Technical I-beam IFS and Banjo Transaxle

Love this stuff. Don't know where it's going, but I can't wait to get there. Gary

 

Its not that hard to build. The Markley Brothers Belly tank used swing axles with a Cad/Lasalle box mated to it. It was a side shift with the tail shaft machined to go through the quick change as the main shaft. you could machine the front of the trans and use a coupler for close drive line or open and do the same thing on the engine side. It boils down to how much machining you want to do. As said before its all been done.

 

I'm sure you've already seen the '61 - '63 Tempest's transaxles. Maybe there are some ideas or lessons to be learned from them.

I had a '62 convertible. It wasn't as good or as bad as most people have written about them. Based solely on my experience with the Tempest, I'm not sure the advantages of it would be worth the trouble.

It would be interesting to get some empirical before and after evidence by putting the same car with conventional suspension and then with your suspension through various tests.

One situation, which was common on the roads of those times, which may favor your idea, is to navigate a turn on a gravel road with washboard or buckboard bumps. I hope I'm calling them the right name. They are a series of "waves" in the gravel that tends to form on all gravel roads. They vibrate the whole car and cause the wheels to loose contact with the road. If you've ever lived on a gravel road you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I think it would be a good period correct test.

With this and other road tests, you could determine if these ideas are good on paper and/or in real driving.

 

Washboard is the term used here. So at least for me you were close enough.

I think the difference on his transaxle setup and the tempest is weight being transferred. Those old cast iron trannys were heavy pigs, especially when compared to the little box on a Tempest. I personally never realty understood the logic behind the transaxle on a Tempest, the Corvair was easy the motor was right there but the tempest with its banger in front made no sense to me. maybe it was for leg room.

 

I had a feeling inboard brakes would not be the most fun to work on, but I figured it did add weight and handling advantages and I'd be crawling under the car anyway. It does become an obsession! Such is the curse of the hobby, eh? It will definitely be some time before I get to my plans on the project, but it will be posted here once I get started.

@RichFox you wouldn't happen to have a picture of that swing axle, would you? I'm always looking for examples to expand my research. The shifter would probably end up being a cable linkage or a stub shift arm sticking out of the top connected via a linkage to the shift arm in the cabin.

Yup, Allards got me thinking once I saw them when researching the split front axle idea and stumbled across a DeDion thread on here. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

It will be a while, but will get there eventually.

Read through the history on that belly tank and holly moley that thing is nuts. Couldn't see much of the setup from the pictures I could find however. Was trying to avoid a miniature driveshaft by going transaxle.

I did come across the tempest transaxle in my research and thought they were quite interesting. They are automatics though, and I was trying to keep it manual and period. Testing with two separate suspensions would be an interesting test, but having two sets on hand would be wholly impractical for me. Plus, the chassis will have to be modified to fit one from the other. Will give that washboard test a go though.[/user]

 

Now that is seems the DeDion transaxle setup is possible, what about the split front end? Do you think the geometry will work out?

 

My Tempest had a Saginaw transmission. They came with 3 and 4 speed versions as well as the automatic. There was a thread about the swing axles not to long ago. I posted pictures there. Mine was built from a story in Hop Up Magazine which was reproduced as part of that thread.

 

I have thought about doing swing axles using all early Ford parts. V8 center section with plates welded to the side bells that would accept Model A torque tube bells and the front part of the torque tube. The outer part would be the ends of the V8 axle with the hubs and brakes. The difficulty is retaining the axles so they don't walk right out the ends. The Odd Rod built by Kenz-Leslie used something of this set up. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/?p=2868

As to the front suspension I have dealt with twin I beam and the are not the best design mainly because they take a lot of shock absorber to control and the geometry of the steering linkage is a bit of a compromise. The best way to control the steering is to have a rack in the center with the drag links going from the opposite side in line with the axle pivot.

 

Well this has turned into a most interesting thread !
And some has turned out to be traditional, it would seem.
Thanks.

 

If you want traditional banjo IRS you need look no further than the Beatty/Navarro Lakester in the "How to Build a Belly Tanker" article from the 1952 Fawcett "How to Build a Hot Rod" book:

 

Or the "Odd Rod" featured in the July 1949 Issue of Hot Rod Magazine:



A clone of which is being built and featured on the HAMB: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/the-stump-puller-otherwise-known-as-the-odd-rod.988007/

 

I absolutely LOVE that setup!!

 

In the split axle the farther apart you can make the pivot points the better off you are. its not as easy for example on a Model T as it is on a '68 F100. If you limit your travel that will help

 

The inherent problem with swing axles can be best seen by looking up Mercedes gullwing wreck. They handle great to the point that they don't. When in a hard cornering situation the outside axel can suddenly tuck under jacking the rear of the car and causing a rollover that happens so quickly that there is no time to react.

Another option for front suspension is the planer design that the Willys used. The transverse leaf spring is the lower control arm.

 

Studebaker also used this type of setup up until 1950...

 

This I did not know. I only ever found the one photo of the manual Tempest gearbox and passed it off as rare.

The Odd Rod is killer, love that thing. I was planning on having two trailing links that are dimensioned to match the axle swing geometry, similar to what Foose did with the P32. This way, I can get around the funky linkage or a rack.

No problem, just sharing some ideas!

Thanks, that helps! I'm trying to stay away from the swing axle rear due to the necessarily high roll center. Those details will definitely come in handy however.

I'm subscribed to that thread! I love the work they are doing and hope the post more information soon.

That was my thinking. I was hoping the parallel quarter ellipticals would limit travel for the most part.

Exactly the reason why I was thinking of using the DeDion setup in the rear. I've seen and thought about several designs like the leaf spring control arm, but the possibility of the spring twisting to disastrous results gives me the heebee-jeebeez. Also thought about knee action, sliding pillar, and dual trailing arm front suspension but they look cluttered and non-period (even though these all existed on cars at the time oddly enough).

A good looking front end to be sure, but want to avoid for the reason above.

 

The Odd Rod is killer, love that thing. I was planning on having two trailing links that are dimensioned to match the axle swing geometry, similar to what Foose did with the P32. This way, I can get around the funky linkage or a rack.

Did you mean two drag links? I saw a V12 powered hot rod with dual cowl steering a few years back on the internet but cant find it now. It used a Fordson tractor steering box. I have one of those boxes to use in my 29 pickup so I can run with no tie rod. The key is to angle the pitman arms toward the rear and the steering arms on the axle toward the front, this creates the proper ackerman when turning.

 

My mistake, I did indeed mean drag links. You wouldn't happen to mean this rod would you? She's Called the Zephter Special.
That Fordson steering box is neato! Though, I was thinking something along the lines of this...

On Chip Foose's P-32

 

I Like the backbone set up with and gearbox at the rear, that could be very appealing to try.
But for front suspension , I really like the look of early Formula one cars with wishbones. It looks so good.
But if it was mine I would mount a 41 Chevy external knee action, or Volvo 122 setup with dual wishbones.
Because when I'm done with the complete fab work and machining for that set up, I should at least two tanks deep in driving the complet car.

But I'm getting a little hot and crazy to mount a Volvo M40 without the rear flange up to and Banjo rear end. There should be a coupler available for the Swedish A-tractor that makes this fairly easy.
I've been searching the WWW for cheap rear end near me. [emoji41]

 

For the front end - search for Granville Grenfell.

It might bring you back here though... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/ifs-can-they-be-cool-on-a-open-wheeler.64273/

 

Rather than beat the bushes for a Tempest transaxle, why not find a newer but not really new transaxle that is common in junk yards? And has lots of forward speeds With the cast in bellhousing flange you could mount a rear engine or just the flywheel and clutch assembly

 

They also made duel steering boxes for Indy cars in the 50's. This is a NOS Norden box built for a Indy roadster.

 

My dad used to race Formula Ford, in the late 70s.
They ran a hewland gearbox.
Cool story of a little gear(cog) maker in england, becoming the worlds first racing gearbox maker. He made for most FF teams, Formula one and CAN-AM.

Google Hewland wiki
Or
Hewland LG600, this is old stuff, but not necessarily HAMB-friendly, but there is some nice info and ideas to learn from.

 

But he'll never actually finish it, the guy's all talk!

 

I also love the look of F1 dual wishbone suspension, but it looks out of place on much of anything besides a racer. Knee action is cool, but parts are virtually nonexistent and the internal shock parts had problems (Or so I have read). Also, I'm trying to keep it period. I like that M40 transmission and how it could mate up to a banjo rear, using the overdrive flange and an adapter plate. I doubt these trannies are common though, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I've seen his car before during my research, and it's a nifty little setup! the geometry on it is still somewhat of a mystery to me as it is not just a swing axle. I have also read through that entire thread before and the Miller-Ford is probably my favorite IFS setup. I would definitely use that for a open-wheeled special.

I would do just that, barring the fact that they don't look period and most have the gears behind the differential, which would interfere with the DeDion tube.

I had forgotten about that! Are these very common or affordable? My guess would be no, but I'm unsure.

I like that Hewland! Unfortunately, I think it would interfere with the DeDion tube given the differential is in front of the gearbox.

That's a shame! I'd love to see that car.

 

Also, I found this on @sailingadventure 's Belly Tank Build Update thread. Clever way to make a top-loader into a transaxle and the linkage is clever!

 

I meant the 1941 Chevy suspension


Yes it's not pretty, but I don't any one would do all that work, just to make it look good, when a I-beam looks good enough it's because of the handling needs for racing purpose.
But the whole concept was for handling not for look.
Those shock are easy to feb a round to a upper wishbone, and run a tube shock from lower wishbone and up to the strut tower.

Like it's done in these Volvos.
volvo 544

Volvo 122

Regarding gearbox, yes they are "rare", but not that rare, there is a well connected Club in North America, two parts supplier (one might dabbles in used too), and at least one junk yard.

But you are right it's up to ones skill set to get the best result, my skills goes towards making stuff fit. I can machine, so I cut, weld and fab.

For this setup the choose for a hewland would be possible. And save a day of a machine, compared to a std. Box and banjo rear.

 

There were, of course, a few recent cars which used rear transaxles with front engines:
Porsche 928:

The 924/944 had the bulk of its transaxle behind the rear axle centreline, so won't work with the DeDion axle. The 928 unit is likely to be rare and expensive.

Alfa-Romeo Alfetta etc., as posted in the DeDion axle thread:

Conveniently it came with a DeDion axle behind it stock. As I posted in the next post after the pic, I happen to have a slight passing acquaintance with this component: "An old girlfriend of mine had an early Alfetta that sometimes ran. My cousin had a GTV 3-litre that ran very well indeed.

"If I remember correctly, there are a couple of weak points to that transaxle. The second-gear synchro hub is made of a special sort of durum pasta that Alfa-Romeo developed for the purpose. The pinion strips if it sees much over 500bhp, and the prop-shaft bearing on the front of the clutch housing has been known to break off under power. Nevertheless, these 'boxes have been used behind V8s in the 450bhp region, presumably with care.

"And I remember, the Watts linkage imparts a characteristic waggle."

As regards the ifs, consider that it is a thing which, after early experimentation by the likes of H.F.S. Morgan and Vincenzo Lancia, was mainly embraced by the bigger mainstream manufacturers for the purposes of ride comfort, while the sports and racing community generally stuck with increasingly well-sorted solid axles. My own take is, in the early days at least it was a good-reasons-and-real-reasons thing: the latter being that a solid axle would be in the way of an engine pushed out between the front wheels in order to gain a soft ride through increased polar moment of inertia.

Long story short, a good axle is far better than a bad ifs. In fact a mediocre axle is better than a really bad ifs. It's all about how the axle is located, and the early Ford way isn't bad at all. It puts the roll centre around hub height, so you don't have the elastic roll moment distribution possibilities that come with a roll centre on or near the ground, but even for slightly insane use it is perfectly workable.

 

Why do people keep referring to the De-dion setup, the swing axle setup like late VW would be way better to run, or do it like the BMW or Ford Sierra/Sapphire, that should be possible for most guys to do.
And the de-dion is that rear suspension that the Mercedes gullwing had, that give you just enough leach to think you are Fangio or sterling, and then hang you buy the leach
That not my thing.