Ive only seen a handful of these setups on straight axles. From what I understand, they've been around since the 60s. Why were they not widely used?
I don't know the answer to why they are not more popular... but I do know the spring rate would need to be very stiff. They look ugly to boot!
Im only speaking from limited experience but there is a lot of engineering that takes place to make a setup like that perform well. Maybe most people would rather do something more conventional then plan that kind of setup out. I know a lot of mini trucks use some pretty impressive stuff. If you get a chance look some up, youll be blow away.
yep that spring looks pretty stout. Guessing that bellcrank ARM is a 4:1 leverage ratio. Henry's idea looks a whole lot better, is simpler, and you don't have to make one damn thing to use it. It wasn't popular because it wasn't better.
Too much work and little or no advantage over a conventional set up. A lot of T Bucket builders are dead set on trying to "reinvent" the T. Keep it simple because that's what it is.
Quite a few year ago I set up two T Buckets with this type of front suspension. I believe that I purchased the components from a guy named Dan Woods. Both work very well and I kinda of liked the way they looked. Especially the fact that they didn't look like every other 1 800 Visa car.
opposing coils on a staight axle don't do much to limit roll. You're turning a vertical displacement at the wheel into a horizonal one on your frame. That's why F1 setups are fore-aft.
one of the oddest setups similar to this was on Rover P6's... the coils ran lengthwise from the top of the spindle (?) to the firewall. i'm always interested in seeing the different concepts that were explored.....
That was a Dan Woods setup and I think at the time it was comparatively expensive as apposed to a cross spring setup or even one of the coil spring setups that were available at the time.
Exactly how does this configuration offer less roll resistance? Other than the way leafs can be setup to change roll points (or whatever its called...), I'm not seeing the difference between a buggy spring or this setup with regards to being better or worse for body roll. You do realize that the springs are independantly locked to the frame between sides and not simply freefloating?
built this in 65/66...still racing it parts supplied by chuck finder [he was in socal then] he also supplied the long 4 links for rear all parts at his cost for materials for me to test.... never saw him run any thing like it on his chassis
I think Mr 48 Chevy hit the nail on the head with his answer. This spring set up came from the fertile mind of Dan Woods, and at one time his company Contemporary Carriage Works was as expensive and "top of the line" as it got. You literally paid a premium to get that set up when it was his current proprietary deal. It was later copied almost to the letter by Rod Factory Here in Phoenix, and made a bit cheaper and more accessible. I still see them around these parts from time to time.
Not less roll resistance that a buggy spring- introduces more roll to the frame than a fore-aft setup. It doesn't offer any advantage over the buggy spring.
Actually, while they look unconventional, they aren't all that bad in practice. I just saw some exotic sports car (mabe Ferrari or Lamborgini) that had horizontal coils on the back and arms that redirected the movement from vertical to horizontal, so if it worked there it should work ok on a light T. A spring doesn't care what position it is in, just so the geometry and spring rate is correct for the application. Come to think of it, don't some Indy type race cars use coil overs in weird positions? Don
The Jalopy Journal
