No, they are right. My design will fail and you will crash. Planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence? Sounds like Keith took a page right out of the early General Motors corporate handbook.
Damn, had to look at on my phone to see it. Couldn't figure it out in the big ol computer screen. The plate is removable, spring pack above and sandwiched into cross member. Someone please smack me.
I missed this thread until this morning. When I read the text between Ryan and Keith I almost shot coffee out of my nose. I think it's hilarious that even Ryan and Keith aren't immune from the second-guessing and doubters. Even they are not safe from HAMB drama. Last I had heard, Tardel has been at this a while. Also, Ryan is not about to put himself or his family in a car that isn't safe. I can't wait to see updates on this project. .
..."Ryan is not about to put himself or his family in a car that isn't safe. " that is obvious. who would in their right mind. Its a new design that it seems most of us have not seen and it is good that we question and ask questions about its strength. (we all learn and its a double check of a new design)
Easy to see how it works, what the nay sayer are sugesting is that not only does it need to hold the spring in it's location, but it also needs to squeeze it into it's position so it acts more like two springs in the same mount rather than one spring that is hinged in the center. I think it would probably work o.k and be safe enough, but I can't help but wonder if body roll would be less of an issue if he drilled and tapped 3-4 holes out at both ends of the plate so once it was installed the spring pack could be preloaded with set screws. Now I have nothing but respect for Tardel, and I'm not thumbing my nose at him or any of his work. Just spit balling ideas.
Sorry, I'm still too dim. I don't get it. Sure the spring won't fall out, but what provides the tight clamping force upward into the crossmember?
Why should they be any more immune from second-guessing and doubters? Owning a message board or a hot rod shop doesn't make you immune from questionable design. Unless there are additional parts between the plate, the spring pack, and the cross-member that aren't being shown, I'm not seeing a valid solution for retaining the spring.
Well the most common sense thing to think is that when you install it you put the pad under the leaf and lift it all into position to line up with the holes which are them selves positioned such that the clamping force is correct. I can not imagine a leaf spring squishing or thinning out over time so much that it'd start getting lose so being adjustable like a u bolt for additional tightness shouldn't be a real issue. If for some bizarre reason they did thin and thus the clamping force was no longer suitable then I suppose you'd take it apart and add a shim under the leaf/ above the pad. If a shim is strong enough for you to adjust ride height with I see no reason it wouldn't work in that scenario as well. I can't figure out what's so hard to wrap your head around on this whole deal once you can see what your actualy looking at. Posted using My **** Tracey watch and the full custom HAMB app
It looks to me that it bolts the springs to the cross member and not clamping it to the cross member. I can't figure out why you can't figure out what's so hard to figure out. Neal
This is the same as "garage night" at a friends shop, discussing things. That's all. I've thought a bit more since I posted yesterday; My guess is that in a body roll, the upper outer edges of the softer aluminum block that contact the spring, will wear with this normal spring flex. You can see evidence of such micro-movements even with old stock Ford setups that you take apart. Also, as one side racks up and the other side of the spring goes down, you will have a shear force on 2 of the allen heads. Those being grade 8's working against the mild steel crossmember, and the soft aluminum threaded holes...I am guessing they will have to loosen. The hardware is not m***ive enough to overcome the shear forces. Some suggested p***-through bolts with nuts. That would be an upgrade IMO, but now there is a lack of a taper to help lock things from moving during spring flex. I was thinking about those split taper wedge/washer-things that were used on old 3/4 ton floating rear axle shafts. Those split tapers put a tremendous resistance to any movement as the nut is torqued. So, the original idea with tapered head allens is good, but I feel they are way undersized for the shear forces. ..and not to stir the pot, by why do all this planning rather that move something a tiny bit to be able to use U-bolts?
Its just a internal dog(bone plate)...fixing itself within the crossmember and fastening thru the pre drilled holes. a standard one wraps around the crossmember and holds from the outside. This one bites and holds from inside of the crossmember. Both use the center spring pin to center. Pretty cool.... Doane would be proud Keith.
Jesus Christ... it's just holding the ****ing spring in, not the Golden Gate Bridge up... Then again, if everything in our world is truly up-side down, and our eyes just correct that... Keith's design could very well be holding the Golden Gate Bridge up. You're ****ed, Ryan. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z1HYcN7f9N4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What does it matter if the hardware, the u bolts, draw it in tight or if a jack pushes it in tight? Both more or less end up with a nut and bolt holding into the now static position.
The stock ubolts provide a means to torque the whole spedooch tight during ***embly, and periodically after being driven. The Death Plate (****ing funny ****!!!) doesn't appear to provide this feature. But we're all probably missing something that Ryan will reveal once we all have our feet firmly in our mouths.?...or heads up our ***es......
The Jalopy Journal
