit Racing Motorsport Park today and there was a cool looking orange T with a twin tube front axle. I'll post some pics below. I like how he hid the rack with the license plate.
Jim
T-Odd
Member
I took some pics of that bucket at the 2008 NTBA Nats in Springfield, IL.
Hang on kiddies - ten pics coming... and I'll start off by saying this - if you quote this post, it's going to post these images over and over and over and over and the thread is going to kill some folks' internet connections so keep that in mind. You can respond without quoting this message if needed.
The image urls are here -
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2611204844_616d8d08a8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/2611204702_66746aca2b_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2611204664_cbd424dc6c_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2610372185_febe2ddaf8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2611204726_12d6a647e8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2610372337_67174a9347_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2611204550_78282c9fe1_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2610372059_48995b8223_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2611526646_2e45873a56_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2611526612_04ef0d2cf2_z.jpg?zz=1
If you have a question about a particular image - there's the image url provided if you need it, rather than quoting this message.
Hang on kiddies - ten pics coming... and I'll start off by saying this - if you quote this post, it's going to post these images over and over and over and over and the thread is going to kill some folks' internet connections so keep that in mind. You can respond without quoting this message if needed.
The image urls are here -
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2611204844_616d8d08a8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/2611204702_66746aca2b_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2611204664_cbd424dc6c_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2610372185_febe2ddaf8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2611204726_12d6a647e8_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2610372337_67174a9347_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2611204550_78282c9fe1_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2610372059_48995b8223_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2611526646_2e45873a56_z.jpg?zz=1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2611526612_04ef0d2cf2_z.jpg?zz=1
If you have a question about a particular image - there's the image url provided if you need it, rather than quoting this message.
T-Odd
Member
My opinion -
Although the execution is quite exceptional, the Disadvantages to this setup far outweigh the advantages - again, only my opinion.
I do believe there IS a reason Ford stopped using their Twin I-Beam front suspension. This particular setup takes the major disadvantage of the Ford twin I beam and magnifies it - tire wear due to inability to properly align the front end AND the range of motion of the front end "in action."
Car sitting empty, car with driver only (and we'll assume the driver's weight does not fluctuate greatly), car with passenger (and again we'll assume that the passenger's weight is fixed), all have different effects on the front end and therefore can affect the front suspension's alignment.
Also the arch of the front end while in full range action would show you how the outside and inside of the tire will wear exponentially as the suspension is in action. The more the suspension moves up and down, the more the tire wears on the outside and inside. The reason this is magnified on this bucket versus the Ford Twin I Beam? MUCH shorter radius of motion.
The other would be the bump steer issue... but since this front suspension might only be traveling two to three inches maximum at the extreme points, it might not be too much of an issue for the driver, once you get accustomed to the feel on a bumpy road. Dangerous? I doubt it's terribly dangerous feedback at the wheel, again, because there is not that much travel in this front end setup.
Does it improve the ride enough to overcome the obvious tire wear and bump steer disadvantage? I cannot say, but I have ridden in some straight axle buckets that were setup so well that they rode like a Cadillac compared to my bucket, and they don't have the disadvantages of this setup.
Again, very VERY well executed, but it possibly added more front end issues. I could certainly be wrong though.
I like it, but it's really not needed.
Although the execution is quite exceptional, the Disadvantages to this setup far outweigh the advantages - again, only my opinion.
I do believe there IS a reason Ford stopped using their Twin I-Beam front suspension. This particular setup takes the major disadvantage of the Ford twin I beam and magnifies it - tire wear due to inability to properly align the front end AND the range of motion of the front end "in action."
Car sitting empty, car with driver only (and we'll assume the driver's weight does not fluctuate greatly), car with passenger (and again we'll assume that the passenger's weight is fixed), all have different effects on the front end and therefore can affect the front suspension's alignment.
Also the arch of the front end while in full range action would show you how the outside and inside of the tire will wear exponentially as the suspension is in action. The more the suspension moves up and down, the more the tire wears on the outside and inside. The reason this is magnified on this bucket versus the Ford Twin I Beam? MUCH shorter radius of motion.
The other would be the bump steer issue... but since this front suspension might only be traveling two to three inches maximum at the extreme points, it might not be too much of an issue for the driver, once you get accustomed to the feel on a bumpy road. Dangerous? I doubt it's terribly dangerous feedback at the wheel, again, because there is not that much travel in this front end setup.
Does it improve the ride enough to overcome the obvious tire wear and bump steer disadvantage? I cannot say, but I have ridden in some straight axle buckets that were setup so well that they rode like a Cadillac compared to my bucket, and they don't have the disadvantages of this setup.
Again, very VERY well executed, but it possibly added more front end issues. I could certainly be wrong though.
I like it, but it's really not needed.
benT
Active Member
I agree that the execution is top notch, and probably rides ok...but I will say from experience that a rack and pinion mounted to the frame will suffer from bumpsteer. My dad's '27 has an omni rack in it and you better have both hands on the wheel if you hit a good bump! You get used to it and I imagine being a "twin-beam" that probably takes a lot of the bumpsteer out of it. The one thing I really like about T-buckets and open wheel rides is that there are a lot of different ways to set up the front ends. I was amazed at the Nationals how many different axle and shock setups there was. I think I took pics of the front ends of almost all the T's there in attendance. I give big Kudos for this different setup!!:hoist:
Differen T
Member
I considered this type of front end for my project and had an idea to eliminate bump steer. Use a narrow rack with an elongated U hat connects to both ends of the rack. When the steering is centered the mounting points for the tie rods on the U are same distance from the center line as the axle mounting points and the same height above the ground as the outer tie rod mounting points. That should eliminate bump steer.
Al
Al
That would nearly eliminate the bump steer problem at the cost of accelerated tire wear. Moving the pivot point on the axle out to where it is on the tie rods will cause a smaller arc at the kingpin. To eliminate this you would need a 4-bar type system from the frame to the spindle so the spindle could travel straight up and down, an IFS.
Ron
Ron
T-Odd
Member
Looking again at the pics from 2008 and present, it appears the same tires are mounted on the car and I don't see evidence of excessive tire wear.
a) not the same set of tires
b) the "excessive tire wear" hypothesis has been proven wrong
c) car isn't driven much
Still, it looks good and gets people talking / thinking about alternatives and how to improve on existing ideas.
a) not the same set of tires
b) the "excessive tire wear" hypothesis has been proven wrong
c) car isn't driven much
Still, it looks good and gets people talking / thinking about alternatives and how to improve on existing ideas.
Chief-T
Member
Could it be that they are "radial" tires and the side walls give enough to eliminate wear with this setup, whereas a bias ply wouldn't???
fordsbyjay
Active Member
I think what people over look is that most do not put on the same amount of mileage on their bucket as you did in your 75 F150. My car is 3 years old and has less the 2000 miles. Things would have to be really messed up to wear out tires out that fast. And 70's F150's didn't go through tires that fast either under normal wear and tear. I have several and never changed out a set of tires due to excess wear. You could see it would wear a little off as the miles occurred but not drastically. All these so called problems/issues were more created in the minds of Chevy people then actually experienced by Ford owners. It was not perfect by no means but they did what they were designed for. They rode well, were tough as nails and had a killer tight turning radius for parking.
fordsbyjay
Active Member
I think what people over look is that most do not put on the same amount of mileage on their bucket as you did in your 75 F150. My car is 3 years old and has less the 2000 miles. Things would have to be really messed up to wear out tires out that fast. And 70's F150's didn't go through tires that fast either under normal wear and tear. I have several and never changed out a set of tires due to excess wear. You could see it would wear a little off as the miles occurred but not drastically. All these so called problems/issues were more created in the minds of Chevy people then actually experienced by Ford owners. It was not perfect by no means but they did what they were designed for. They rode well, were tough as nails and had a killer tight turning radius for parking.
I found this in an online Book called The Scratch built Hot rod. It's an interesting take on the twin I-beam.
The Scratch built Hot Rod
The Scratch built Hot Rod
T-Odd
Member
I agree with you fordsbyjay, I've owned a few Ford trucks and would still be driving my favorite (a 1967 short bed with 6 cyl stick... LOVED that truck) if it had not been stolen years ago. I still haven't found another one to replace it yet.
The tire wear on the old Ford twin I-beam was minimal, and although it was slight, it indeed aggravated my father enough that I still remember him complaining every time he had to replace tires. He did put lots of miles on all of his Ford trucks though. His last one - the 2001 F-250 is a couple thousand short of 300,000 right now.
If this particular car had 30,000 miles on it, you might see some clear evidence of uneven wear. Not many people put that many miles on their hot rods though.
IIRC I talked to the owner about the car in Springfield and he said it does indeed ride nice. He had no complaints. As long as the owner has no complaints and as long as the vehicle is completely safe to operate, I see no reason at all to completely dismiss it as an alternative to a solid beam front suspension.
I dig it, but I probably would never change the front end on my hotrod to this, nor would I install it on any future car I may build. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, and it most certainly doesn't mean I don't like it... and I REALLY like that it gets people talking.
A good conversation is highly underrated by most for some silly reason.
The tire wear on the old Ford twin I-beam was minimal, and although it was slight, it indeed aggravated my father enough that I still remember him complaining every time he had to replace tires. He did put lots of miles on all of his Ford trucks though. His last one - the 2001 F-250 is a couple thousand short of 300,000 right now.
If this particular car had 30,000 miles on it, you might see some clear evidence of uneven wear. Not many people put that many miles on their hot rods though.
IIRC I talked to the owner about the car in Springfield and he said it does indeed ride nice. He had no complaints. As long as the owner has no complaints and as long as the vehicle is completely safe to operate, I see no reason at all to completely dismiss it as an alternative to a solid beam front suspension.
I dig it, but I probably would never change the front end on my hotrod to this, nor would I install it on any future car I may build. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, and it most certainly doesn't mean I don't like it... and I REALLY like that it gets people talking.
A good conversation is highly underrated by most for some silly reason.
Similar threads
