Was out in the garage playing at laying out the basic frame for the Corvair Altered and got to thinking that a solid rear end would be much simpler and less costly to set up than either leaves or coil overs. Car is going to strictly be a weekend toy, 1/4 mile at a time. Would like to hear opinions on why running solid wouldn't be the way to go. 2X3 tube frame, straight axle car, sbc power. Sure looks like a simple way to go. Opinions welcome.
first off nhra says its illeagle, and secondly it will hop and bounce and buck like you cant believe if it isnt right and can only tune it with sidewalls and tire pressure. so id use coilovrs and ladder or 4 link on it.even leafs would be better , but while your building it you may as well do it where it will hook whiloe your at it... 2 cents and you can run with us at the valley . race next weekend to , dont forget
Thanks Sam, that gives me something to think about. Would like to run other places. I figured you would chime in.
Solid mounted rear axle illegal on an altered? Since when? I am a damn long way from being an expert, but I think one of the key issues is how much the whole thing weighs. Lighter cars are more tolerant of running without suspension.
Don't. A buddy built one that way, and we dealt with the issues mentioned. I'll give you a hint to ponder. Every square railed car you will see has a suspension. Every car you will see that has a solid mount rear will be a light car with a flexible round tube frame. There is a reason.
Hey GV,I'm fighting that battle right now.I have driven a few solid altereds in my time with no issues most of the time and had the same thoughts when I built my Volvo. I put doorslammer slicks on it because after all, it is a doorslammer and only weighs 2350 wet with my 195 lb. *** in it. Sam and several others have seen it go through some pretty wild contortions since I put the good engine in it. I sold my door car slicks a few weeks ago and plan to try some dragster style slicks next and see what happens. My hope is that the sidewalls will be soft enough to be forgiving,because right now it can whip my *** and God knows I hate to lift.LOL I'll let ya know how it works out. Oh,and who cares what the No Hot Rodders Allowed says? As long as it don't break 10.00,alls fair.
It certainly is not illegal per the National Hot Rod ***ociation. If you will look at your copy of the 2008 rulebook, p103, ET cl***, sec 3, Suspension, it reads, in part: ...Rigid mounted rear axles permitted...Suspension optional on cars weighing 2350 pounds or less with 100-inch or longer wheelbase... Rigid suspensions work fine and are obviously much simpler and cheaper on lighter cars. Funny cars and dragsters are usually rigid. I have a late model altered that's rigid, and it also works fine, and is quite fast as well. Yes it will bounce you around in there on the return road. You will learn to drive real slow in the pits. Good luck.
NOT ILLEGAL Ie funnny cars are solid. Many rail are solid. I have had both. My current race car is the senior dragster which is 96 inch wheelbase , solid. Traction is excellant and it drives straight as an arrow. Video of a run on Dropshots/Dolmetsch. I am currently building a 100 ich wheelbase altered. as per Hemi Jeep. It is also solid I have this notion that a short wheelbase car can be solid and work well. The little rail certainly hooks! I think that once I get much beyond 100 inch wheelbase I would want rear suspension unless it was one of those super long flexing rails. A door slammer needs suspension but to compare that with an altered I dont now if that is reasonable. My rail does not spin at all and it goes straight. It snaps out of the hole as you can plainly see in the video with the tires doing the work. So if you are like me and just wantng to have some good reliable inexpensive fun go solid. I prefer it myself for this type of car. (altered) I have watched friends go from simple suspensions to the whole ring dang doo and never gain even a couple of 100ths. If you dont like it solid it is simple to over the next winter change it . In the meantime it is straightforward and practical which is hard for some to deal with. There is a real thought pattern out there that everything must be complicated and expensive to be compe***ive. Fortunately it just aint so. I think front suspension and steering are real important in making a solid car run straight. The front suspension should not fight the tire plant in anyway. Don
YB is right it is a wild *** ride with the good mtr in it but he hangs it out anyway. i think id have to lift or hit something hehe..........
I vote for suspension in the rear - easier to launch, easier to stop, easier to drive around, less red lights too. Spend the dough for good coil-overs and bars.
....like the one in our Rambler. The pivot point is just behind the front cross-member. This is a center steer, straight axle equipped car with a 21" engine set-back (motor is set back 21" from the front wheel centerline to the the forwardmost sparkplug hole). It was a very compe***ive NHRA C or D/Altered (depending on weight and engine choice) when it ran in the late 60's into the 1970's. There are pics of it here if you do a search. It is suspended on coils and shocks (not coil-overs) out back and the swing arm is centered with a watts-link at the rear. The engine, trans and rearend are mounted solidly to the swing arm. The swing arm is a simple 2x3 ladder frame with appropriate cross-members and reinforcement and the bodyshell is tabbed to a second 2x3 frame from which the swing arm swings. All that unsprung weight is already on the rear tires on the starting line....and the only significant weight transfer left to do is the driver and car body so it tends to launch very well from what we can tell (1.20 short times on old school hard slicks back in 1970-72) Its not a light set up if your trying to go for every last drop on the ET but it does hook and cook. The timeslips we have from the first owner/builder with the car pushing over 2500lbs shows that it would run 9.90's at 135-140 range. -Bigchief.
i must be wrong on the suspension, but i see a steel corvair body on a ch***is, not a super lightweight altered in my estimation. if i were to built it myself it would be suspended while im at it ... just my 2 cents. but I am an old guy too, dont need all that hard to steer **** these days. my willys with suspension is fine good luck gordon and you can still run with us with or with out... maybe you and yo baby can pair up, Ill announce the race ...
Thanks for all the response. Looks like a couple others contemplating the same thing. That being said, I have been looking throu the Jegs catalog and thinking coilovers with trailing arms and a panhard. We'll see. The only reason I am calling it an altered is it would in no way be a legal g***er, for a number of reasons. I'm sure it will get refered to as such. Still in the planing and part gathering stages, Although I picked up a 350 and a 283 over the last week. So I got a mill!
i am thinking g***er , and you can run with us and call it a g***er and we will back you up, ..................
just get one of them pre-engineered ladderbar/coil over set ups from a place like mark williams, ch***is engineering, etc. you'll be glad you did. hell, if you can weld, you can buy a back half kit. and make it work for your application. they arent that terribly 'spensive.
Hey drgracr50, I didn't mean to jump on you about the NHRA specs like I'm the NHRA rule police. I suppose I could have been more diplomatic about that. I must have been having a bad day. But I think it's a matter of vehicle weight as to which is better. I see most cars up to 2000 lbs done solid, most cars over 2500 lbs done full suspension (and there are exceptions to both). So I agree, a full steel body car will probably weigh 2500+.
George - I know money is no problem on this build. How bout gold plated coilovers & trailing arms with a solid silver panhard! Think outside the box.
I poked around and found some companies make their altered ch***is hardtail the same as their funny cars. I remember a car the won A Altered at the 196????? i forgot the year. Sorry, but the car is still around. It was a T bucket with an injected 426 and was a hardtail. Then the owner put in a covette style rear suspension Independant rear and all. Couldnt say it didnt work but if it was any faster i never saw it. I often think about that car when I think about this subject. I have decided the question is, Can one build a safe decent fast short wheelbase altered with a solid rear? The answer is obvious , of course. it has been done so many tmes to say otherwise would not be straight. Would it go quicker with a good 4 link and coilovers? Maybe if everything was right on the money. If one built it solid , is it a big deal to change it later if one so desired? Nope. So i have built mine solid. (again) Don
Well GV,the jury is still out on the solid rear thing. I went from the hard sidewall soft compound super go fast 10.5 slick to a soft sidewall and harder tread compound slick and it has helped but still has a tendency to get ugly if you drive it off of the T-brake and it breaks the tires loose.Right now leaving at an idle or just off idle(2000k)it's fairly predictable. The car is a little heavier than I first thought. The s**** yard scales said 2350 wet with my fat behind in it,but a set of real scales say 2636.Not sure how relevant that 300ish lbs. is but........ Gonna try a turbo 350 next for the lower 1st & 2nd gear and see what it thinks about that.
Corvair G***er? Hmmm, what about the engine palcement rules for g***ers, is it going to be rear engined just saying .....
George, look at all the HA/GR cars that run at Mokan, all of them so far are rigid mounted rears. It may have a lot to do with the weight of the car. Mine is mounted right to the frame and I have no problems with it, but we are running 6" wide bias ply tires and that may be another factor. Robert
You're pretty strict on the G***er deal until you need to deal with it yourself?? I'm not saying don't let him run, just don't call it a G***er. Larry T
<!-- message --> Quote: Originally Posted by Tman Could build a simple swing-arm style suspension..... I'd like to see this setup. I did a search and found some pictures of the Rambler, but not the rear suspension. It doesn't help that I'm on dial-up. Thanks, Kurt
I'd like to see this setup. I did a search and found some pictures of the Rambler, but not the rear suspension. It doesn't help that I'm on dial-up. Thanks, Kurt I'm with Kurt,I'd like to see it too.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
The Jalopy Journal
