hoof---I probably have more years of experience building hotrods than a lot of people on this board have been alive. (although not quite 200). It'll be fine. 31 Vicky is correct with one of his statements, in that the caster angle will be a bit wonky.---Which is not a total show stopper. On a car with 110" wheelbase, and assuming a frame depth of approximately 8", this can effect your caster by about 4 degrees. We all know the front end Mantra for I-beam axles states that the kingpins should be inclined towards the rear of the vehicle by about 6 degrees at the top, so keep that number in mind when dialing in your front end.---Brian
he he he.... I think in the first post he said he has boxed, plated and overlapped things at least 5 times. I belive in his eailier post he said that it was also bolted together. Im not sure but somehow that seems like it would be just as strong or stronger as a kick-up style z?? am I wrong?
I dont know about anybody else but, I read the whole post, All the way till the end. You asked some questions and wanted opinions. I was being nice. Your the one who dont know if this is safe, or a recipie for disaster You asked the masters for their approval, when you didnt get it you got sour and salty. If you want to learn this is the place, you will get schooled one way or the other, its up to you what you learn. 200+ years experiance collectively of course.
I am trying to wrap my mind around how this could effect caster. The front end of the frame (with the leaf springs attached) is still perfectly level, just like it was to start. It is a little closer to the ground as I reverse the eyes on the springs and took out a leaf, but I used the shim between the axle and first leaf to tilt the kingpins back (the same as stock), shouldn't that have kept the caster the same? I would think that setting the rear axle closer to the frame (by changing the mounting) would tilt the frame back (low in the rear) effecting caster, but what I did kept the front half of the frame level and wouldn't? CHAZ
that was the point i was trying to convay. Everything is in its stock location. removed some leafs from the spring=a few inches plus reversing the sprin eyes = a few more inches. just about enough to allow for the rear overlap not to affect the front end ??
Actually I can handle criticism and suggestion quite well, that is why I am here. You think it looks bad and is poorly done, thanks for your opinion. Three of your original four points include grammar, and or spelling errors. Just thought you would want to be "schooled." I was looking for the kind of response I have gotten in the past. I did it that way and it was fine or, I did it that way and it failed. Thanks, CHAZ
the frame rails are original and uncut front the front horns all the way back to where there are cut off in front of the rear tires.
i guess i missed the point of the your post thought you where referring to the back..........even tho it says front
The overlapping method to Z a frame theorhetically makes a stronger/safer setup than the typical setup with the frame cut straight down and using two filler pieces to tie the upper and lower sections together. Obviously there are many variables, the biggest being the weld quality/strength. Cutting the corners off will not take any strength out of the setup, but would look a little cleaner. Are the fish plates you made just enough to cover the weld seam of the two rails, or does it extend from top of top rail to bottom of bottom rail? The steering and suspension geometry shouldn't have changed much if at all. Sounds like you took care of the caster situation. My only real concern would be the scrub line=if you lose a tire (flat etc...) what will be the first part of the vehicle to contact the road surface? it should be the wheel, next the brake rotor/drum. If it is suspension, or the lower part of the front frame rail, you could be in for a real bad time. As far as the 200 years experience... have you seen what the frame looked like from cars built in the 50s? even the race stuff had some scary things going on. Of course experience is what has proven that there are better ways of doing things.
OK hoof even if ya did box the back of the frame. box the ends and add some gussets front and rear then a fish plate the outside. because the overlap is on the short side and your spring is so close to the joint. to keep it from kicking up on you ya need to lengthen the contact patch and to spread the load.
I did read the original post to the end, and I was trying to be helpful and constructive. I grew up around heavy equipment and log trucks, I've seen heavier frames sectioned together and hold up, but we usually sleeved them, or if they were boxed frames, we fishplated BOTH sides...just my experience Edit: Oh yeah, make your fishplates a "diamond" shape, extending to the top and bottom of the frame rails. The added distance along the sides will give you more weld area and add strength.
Sounds good. Actually, without knowing, you have used one of the two preferred methods of Z'ing a frame. Of course it can't be done when using only one frame unless greatly reducing the wheelbase. Whatever the weld looks like, you are the only one that can judge the penetration. I suggest you can trim the corners off, they contribute nothing to strength and then box off the open ends, which will add strength.
That could be a part of the confusion... Ok Chaz, Perhaps there were some grammatical errors. I never said that it looked bad, or poorly done, those were not my opinions. If you would like to have your truck look "cobbled together" (which is your choice of words btw) that is your bussiness. (Why that is, is a subject for another day and another forum). I did say that your project didn't look finished. You asked for rebuttal comments to the "flack" you were getting for your design, not pass or fail on others' previous attempts that may have been similar. You also asked if your design had the potential to be dangerous. You also qualified your post as wanting to lower the front of your truck and made no mention of the measurements you took or the efforts made to maintain the original front geometry. Enjoy your truck, that's what it is about, right? Steve
good deal! some people say it's ok and some don't, nothing wrong with that. so do what you want you're gonna do it anyway. it will be a cool truck either way. now i gotta get back to the keystone classics thread!!
That way was common pratice in the 50's, only we cut the frame on a 45% angle and set it on top of each other. Then the whole thing was fish plated, both sides and front and back. That way you didn't change the wheel base.I'm doing it that way on my 37 Dodge truck now. Find any old how to build a hot rod book from the 50's and you'll see.
Not necessarily. If you cut the frame on an angle, 45* or more preferably, you can overlap the two long sections which will give you more contact/weld area. You will still want to box, fishplate etc... but you will have the frame rail overlapping itself with no loss of wheelbase. Just remember to cut the angle down towards the center of the frame to lower the car. edit-I see someone beat me to the reply.
they used to do that shit all the time back in the day..My buddy has an old drag coupe that was done that way. It's all about the quality of the welds
I don't think there's a problem with the way thae frame was spliced as long as the welding is good and it is braced properly. My concern would be the pinion and driveline angles. I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from doing this I mean I undestand lowering, but was something done to the front end to lower it also? I realize that we're not seeing a directly side-on view, But with the powertrain installed I would expect to see the front end sitting lower than the rear. this seems not to be the case.
Cutting the corners off and boxing it in would be no problem, and would make it look a whole lot better, I just thought that would be taking out steel where the stress is? My "fish" plate on the inside is diamond shaped and runs all the way from the top of the top rail to the bottom of the bottom rail. Welded the whole way around. CHAZ
The front end was lowered as noted in earlier posts on this thread. However, raising or lowering the rear diff will have no effect on pinion angle solong as it is raised straight up or lowered straight down from the original angle. Meaning that if the frame angle is not changed, and the suspension angle is not changed, the pinion angle will remain the same. It will just be either higher or lower to the original position. Extreme cases such as lifted 4x4 trucks run into issues with extreme ujoint angles, but a few inches up or down is no big deal. Ujoint angles are not to be confused with driveline and or pinion angles. The gain is that the truck was lowered. The reason for doing it this way is that he had one damaged frame and needed to make one usable frame out of two. Pretty simple math... Everyone is worried about pinion angle, steering angle, etc... no one cares when installing a dropped I beam in place of a stock axle, they assume everything is the same, but a 6 inch drop is a 6 inch drop. MOST guys do not develop any major issues with this change, the caster change is relatively small and handling is not uncontrollable.
If you are going to have your caster off a little you want the rear lower adding to the caster. I think most of the guys who have been in the hobby a while have driven cars jacked up in the rear. They can be plain scarry at high speed. I would cut the ends at a angle and box the outside. Why not at this point? Hell you have a nice fifth wheel mount there. Or you might put a receiver hitch on the rear and want to pull with it. It's still a truck.
You could have just flipped the rear on top of the springs c-notched the frame and add lowering blocks(if you wanted it to be low) It would of made life easy.
just keep it that way and box and blend it withplates then it will look fine of course their,s a shitload of welding and grinding ahead.
tough love hoof? its like a dozen monkeys all fuckin the same football!! i know it will probablly hold together even though it looks like crap why not fix it? you know later on it will drive you nuts with the shoulda , woulda , coulda!..
Yes, the only reason I suggested cutting off the corners was for 'look'. Of course it's going to be covered with the bed, so....... If you are concerned about the strength, a fishplate on the outside of the web will double the rigidity of the joint, then it'll be twice as strong as it was before you cut it. Of couse all the commentary on how you could have done it different is redundant. Grinding? Grinding off a weld don't make it look better, just makes it look different. Why grind welds to weaken them?
It will be covered with a box but I would still clean it up. If you had angled the cut, tied the top and bottom rails together from the front to the back frame, and fish plated the outside; it would have been accepted much better. Why not have it so you are not embarassed if someone bends down to look under your pickup. Neal
The Jalopy Journal
