How would you do this?

[Mr T Bucket]

Good point. Not sure. Have to check on that. Still trying to work out putting it on top. We'll see if get a chance this weekend to play around with it any. It's like painting a masterpiece only to find you've painted yourself into a corner, LOL.

 

[Mr T Bucket]

After waiting a couple of days for a response from Speedway, I took it upon myself and did a little internet sleuthing and found the info for the company. Called them up and they got me with the guy in charge (owner?). He said they were real close to 50/50. Close enough that if I decide to flip the stuff it shouldn't make much, if any difference. Gotta work today, so doubt I'll get any time in the garage. Maybe tomorrow after the Chiefs game.

 

[PotvinGuy]

Shock specs will make you crazy. Most of the sellers don't even know what you are talking about, and, even if you can get some numbers, the value of them is beyond this engineers scope, and how the shocks will perform on your car is a crap shoot, anyway. I thought about motorcycle shocks for a while (some are really good looking), but decided to at least use a shock intended for a car to get closer to something that will play nice. Of course, most of us are just trying to control wheel bounce, not looking for sports car handling, so I'll try something, then tweak if needed. Best wishes and let us know how it goes. I will post when I have my design firmed up.

 

[PotvinGuy]

Found this in Dec 2000 American Rodder:

http://picasaweb.google.com/dr.kerrysmith/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCJPH7uftt_f3bQ#5550973234809808802

Might give you some ideas. Still working on mine, sketch coming...

One of these days I'll figure out how to insert pics in post...

 

[Mr T Bucket]

I've pretty well decided to go ahead with the shocks on top of the frame. Oh by the way, Speedway did finally get back with me last week about the compression/extension rate on the shocks. Same as what the owner of the shock company told me. Anyway, made up a couple of rough drafts if you will for the shock levers.

Not sure which one I like more, but neither is in correct proportion. The straight L lever is a little to "stiff" looking, but that could be changed with a slight arc in the leg like Hotrod46's setup. Leaning towards the 2nd one right now. Need to play with both of them a little more.

 

[Hotrod46]

I think both designs look good.

The top one would go well with a nostalgia theme while the bottom one has a definite modern organic look.

Mike

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Yeah, and that's the problem. Neither are perfect for a late 60's early 70's build. I may draw up one more triangle lever except with straight sides instead of curved. That might fit in better with the rest of my build.

 

[PotvinGuy]

#1 is exactly what I'm planning, except the vertical arm will go thru the frame. I'm trying to do all the pivot points in double-shear rod ends, so the lever will be a boxed pair. But I really like your #2. Now I may go back to the drawing board, and come up with some CAD-CAM billet piece! Oh, the $$$$$...

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Yeah, if I was building something newer, that swoopy 2nd one would be perfect!!!!

Quick one done up as a triangle with straight sides was getting close.

Went back and redid the lower edge. This one seems to fit the rest of the look the best. I think I may go this direction.

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Last one for tonight. Still kinda digging that other one though. May be over thinking this again, LOL.

 

[one finger john]

I like door # 3. Draw a relief in the top leg like the bottom. Are the legs equidistance ? Will it be a 1 to 1 ratio ? Do you know how much raise and fall during compression and rebound the shock body will move from horizontal ?

Perhaps the shock body should be on the pivot end. Just thinking.

John

 

[Hotrod46]

Another vote for #3.

Another suggestion would be to fab something 3 dimensional like the arms that Gerry in UK used on his front springs. They have a nice 70's show car look. Yours wouldn't need to be as heavily built as his, since his are holding up the car.

Mike

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Mike, 3D is cool, but I have limited space around the front end and even more limited tools, LOL.

John, I actually started to draw a kick in the top leg, similar to the bottom leg and got to thinking about it folding up on itself over time. That's how I ended up with picture number five and the middle bracing. But I also "zigged" the kick. Maybe if I "zagged" it, it might work. Could still put the brace in though. May have to draw up one or two of those for fun. Still digging picture #4.

The legs are not equidistant. One is, or most likely will be 6.5 inches and the other is 6 or just under (maybe 5 1/2?), can't remember for sure. Think of the ratio as a 1.1 to 1 or 1.2 to 1.

The first drawing I did, the "master" if you will, I looked at 2" of travel in both directions with the diameter of the shock end (as well as the shock body) and everything cleared. And let's be honest. Wouldn't 4 inches of travel out of one of these front ends be overly optimistic? Swapping the shocks end for end wouldn't gain too much, but could be changed on a whim.

I've got one of those graph templates with nothing but circles in it. I drew the arc for the top of the shock end. I moved the circle back and forth on the arc and at 2" I still had clearance for the shock body, which is wider/bigger than the diameter of the shock end. Plus, with the slightly askew ratio, 4 inches of travel up front, nets me about 3 1/2 inches of movement up top. That should be safe, I believe. There is 5/8" clearance between the shock end and the top of the frame at the top of the travel, and just under 3/8" at 2" of swing. So figure just a hair over 1/8" fall per inch of travel if on a 6" swing.

I scanned this in and then made each drawing off of this "master".

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Was going through my stack just now and realized, I had drawn up one and hadn't taken a picture of it on the T, and the one picture on the T that I like, I didn't even have scanned in to the computer. Here is a softer one of the number 4 picture. Still has the angular industrial look but with a soft edge like a few of the other pieces like the radius mount on the rear axle. Plus, using the '32 headlight stands, they'll sort of compliment each other. This is the one I'm leaning towards. I think this one would look good in the grand scheme.

 

[2old2fast]

I think I may have posted this before but, my front end only moves about 1" total up & down under most driving circumstances, that's not to say that it doesn't travel further occasionally, but , generally , that's about all it moves. dave

 

[Mr T Bucket]

In my bouncing up and down on the spring perch, that's about all it moves on mine, so I figured 2 inch max in both directions should be a good safe zone.

 

[2old2fast]

the point I was trying to make is, that's not much travel for the shock to work -effectivley- so maybe you could setup your bellcrank ratio so that you increase the shock travel,thus making it more effective. maybe make it adjustable so you could "tune" it dave

 

[Mr T Bucket]

Gotcha. I'd have to move everything closer to the front in order to change the ratio and I'm not willing to compromise the look right now. I'm thinking that a close to 1:1 ratio and adding in the hydraulic shock value (vs. a friction setup) should suffice for this light weight of a car. I guess I'll know if I ever get it rolling down the street, LOL.

Here's one of the last ones on the T. This is what I'm leaning towards.

One more for kicks.

 

[old round fart]

I like the last one. The smaller it is the less it screams"LOOK AT ME"!

 

[GAB]

Chris,

I couldn't resist drawing this. Maybe it will help in making your decision....maybe not!