I just read your post about your rear mounted tie rod having only 3/4" to bottom of frame clearance and never has touched your frame yet . I just went (construction stage) from a spring behind the axle set-up with a low mounted rear tie rod--and that's about the clearance I was going to have, I got spooked and bought different batwings/spring perches to mount the spring ABOVE the axle (ala Model "A" style) to give me some more tie rod clearance. I would have sworn that the axle would move upward more than 3/4" when you hit ANY kind of bump in the road! I am getting used to my new "spring above the axle" look and don't mind the extra height because I want mine to have a Wild Willie Borsch competition look to it, instead of the "down in the weeds" custom look to it. Talk to me about that small clearance--I plan on running only four leafs up front--how many are you guys running? Thanks Ed
steering arm, tie rod question
- Thread starter rodjr
- Start date
I just read your post about your rear mounted tie rod having only 3/4" to bottom of frame clearance and never has touched your frame yet . I just went (construction stage) from a spring behind the axle set-up with a low mounted rear tie rod--and that's about the clearance I was going to have, I got spooked and bought different batwings/spring perches to mount the spring ABOVE the axle (ala Model "A" style) to give me some more tie rod clearance. I would have sworn that the axle would move upward more than 3/4" when you hit ANY kind of bump in the road! I am getting used to my new "spring above the axle" look and don't mind the extra height because I want mine to have a Wild Willie Borsch competition look to it, instead of the "down in the weeds" custom look to it. Talk to me about that small clearance--I plan on running only four leafs up front--how many are you guys running? Thanks Ed
Francis Blake
Active Member
My car has coil overs on the rear and shocks on the front ,I was told front shocks were not important so I tried it. One short ride was all that was needed to clear up that myth , I put them right back on. Believe me it's a world of difference
Ratchet
Member
I have to agree. My car did not have front shocks and the first washboard I hit on the highway decided for me. I had shocks before I drove at highway speeds again.
Well, as my followers know, I hate to toot my own horn, but it all started some years ago when NASA asked me to help with the suspension system on the Mars rover Curiosity. I showed them how to do simulations of driving on the red planet's surface (which resembles my neighborhood) and it was obvious that front shocks would actually cause the rover to crash and burn. Since the rover is about the same size and weight as my bucket it followed that I didn't need them either. And I've only crashed and burned twice since.Now's about time for potvin to come back & tell us we're all full'a beans cause DA DA DA& DA DA DA.....
dave
Hackerbilt
Active Member
Built and located properly they work great!
Mine were low grade and mounted too far inboard.
Redesigned and placed farther out they now work very well.
I'm not sure what people expect from shocks on the front of a bucket, but considering the extremely basic suspension and limited articulation offered, I doubt very much that hydraulics offer much if any real advantage over GOOD quality friction shocks.
A heavier car with a softer suspension...yes.
IFS? Certainly.
Tube axle bucket with hairpins??? Not buying it....
I wonder has anyone put a ziptie on a T bucket hydraulic shock (tube axle/hairpins) to see just how much suspension movement the shock actually gets in normal use?
I doubt its very much.
Ratchet
Member
I have used zip ties. I only had about 7/8" of movement in the 1 3/4" of upward travel in my hydraulics. But I can assure you that they are a vast improvement over no shock at all. When I had no shocks it did not feel safe on the highways around here. When I accelerated hard and unloaded the front suspension it got very squirrelly. After adding shocks and verifying alignment it's much nicer to drive and safer for that matter.
Hackerbilt
Active Member
Kinda what I was expecting!
My car rode fine and handled well, but would tramp the front tires with the old shock setup.
Lift one side, then the other over and over at speeds over 60 mph. Couldn't even feel it in the steering but a little off putting to watch! LoL
With the new setup the tramp is gone completely and the ride is fine still. No complaints whatsoever with the friction shocks.
They are so easy to package on a T compared to finding an attractive, or at least interesting, way to mount Hydraulics that I find them hard to resist.
That they work so good now is just icing on the cake!
Built and located properly they work great!
Mine were low grade and mounted too far inboard.
Redesigned and placed farther out they now work very well.
I'm not sure what people expect from shocks on the front of a bucket, but considering the extremely basic suspension and limited articulation offered, I doubt very much that hydraulics offer much if any real advantage over GOOD quality friction shocks.
A heavier car with a softer suspension...yes.
IFS? Certainly.
Tube axle bucket with hairpins??? Not buying it....
I wonder has anyone put a ziptie on a T bucket hydraulic shock (tube axle/hairpins) to see just how much suspension movement the shock actually gets in normal use?
I doubt its very much.
As I said, all of this is JMHO. You emphasize "built and located properly"...in my mind this applies to hydraulic shocks to. Yes, these suspensions usually have short travel, but in my mind it's not the length of travel, it's how the suspension reacts over what ever the length of travel. I'd love to see an article that spells out in layman's terms the specs for hydraulic shocks appropriate to the different suspension configurations for our cars...and then compares hydraulics vs friction on the same car over the same road.
For what ever it's worth, I'll be using 4.25" travel twin tube adjustable gas shocks on my 4-bar mono-leaf suspension <shrug>
From Wikipedia: The damping rate for frictional dampers has less than ideal behavior for car suspension. An ideal suspension would offer more damping to greater suspension forces, with less damping at low speeds for a smoother ride. Frictional dampers though have a mostly constant rate. This is even greater when stationary, owing to stiction between stationary plates. For larger bumps the damping may even be reduced. This is particularly a problem for fast driving, when repeated high forces may cause the friction plates to heat up and lose their efficiency.
Now with the limited travel of our suspensions I'm not sure if this "less than ideal behavior" is a big deal. Speedway has some nice looking friction shocks: Speedway Friction Shocks
I might even try some just to see what happens.
Now with the limited travel of our suspensions I'm not sure if this "less than ideal behavior" is a big deal. Speedway has some nice looking friction shocks: Speedway Friction Shocks
I might even try some just to see what happens.
Similar threads
