Projects What do you guys think of this wishbone/ladder bar connection?

I don't know what to make of it yet.

 

It's as good as the one bolt holding it all together,,I appreciate the thought process but I'm not sold on it.HRP

 

I would have to see the other end of the rear suspension, how the hole setup is used.

 

Ok so to keep things traditional we will want to think of something very different than the back half of that photo.

For the rear & the Hamb :
Think - 36 bones with a top bar added
Think - Pete and jakes style ladder bars


If you must see the original it's not Hamb friendly

http://www.jimmeyerracing.com/tri-five_gasser_rear_subframe.html

 

So that front link rotates around the bolt axis?

 

Let me see...5 bolts...2 Heim joints...8 nuts...2 threaded adjusters...and a fabricated widget.
ALL to give the freedom of movement that Ford engineers were able to accomplish with a bolt on half cup and a rubber covered ball. Not to mention the rubber covered ball isolated some road noise in the process.

Can't even compare this with Ford's simple yet brilliant engineering.

I realize that the torque arms add additional strength for use without a torque tube...but there are much simpler ways to accomplish that as well.

 

I see it being great for articulation, although if the car had slicks and a powerful engine with a clutch and gear box, I would question the strength.

 

Does the center bolt rotate in the crossmember?

 

A bunch of parts without any measurable bennifit to whats already out there

 

That's neat and all, but...Why the bolt thought the crossmember. Why not another larger Heim joint or better yet a trailing arm bushing of sorts? The way it's set up, your rotating on a bolt with no way to lock it down unless it's bottomed out and locked in the fabricated widget as Hackerbilt posted. You would still have to use shims for spacing. Good start though!
28

 

If the rear section was mounted that far in on the axle it would loose most of its strength due to leverage. JW

 

Too many points of failure. Why not just utilize the Henry Ball and Cup? Simple, cheap, effective.

 

My fear is if the single bolt holding everything to the cross brace was to snap at speed the consequences could be catastrophic. HRP

 

There are lots of single bolts on cars that could snap and cause catastrophic results. I like the fact that the pinion angle is adjustable. It has a few more parts than a regular ladder bar setup, so what? I like it.

 

Why not just put a single heim joint thru the crossmember and thru bolt the ladder bars to it??

 

I agree. But I think it does look clunky.

That is what I am doing on my Tudor. Same thing the Hot Rod Works does.
http://www.hotrodworks.com/catalog/index.php/chassis/p-n-1151-radius-rod-mount-kit.html

Although, the adjustability Meyers is nice.

 

Granted,but all the parts shown are dependent on a single bolt that is expected to articulate where all the rest of the bolts shown are not subjected to near the shear force.

If you like it use it,I will stick to the tried and true,no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel especially when making it more complicated. HRP

 

Seems a little to flexy to me. The pivot plus the hiems could work against each other. It looks busy because the pinion adjustment is at the front instead of the rear.

 

It looks well built. Id rather see the Heims mounted single and verticaly rather than horizontaly.

 

I'm doing an OT build for a customer now, I am making a rear wishbone out of 2x3 tube pinched with a huge 1 1/4" shank 1" hole heim as the front mount. A single pivot, beit heim, Jonny joint or ball does all that and is much simpler.

What is all the fluff after the clevis? Why doesn't the clevis just thread into the tube? Also how does the center bolt pivot/spin?

 

So who makes it? do they give any indication of their thought process?

 

I can see some advantages to it, such as non binding through the travel, as well as adjustable pinion angle. I see no problems if put together with quality parts.

 

We see this all the time, you've come up with an idea, created it, stood back and said "wow, what a cool piece", and we say, your workmanship is first rate, but you've overcomplicated a simple piece. Its a nice looking setup I wouldn't use, too many things waiting to break. You asked.......

 

I would think you would want the front rod ends to rotate with the rear end.

 

When I was young and dumb in the mid '60's, I built a T-bucket that had short (2 1.2 ft) ladder bars that terminated with ties rod ends anchored to brackets on the outside of the frame rails. Needless to say, one of the tie rod ends broke after about a year of use. I fixed it by making some brackets that tied the ladder bars together terminating in a single large center tube. The front end of this tube terminated in a single heim joint that was "sandwiched" between two half inch plates welded and gusseted to the center cross-member. I used a 1 in center bold through a 1 in heim; plenty beefy and it worked well. These days, you can get heim joints in many styles and lots of sizes.

 

Whenever I see that I wonder whether Ford's rear radius rods were designed to transmit thrust.... I think not -- that's what the torque tube was for.

 

Not a Fan

 

Jim Meyer Racing Products:http://www.jimmeyerracing.com/tri-five_gasser_rear_subframe.html

 

OK for something pedal powered. As said too, a lot of stuff going on to replace a ball and socket.

 

It shows a lot of thought. Maybe too much thought. Is it possible to improve something so much, that it's worse than before? Yes.