Garage Merch                Ron Pope Motorsports                California Custom Roadsters               

Panhard rod

oldser

New Member
I installed a bar because I'm changing to Vega cross steer and the consesus seems to be you need one, which I believe. After setting it up I found the tie rod hits the panhard mount on full travel. In trying to re-do the mount, I also realize that the bar is not only shorter than the tie rod, but it will be hard to get it parallel with the tie rod. Seems to me if they're not in synch, the bar will cause bump steer, even if I get them both parallel.

Comments? I'd appreciate any help.
 
Oldser, I'm using a Vega cross steer in my car and here is a picture of my set up with the panard bar.

IMG_0836.jpg


I have over 13K miles on my car and have NEVER experienced bump steer.

Jim
 
Jim,

I'm just curious here about your front 1/4 elipic suspension that I noted in this picture. I have a '65 Jaguar Mark 2, and it uses 1/4 eliptics on the rear axle, so I have some experience with them from it. What most people do not realize about 1/4 eliptic suspension is that the actual lift point of the frame / car is the point where the spring is attached to the frame, and not the axle. What this means is that you have the effect of a shorter wheelbase, and you can of course get a choppy ride if the wheelbase is too short. So, my curiosity is: Do you notice any ill effects from the effective shorter wheelbase, or is it still long enough to not be an issue? I know that on the Jag, I can notice a bit of chop, since the effective wheelbase is quite short for a car of that size.

Curiosity killed the cat, but...

Corley
 
I will butt in here also, with that short of a Panhard bar, IF the chassis moved up and down at all, that bar would try and pull the frame to one side... Now with the quarter elipic springs mounted solid at the frame, that means mucho binding is happening, like I said, IF the suspension is working as it should, to give a nice ride, there should be plenty of up and down movement... BTDT I have fixed many suspensions that were mounted the very same way... The workmanship is great on Jim's car, I think he just did not really think that front end over as He should have... Take that bar off, and if the springs are not too strong, the ride will be mucho better/softer... :) PS, I love Jim's ride, other than this...
 
To answer Corey's question first, since I did not build the "conventional" short wheelbase, short box T my wheelbase is 108" with the turtle deck style that I built. I experience absolutely no "chop" of a short wheelbase car. My wife has many medical problems along with arthritis and she has ridden many, many miles with absolutely no discomfort. As a mater of fact, she says that she is as comfortable in the T as she is in our GMC Denali.

To answer Ted, all I can say is that there have been many riders in my car and they all say that it is a VERY comfortable ride. Yes, it is firm but not the least bit harsh. I like a car to corner and handle. I do not like to drive a "road pillow" like the Caddy that I once owned for a VERY short time. However, if that is the ride that one prefers that is fine with me.

Jim
 
I think the 1/4 eliptical would be more of an independant than a normal spring not pushing one side down when one side rides up on something. Not so much pivot at spring mount maybe less chance of bump steer.JMO
 
HI EX JUNK-- It is so refreshing to see someone with a new idea. One of the cleanest front-ends I've seen, very nice job! Keep up the good work! Allen

Oldser, I'm using a Vega cross steer in my car and here is a picture of my set up with the panard bar.

IMG_0836.jpg


I have over 13K miles on my car and have NEVER experienced bump steer.

Jim
 
To answer Corey's question first, since I did not build the "conventional" short wheelbase, short box T my wheelbase is 108" with the turtle deck style that I built. I experience absolutely no "chop" of a short wheelbase car. My wife has many medical problems along with arthritis and she has ridden many, many miles with absolutely no discomfort. As a mater of fact, she says that she is as comfortable in the T as she is in our GMC Denali.

To answer Ted, all I can say is that there have been many riders in my car and they all say that it is a VERY comfortable ride. Yes, it is firm but not the least bit harsh. I like a car to corner and handle. I do not like to drive a "road pillow" like the Caddy that I once owned for a VERY short time. However, if that is the ride that one prefers that is fine with me.

Jim

Hi Jim
Help me out here. Panhards by virtue of their mountings move in an arc, so as they move above and below level they effectively shorten. With the quarter epi's, how do you allow for the sideways movement of the axle? Or is it so small it becomes a non event?
Reason I ask is because its a lot like the 3rd bar (middle of the front axle) on my T, and that is being a bit problematic at the moment.
Gerry
 
Gerry, the movement is as you say but is so small at that point that it does not bother a thing. Perhaps if I were to take it off road or something like that , there might be a little problem but I doubt if I'd be going that fast to even notice a thing. Even with our relatively good and smooth roads here in Florida, I have run into a chuck hole or two but outside of feeling the jar to my body there were no problems.

Jim
 
I've been shocked (sorry) at how little vertical movement there is of my front end. I have shorty shocks (Pro Shocks SM300) that have a total stroke of 3". They have a grommet on the shaft to show maximum travel, and in three seasons of driving the shocks have compressed no more than one inch. I have a fairly short front panhard (15") and I have no noticeable bump steer.
 
Lee,

One reason for the very short movement of the front suspension on your rig is the fairly stiff front spring, but a more important one is that you have radious rods that effectively make the front axle a sway bar. (One side cannot come up or go down unless the other side does the same.) With radious rods, since caster changes as the axle moves up and down, the front axle must twist to accomodate up and down movement of just one side of the front axle, making the axle a big sway bar. Therefore, the movement when one front wheel drops in a hole or runs over an alligator (lot's of those on Florida hiways, right?) is transferred to the rear suspension, and the whole frame twists. Then, if you have radious rods on the rear, the frame is put into a real twisting contortion as the front tries to twist it one way and the rear says no way. (This is called "frame stacking".) Since these frames are pretty stiiff, nothing much gives and you see almost no movement at the front shocks, instead, just a harsher ride. Actually, the tires have to take up most of the suspension travel on bumps / pot holes.

In normal smooth hiway driving, there is very little reason for movement, so nothing bad is noticed, and no severe stresses are induced into the frame and radious rod mounting points. It's those pot holes, alligators, angle driveways, and such that give cause for concern, and where stresses are the greatest. I actually had a neighbor at one point with a 'T' bucket that couldn't drive into his driveway unless he took a run at it, because one rear wheel would lift off the ground and spin when one front wheel hit the drive and raised up. He switched to 4 bar on the rear and had no further problems with enterring his driveway, (but the frame still rotated with the front axle). That made a believer out of me.

Tex Smith's book "How to build real hot rods" has a great writeup on this and is much superior to anything I could ever write on it. Tex is a pretty well respected and savy guy in the rodding world... The net is, put a 4 bar on it and you will see a lot freer movement of the suspension, hence a better ride, and those 'O' rings will ride much further up the shaft. If anyone is interested and it's legal, I'd be happy to copy Tex Smith's explaination into the forum.. (Mike, is that legal?)

Remember, with suspension, the ideal is a very soft springy suspension, that is then dampened by the shocks (dampers for Gerry). (Think older Buick, but with better shocks.:rolleyes: ) This makes for the best ride, but not nessesarily the best handling, like on corners, for example, so we add sway bars for that. Front and rear axles (especially tubular front and all solid rears) don't make very good sway bars, they are way too stiff. Radious rods were a much better idea back when frames flexed a lot, but still not the best idea. Sure, they work and lot;s of people get away with them for years, but they are a compromise at best. With radious rods front and rear, it's a given that the suspension won't move much relative to the frame, this should be expected, and is not a surprise at all.

Not just my humble opinion, but Tex Smith's opinion too..

Corley

PS Did you know that the term "4 bar" was trade marked by Pete and Jake's?

PS/2 Not really trying to open the 4 bar debate, just explain why Lee sees very little front suspension movement.
 
I have a 4 bar on the front and an adjustable 4 link on the rear. I also have a K member to minimize frame flexing. I have transition some pretty steep driveways and have never lifted a wheel.

IMG_0673_2.jpg


Jim
 
"What is essential is invisible to the eye" nice work!

I have a 4 bar on the front and an adjustable 4 link on the rear. I also have a K member to minimize frame flexing. I have transition some pretty steep driveways and have never lifted a wheel.

IMG_0673_2.jpg


Jim
 
Thats one of the reason I like the Jag IRS. Lots of movement. I pulled the yeela fella over a very high (in T terms) ridge in a field at the nats and it just rode it like was not there. No frame twist that I (or my buddy) could see.
Gerry

PS In case anyone is wondering, done diddly on the T over Xmas. Daily driver trouble, lots of snow and had to move the family Dinner to in laws for Xmas day. Back on the fuel tank soon
 
Thanks for the perspective, Corley. My front end is indeed pretty stiff, but I like it that way. I have a Jag rearend with relatively stiff springs as well. My T drives like a road course car, and I love it!!

The reason I mentioned the short travel on my front end is to reinforce the earlier point that these front ends don't move enough to cause the panhard to swing much of an arc, consequently, they don't move the front of the car side-to-side hardly at all. Certainly not enough to produce noticeable bump steer. Since I am math-challenged, maybe I'll fire up AutoCAD and do some diagramming to see how much we're talking about.
 
OK, I fired up AutoCAD and diagramed an arc swung on a 15" radius (my panhard length). With 2" of vertical travel at the far end of 15", the difference in length is .134 inches... or 1/8". If you can feel 1/8" of swing in your panhard, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! (How many of you remember that reference!?!? Link in case you need a refresher... Gunga Din)
 
Thanks for the replies, guys.

I'm still bothered by the parallelogram not working like it should, but then I saw that the tie rod is only level at straight-ahead, as it dips in turns, following the steering arm angles. DUH!

BTW: All this reminds me of a different solution I saw a few decades back. The guy had a vertical channel iron bar on the frame and a large roller bearing mounted on the axle, riding inside the channel. Same effect, with no conflict with the tie rod angle.

Or maybe I'm just too sober to be trying to understand this thing!
 

     Ron Pope Motorsports                Advertise with Us!     
Back
Top