Horizontal shock mounting

[Martin]

Is there a hydraulic shock made to be used in a horizontal position? Hotrod46 has a picture in a current thread on 1/4 eliptical springs showing a very nice looking installation, I didn't want to hijack the thread. I thought hydraulic shocks all had some gas of some sort in them that would aerate the fluid if used horizontally, causing the shock to get spongy.

Has shock absorber technology gotten ahead of me?

 

[Hotrod46]

Martin

I was and still am concerned about areation of the fluid. In my installatiion, the shocks are actually at an angle and I tried to keep them as vertical as possible. I was concerned about installing them completely horizontal.

I believe most modern shocks are sealed with low pressure nitrogen gas which makes them less susceptible, but not immune, to areation.

There are gas filled shocks that can be installed in any position, even upside down. The shocks I have on the rear are like this, but I didn't install them that way because it looks a little strange and it exposes the shafts to more road grime and damage. On a race car, upside down shocks save a little unsprung weight.

Mike

 

[LKE]

Is there a hydraulic shock made to be used in a horizontal position? Hotrod46 has a picture in a current thread on 1/4 eliptical springs showing a very nice looking installation, I didn't want to hijack the thread. I thought hydraulic shocks all had some gas of some sort in them that would aerate the fluid if used horizontally, causing the shock to get spongy.

Has shock absorber technology gotten ahead of me?

I don't think there are any shocks made specifically for horizontal mounting, But there are shocks that do work on thier side or upside down. Most auto shocks are a bi-tube design (tube inside a tube) and with that design, when mounted horizontally, all the oil runs to one side and the valving doesn't work right. With a mono tube design, no matter how you mount it, the oil stays in the single tube and the valving still works. Look for shocks like HAL, QA1, Vari-Shock, and similar designs.

 

[LKE]

Just to add a little more... A lot of high pressure gas shocks can be used in any position also. But I have had terrible luck with them on a T. They are to stiff. On the first T I built, I used a set of doestch nitro slammers on the rear (because that is what I use on the rear of trucks with air ride, and I had them on the shelf). And the pressure charge in the shock was so strong, that it would hold up the back of the chassis. Without the body on, and no air in the bags, I could puch the rear of the chassis down, and the shocks were enough to lift it back up. Made for a very stiff ride. They may be OK if you horizontal mounting has some leverage to it. But in a normal install... No way.

 

[Martin]

Hotrod46;
I hope it works for you, it sure looks nice and you have obviously got some time invested.

LKE;
Been watching the thread on air suspensions, I'm not ready to start building yet so I still have time to think, that's something I will be giving some thought to.

 

[Hotrod46]

But I have had terrible luck with them on a T. They are to stiff.

Yeah, I think the shocks I have on the rear are going to be too stiff. If they don't work, I guess I'll go with adjustable QA1's. I didn't want to spend so much money for shocks, but if I have to to get the car to to ride right, I guess I'll have to.

FWIW - The setup I have on the front works pretty good while static in the shop. When I bounce the front end, the shocks damp the springs pretty quick. I can hear the fluid in them moving through the valves. Time will tell how it does on the road(where it actually counts).

Mike

 

[fluidfloyd]

AFCO shocks are designed to run horizonally or inverted. They are a nitrogen charged unit and many circle or sprint type racers use them in the inverted position to reduce unsprung weight. I think I saw on another post that Speedway had bought AFCO out. A number of dragsters with 4 link rear suspension also use them as an horizonal rocker arm system. Ride will still be determined by effective spring rate. They all use a coil spring that is pretty much interchangable so you can get about any rate you want. Hoe pe this helps you.

George

 

[hotrodman]

Dan Woods used to use little horizontally-opposed shocks on his front ends.

 

[GAB]

Don't think that Dan used any shocks on his opposed spring arrangement. It was made to suggest coilovers but was only coil springs. The bellcrank arms were a friction shock type of design.

 

[Mikes Bucket]

5.0 Mustangs from '84-'04 used a horizontal shock(known as a quad shock) as an attempt at traction control. I have no experience with this shock used as a normal shock, but it is roughly the same size anyway(which I know means nothing as far as how it operates).

Mike

 

[Youngster]

here's one more thing to through in the pot. shocks mounted at an angle will lose their effectiveness when mounted at an angle. this is larger factor when you add a coil around the shock body.

GAB is correct. the set up dan woods used was not a shock as much as a springing device for the front end.

Ron

 

[Bill Pedersen]

Here are a couple of pictures I found on the web of a Dan Woods front spring setup.

 

[fluidfloyd]

You are correct as to the Dan Woods front end being coil springs with friction dampners. A nitogen charged shock would be ideal in this application. As to losing effective spring rate, that can be corrected with the right springs. If there is any doubt to this, one only need look at most any super or dirt bikes with one horizonally mounted mono shock system. A few years back I designed a mono shock 4 link suspension for a dragster for a North Texas shop. I put the shock uder the drive shaft and ran it through a bell crank system. I'll pull up the drawings and see if I can figure out to post them tomorrow. I for one have always like the clean look of the Woods front end.

George

 

[LumenAl]

Am I seeing this right? Looks like Radus Rod (as in single rod) and then one center rod / mount?

 

[Bill Pedersen]

Here are a couple more examples from the web.

 

[Ted Brown]

The problem that I have found with friction shocks is that you have to push on the car one side or the other to make it sit straight while parked, while tub shocks can be mounted to ten different positions and they will act 10 different ways. Leverage is everything... want a softer ride? Mount them farther from the axles, and at more of an angle, no top weight? angle them from front to rear, top weight, more straight up and down and out as wide as possible. For T Buckets, the softer, the better... Note, do not forget rubber snubbers for travel stops, down and straps for up.

 

[Ted Brown]

Dan first made this setup for a show car... Not the best setup for street driving the way it sits...

 

[fluidfloyd]

Ted,

I think you are right on the money as for friction shocks. That is really a band aid to try and contol the springs. If he wants to use the Dan Woods design then the best way is to use a hydraulic dampner such as a coil over shock. If you get the external dual adjustable units then you can control both compression and rebound. People sometimes get confused with shocks versus springs. Springs do all the load carrying requirements. The shocks or dampners control the rate of movement of the load.To my way of thinking, there is no place on a new built car for friction dampners.

As for the centering link shown in the pictures, I tend to believe that if vertical travel of the axle is limited then you would be OK. Personally I would prefer a triangulated center link design. These style of front ends are clean and and simple in design and looks and it sure is a design worth considering.

George

 

[hotrodman]

Thanks GAB for that Dan Woods front end illustration-I always liked the look of his cars.

 

[Lindy Ballew]

I have a Dan Woods suspension system on my 1923 "T". I need to replace the springs. The springs were chromed and now the car sits to low. Any suggestions?