Projects The Wade Model A Coupe: Build Thread & Photo Journal

Fantastic work, Brian.
God I'm such a hack.

 

How will you be able to give it back to the customer after putting all that heart and soul in to it? That is true greatness right there.

 

It's going to be difficult, but at least I'll get to test drive it a few times! This this is going to go like stink when you mash the throttle...with all the HP and torque it's going to have.


Thanks again guys for all the kind words. I just went back and read most of the replies, and it's really cool that the feedback has been so positive so far.

I'll get some more pics up after I get the body mounted and the chop finished.

-Brian

 

good stuff!

 

It doesnt even need a body, its perfect the way it is!!!

 

dude it looks awesome! i cant wait to see what you have in store for the body. I love the i beam type brackets, such a good idea.

 

Showoff!

Brian, you're insane!

Keep it up bro.

 

I finally got a chance to have a better look at this thread. Great build, truly inspiring fabrication there Bass.

I like these words. This subject comes up a lot and a lot of people forget it's a hotrod not a F1 car.

 

come man....we need more pics.....!fantastic piece of fabrication work and a work of art as well.....

 

I'm subscribed to this thread and my email inbox has exploded. As much as it's nice to read the comments I've got to say... it's time for more pictures!

 

Unreal. Awesome work!

 

It gives us all great pleasure to see this kind of work. I appreciate this kind of "thinkn' outside the box", not too far, just enough. Thanks for sharing this work with us.

 

We all appreciate this kind of work and engineering. "Thinkn' out side the box" at it's best. Not too far, just enough. Thanks for sharing. Looking forward for more.

 

It gives us all great pleasure to see this kind of work. I appreciate this kind of "thinkn' outside the box", not too far, just enough. Thanks for sharing this work with us.

 

Fabulous work, but you can't use that tube axle with hairpins, especially THAT tube axle.
I'll trade you a beam for it.
Maybe somebody already mentioned this- too many posts to read 'em all.

 

Yep, it'll never work!!



More interesting discussion on V8-60 axles and split wishbones/ hairpins here:

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=310960&showall=1

 

It'll never ever work...



Any other concerns? I'll take the Pepsi Challenge with an I-beam any old day.

 

Fuck em......history has proven it works. But I think that poster was being facetious, and I think I spelled that wrong...............

 

Bass, that was a very good link/ read. I knew I got this computer for something. Good luck and God Bless America where we can make the decision ourselves.
BTW I sent the pix of your project to some hip fabricator pals (not rod guys) and they were most impressed as was I with your work.

 

ok.. while bass is the man.. I just went through 19 pages, one good one. a couple where bass answered question and 15 pages of Great job... I want more info/ build pictures...

 

The torque on the tube could be measured given the travel expected. You could quantify the forces and get an answer, versus some of the emotion I see involved with the subject.
Yes, you can lift one end of the axle off the floor and not break it. Means not much I'm afraid.
It's an engineering question, maybe easily solved with some ASM help.

 

That fuckin axle is not going to break... This Hot Rod is not going to be in the Baja 1000. Now from an engineering stand point I would drill about one dozen lightning holes in that tube axle to relieve the stress from sliding around the corners, jumping train tracks and running from the law.haha

 

The argument against tube axle axles with wide mounted hairpin style radius rods was finished about 24 years ago. You are quite right in your estimate of the tube axle. The big problem mr Bass hasn't considered is that a tube axle is extremely rigid.
His chassis is extremely rigid.
Radius rods were originally designed so the car would be poised on a centerline though the chassis ,that is why they were wish bone shaped and mounted in the aformentioned centerline.
Now,if you spread that centerline out to outside of the chassis the axle no longer turns on that centerline . It can go up and down OK ,but suspensions rarely move like that in the real world. What will happen is that the entire chassis is being forced to revolve around that longitudinal centerline instead of just the suspension .
So,when you have a super rigid axle anchored to the outside of a rectangle it goes up and down in one plane BUT normal travel is one side up and the other side stationary and the axle is constantly being forced to twist.
First result is a harsh uncompromising ride. Something that any automotive engineer anywhere will instantly confirm as being wrong.
Second result is the weakest point of the suspension is going to wear or break. Usually it's the anchor points of the hair pins whether it's clevises on the axle or the mount point on the other end .
Split wish bones are recognised as bad practice and just because it's seen on this forum all the time doesn't say that it is good.
The only compromise is Henry's vanadium steel I beams which do twist in normal driving allowing split wish bones some leeway,but again it's still bad practice.
Bobbyhotrods,I can see you have been here a long time,longer than those who disagree with you and I assume you have seen and heard this argument played out before too, but i can assure you that from an engineering point you are right and Mr Bass's picture of the small amount of axle movement confirms this. I would like to see a torsion test done on that chassis by an engineer such as we have here. The twisting moment of the car would produce some interesting data .

 

I've changed my mind, that chassis is a piece of shit. Go back to stick-up-the-ass engineer school before you try building another chassis, you hack!

 

i like this idea the best!

 

Quantify shmantify, all that is is a big ass sway bar. Should work great. Just keep the batwings tight so the bosses don't get wallowed out. Tie rod ends are pretty tough critters also.

 

With a 30" wishbone, at full articulation (one side 3" in bump, other side 3" in rebound) the axle will have twisted 11.5 degrees along its length between the wishbone mounts.

I'd need to know the materials involved to tell you the stress that puts into the axle, but you can be sure it is a non-trivial number.

It's probably quite a bit lower than the materials yield strength, so the axle will live and have a decent factor of safety, but to say it's a negligible load is incorrect.

 

Really? What would make you think after reading all the text and looking at the photos supplied in this thread that I left anything unconsidered in my planning and/or execution?

That seems to be a rather steep assumption, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes, that is the point! That is why I boxed the rails and built and installed the crossmembers the way I did.

I put a lot of thought into the suspension set-up on this car, and it is going to work just fine. Although the (OVAL) tube axle is fairly rigid, the swivel movement of the tie-rod balls used to anchor the ends of the hairpin radius rods is the major reason that one wheel is alowed to rise above the other, or one wheel to fall under the other. While the axle probably needs to have some flexibility, the spring, shackles, tie-rod balls anchoring the hairpins, and the front shocks are doing all the work and allowing for nearly (if not) all of the necessary movement. Yes the rest of the chassis is rigid (except for the rear suspension), but that is the point. I wanted a car that will remain stable under hard driving, and not flex so much that the doors try to pop open.

Mostly correct. Yes, the original application mounted the front axle to the (unsplit) wishbone, and everything pivoted off of the wishbone ball. Most people that understand Early Ford suspension are aware of this, but thanks for restating the matter.

The rub here is that the axle cannot be mounted on a factory unsplit wishbone and achieve the low stance and low center of gravity I intended to have as a result of the way I set up the chassis.

This has been dealt with in hot rodding for decades, and debated for just as long. The simple fact is, although split wishbones or hairpin radius rods may not be optimal, they tend to be a necessity once you get the frame lower to the ground and/or the axle higher in the chassis...and they do the job.

I would suggest you have a look at Dick Spadaro's reponses on this thread:

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...0960&showall=1

It's funny how twisted up automotive engineers tend to get over hot rods.

This is a hot rod, and it will ride like one. If either I or the customer had a problem with that, we would be building a mid-70s Cadillac, or similar, and not screwing around with a (soon to be) chopped Model A Coupe.

I personally like the "hot rod chop" ride that comes from Early Ford based hot rod suspension....it lets you know that you're not driving a Toyota Camry.

I'll let you know when something breaks. You should go to the phone and wait for my call.

Funny enough, you touched on one of the biggest points of setting up a hot rod suspension...likely without even realizing it. Compromise.

Any modified Early Ford based suspension is a compromise. No one here is saying that it's not. Whether or not it's bad practice could be up for debate. But I have to say...If you aren't fond of split wishbones, perhaps you are in the wrong hobby?

Another thing to think about with compromise in mind...are our roads. Our roads today are vastly superior to what drivers had to deal with when this style of suspension was originally designed. Back then, you likely needed all the suspension travel you could get! Today, it's not nearly so....and I'll touch on suspension travel a little more in a moment.

I'm not going to disagree that from an engineering standpoint, a tube axle mounted with hairpins is far from the optimal front suspension. But I will disagree with anyone that says it won't work. The simple fact is that is works just fine, given the available suspension travel.

The biggest problem I see with most of the engineering contingent's position on the tube axle/ hairpin radius rod front suspension is that they think the suspension is going to travel a LOT more than it does in real world applications. There is just not that much up/down travel in a suspension like this....nor does there need to be.

Small amount of axle movement??? That's approximately 7" of daylight under the driver's side front tire in the photo above! And the other three tires are still on the ground. I don't know which "real world" you live in, but it's not going to be a common occurence to have that much side to side difference in suspension travel during normal driving. I would be willing to bet that the car will never see that much of a difference in real world driving conditions. Again, our roads today are vastly superior to the roads of the '30s.

You have my permission to build a copy of this chassis and subject it to any type of test you deem necessary. Good luck!


Also...Please don't take any of my above reply as hostile, it's not intended to be. It is however my personal view on hot rod suspension, and what I consider a rational stance based on common sense and real-world experience.

Your mileage may vary.

 

Bass, this thread could've spun out of control but you've handled it really well. I really admire your work and your ability to convey your thoughts. Very inspiring, thanks.

Oh and did I mention I think there should be more pics instead of all this reading nonsense. I read for a living, Bass... ALL DAY looking for other people's mistakes. I just want some eye candy, is that too much to ask for?

 

i dont think brian is building an apollo space capsule...unless our engineering experts know otherwise...He knows his shit. Its a hot rod, plain and simple. WICKED fab work and beautiful build. cant wait to see more.. PROPS!

T. Hilton