im glad to see that you and the car are ok and your going the right direction in fixing it with all the great ideas that have been posted. it was a good thing to post this because now people who wouldnt have known any better might have done the same thing you did not thinking about the "what if it breaks", myself included. i might take some flack for saying this but for me safety comes first before tradition. not saying that what was done in the good ole days was bad, but technology can be our friend if we use it the right way. for example my 49 Ford is going to have the mustang II and rack and pinion set up on it. with the ride height you wont be able to see it that good even on your hands and knees. now i dont have to worry about trying to find a tight box and hoping i dont have a stretched or chipped worm gear, and the chances of it breaking and me plowing into someone is gone. the hidden four link it does not take away from the car at all, and you can drive it knowing that you and you loved ones are having fun in a car that is safe. i dont know if we do this at our events but it would be pretty cool if we had a safety team to inspect the cars if we wanted it, like they do in the NSRA. once they p*** then you can have a cool windshield decal showing you p***ed the inspection. plus this might eliminate the "Rat Rod" image from our being Traditional. i know the insurance companies recognize the NSRA inspection and knock off a certain percent of your premium in you give them proof of the inspection. also when the time comes to sell you can usually get more for it after it p***es the inspection (a lot of rodders will not buy one if it hasnt been inspected). i just think it would be nice if we could set a precedence on safety of the "Traditional" rods and kustoms.
Rolling Bones make some neat ladsder bars out of old rear bones, plate, and additional tubing. See the eigth picture down in this thead http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243704&showall=1 . Note the bars are mounted close to the transmission "U" joint. You can split front bones to tyhe frame because the beam axle will flex. In the back, the axle housing is a tube and it will not flex. So, bones split to the rails do the flexing. And, as we see over and over, they are no good at it.
Chris, To bad he mounted the torque arm to the wrong side of the diff., it should be mounted to the top. CBB
I dont think so, as it is solid mounted on the axle. Chris, sorry to say, but is still not a good design........... Solid mounted( on axle) wishbones that are routed to the outside frame rails is a NO GO!!! Tell your friend to put the car on jack stands and lift (would be easier without the spring) one rear wheel up . On a good design the other wheel will be still on the floor. Your friends will stay there it will lift ,too. Michael
Thankyou Blasted. I'm just a traditional hot rodder wannabe, and my '27 roadster has this faulty setup. I was able to realize this from your post. I am "2-bolted" at the rear end using split bones. I am definitely going to change this setup!
HELP! It seems using split bones on the rear that attach to the axle housing solidly or with 2 bolts, regardless of any other links, is BAD. Am I right? The lower link must in fact pivot at the axle, as far as I can tell, no matter what. So must the lower link (the split bone) be able to move side-to-side a little also, like for twist? I just want to get this correct for MY car, too. My roadster came with split rear bones, solidly bolted to the rear axle bracket with two bolts. I like the way it looks, but don't want to die or endanger others. Would it be OK to change the mounting of my split bones at the axle to a single attachment point that allows movement like a heim or rod end? And after this I would simply need to make upper links, correct? Does it matter if the upper links are parallel to the lower bones? Basically I need to know if I'm thinking correctly- Lower link must not connect solidly to the axle ever, unless it is a wishbone setup that meets in the center and pivots around a single point. And since my "lower link " arrangement is split to the frame rails, I must make the axle end a pivot and I must add upper links. Am I right...?
Glad your alright buddy. Thanks for starting this thread! Thank you everyone for your info i am at the point of setting up my rear-end in my roadster and you have saved me from making some huge mistakes.
Micky Himsl (Art Himsl's brother)was at my house last week and he warned me of the way my rear bones were set up...(same as the first post)...He said that they would break...i thought to myself..."bull ****"...he was not lying...change is a coming on my rear bones...This i s a good thread to read.
Go To Wicks Aircraft Supply For Oval 4130 Chrome Moly To Replace The Old Metal. All Sizes And Strong As Hell. Rich
This is correct, right people? The lower links need to be able to hinge at axle housing, or this ends up doing the same (cracking)...
****, now I have to go look at mine again. I like the rolling bones setup, that is what i am doing except without the top link....well was anyway. I hate to keep beating this dead horse but, if the bones are kept in their original location at the rear, split and kept in their original geometry and as long as possible, and mounted using tie rod ends just below and behind the u-joint only eight inches apart, rather than converging at a single point, and with a torque arm as long as the driveshaft and inline with the driveshaft... will the rearend know it is now open drive?
ignoring the obvious(need either torquetub, or some sort of torque arm), the rear radius rods must be triangulated to the center of the car to allow for individual wheel articulation.
The Jalopy Journal
