This is an odd ball request but if I built an 'A' ch***is the Tardel/Bishop way with a '32 'K' member and stock pedal ***embly, could it be possible to connect the mechanical brake rods to the brakes using the '32 cross shaft that bolts the back of the 'K' without having clearance issues In simple terms, is it possible to use a '32 brake set-up from drum to pedal in an 'A' ch***is?
Probably, as long as the brake rods don't have any clearance issues. You will have to make the rods to correct length.
tired of having a post 1939 car? if you dont have the parts i can take some measurements for you this weekend and try to figure it out?
Thats the thing, I have all the parts. Do I go '32 with it or 'A'! Zach, if you able to mock it up to see that would be great. I know the brakes will fit the spindles, I know the 'K' member will fit an 'A' ch***is and I know the pedals will fit and the cross-shaft will bolt in. I even think the handbrake will connect up. The only possible problem is the brake rods because the 'A' set-up has them running parallel to the ch***is whereas the '32 set-up would be coming from the centre of the car. They work with a stock '32 so I can't see why it would work with an 'A' in regards to wishbone clearance. Brake rods shouldn't be a problem as '32 ones, should if anything be slightly to long. Shorten and recut the thread further down the rod.
Only experience I have with mechanical brakes is taking them off to install hydraulics, but I have dealt with other specialized threaded things and something raised a red flag with me. Before you shorten the rods take a close look with calipers and consider the possibility that Ford rolled the threads instead of having them cut. This could cause a headache when you try to cut threads in a rod that is too small to properly thread. All of my brake parts are stacked in a corner at home or I would check. Can anyone take a look and confirm one way or another?
clark, why not just take the measurment from the top of the K-member to the brake rod hook-up point then the same from the sides...then find that point in space on your car(imaginary K-member)....and hold a rod from there to wherever the front would be probably the easiest way to do it without alot of grunt effort?? how early do you think people would have swtiched to the K-member? as near as i can tell...37 or 38 they started putting A body's on 32 frames entirely and by 40 or 41 it was common practice Zach
Threads would definitely be rolled--engineers consider cut threads unacceptable stress risers on any small diameter use, I believe. Read the rant on this in Smith's Nuts and Bolts book on racecar hardware... The factory grease charts in the service bulletins are excellent places to study routing issues of hardware you don't have, and I'm sure the excellent pictures are close to scale so you could start guesstimating dimensions. You will also need some attention to spring hanger/kingpin issues depending on just which pieces you use there and whether anything is dropped.
I would put money on Ford having rolled threads. I'll properly end out with repro rods. I'll be very surprised if their rolled. I don't think it was ever done in period. Its alot of effort and a very complicated prodedure to fit a 'K' member the Tardel/Bishop way. Why would anyone bother doing it that way when you could get a complete '32 and swap the bodys in a day?
Like this! I didn't want to bog down my initial post with to many details but as well as using the '32 brakes I was going to use a complete front end as well with a '34 wishbone to connect it up to the 'K' member in an 'A' ch***is. Basically following the build spec of the Bishop/Tardel book but with mechanicals.
in rodders journal theres that 28/9 roadster with the flathead..someone on here owns it i believe...found stored since 55? all worn out paint with a top on it anyway i'm pretty sure that car had a K-member fitted but with a home made juice brake set-up...dont remember when it was built? i dont have access to the magazine here at work you'll have a pretty clean set-up if you can make this all work out plus most probably better handling with the added caster and fixed wishbone mounting point my concern is the drop in the 34 axle as opposed to the A causing clearance issues with the frame rails if you have a lowered spring?
That provides clear working details; the lube charts give you clear overhead plan view of complete ch***is so you can see routing and where it crosses what. I'm thinking you can xerox an A and B picture to the same scale as a tool...
Drop has to be studied in the mounting to kingpin and hanger area and in relation to lowered frame if dropping much...the move to cable brakes was I think largely because room had simply run out for rods by 1937, and hydraulics might eventually have become necessary just to get everything stuffed under the car without any other issues... I think A frame will hit rods before B frame would in lowering.
The only potential problem may center around the mounting of the brake actuator levers to the perch pin mount on the front axle. The A axle is straight and the 32 axle is 1" lower so swaping perch pins wont work. The 32-4 levers mount differently than the A levers. The A levers pull from the top, the 32-4 levers pull from the bottom and have an angle mount to the perch pin. Putting 32 arms on an A perch hits. Using a 32 perch on an A axle mounts the actuators on an angle. Plus I am not sure if you can swap levers, even though they fit the king pin, due to the index of the brake rod actuator cup on the shaft and brake pin. To go thru all this what is the difference between the 12". 32 brakes or 11" Model A brakes, the 32's have a little more braking surface but they are still mechanical brakes?
That is Steve Wertheimer's car. Car was built by Tom Orren "in the late 1940's" right after he was discharged from the Navy at the end of WW2. Donor for most of the drivetrain was likely 1939 pickup and yes, it does have a 32 K member between the rails.
T have just finished installing 32 brakes on my "A". A friend gave me the front axle from his 33 wheel to wheel but just the rear backing plates. The front was pretty simple except I had to scrounge a pair of 32 spring perches to properly align the brake operating lever. By the way, on my pick up with a stock spring the 32 axle lowered the front 1 3/4". Now to the rear end. I relieved the backing plate mounting flange .100 as this gave me the clearance needed so that I did not need to use axle spacing shims for hydraulic brakes on my modified. This didn't seem to work on this conversion. I had to relieve the drums and backing plates for clearance. I used the stock "A" radius rods and had to cut reliefs in the backing plates to clear these. The 32 brake operating levers also will not clear the radius rods so I put "A" brakes arms and ended up making adapter to space them out 1" and this worked but I had to grind clearance in the web of the radius rods. The brake rods will have to be shortened next. I am using the "A" cross shaft. All this while 2 complete sets of hydraulics are 50' from where I am working After all, its only a hobby!
I forgot about rears...good point! '32 rears fit just like hydraulics, with that endlessly annoying fractional difference in spacing that makes installing hydraulics too entertaining. Consider B type axle housings with A perches affixed as a clean work around, plus it converts you to using B radius rods with no clearance issues out where it matters...
Two interesting kludges from the dim past: I once studied an ancient fire engine in a dump that had mechanical brakes worked by neat single-piston hydraulic cylinders braketed to backing plate and fitted with a clevis to brake lever--a very well engineered adaptation, and a very cool transitional piece..."Are you rumming hydraulics or mechanicals?" "Yes." Ansen sold bolt-on hydraulic kits for '28-38 Fords NOT based on '39-48 parts. They redrilled exchanged original backing plates to mount both front and rear "upright" by hydraulic norms, bored a big hole to take about 1940 Chevy (had adjusters integral with cylinder) wheel cylinders, and provided neat MC bracket and lever conversion for each year.
Alot of info to take in since my last visit! To sum up. Fronts will work if every part of the '32 front is used. Rear seem to a problem area because of the 'A' radius rods. The only comment I can make is everybody is adapting the '32 brakes to the 'A' cross shaft. I want to use the '32 brake set-up stock like the picture above, but have it in an 'A' frame. Would the same clearance issue on the back arise if it was done like this? Car would be on stock 'A' springs with the drop coming from the '32 front axle and maybe reversed eyes on the rear spring so it sits level. ****, this isn't to go from 'A' brakes to '32 brakes. I'm going from hydraulics back to mechanicals!
Overlay the service bulletin plan view pics--measure wheelbases and blow up to same scale. Study various ch***is views in '28-32 bulletins, Pages book. I think you'll be able to develop a pretty good idea of routing and possible problem areas.
Another problem area is the shackle to the backing plate. The 32 backing plate has different lumps on it and it can cause a problem with the plate on the shackles, just found out this AM when we pulled the rear end. I am making a set of longer SS shackles to lower car slightly and will try to clear the plate. This may not be a problem if you use a spring spreader. We used a 2x4 and had a hang up but just couldn't take the plate off so we pulled the shackle itself out of the plate.
I quit checking parts combinations this morning due to work. Come back this evening to see what had transpired. The web proves that if you need to know how something is done , might be done or has been tried, someone probably has the information. Thanks to William Nielsen for enlightening everyone. With 2 deuces on mechanical brakes I spend enough time keeping them adjusted that I prefer the hydraulics when running at any speeds over 55 I'll let you guys figure this out. Post your results. Its just hot rodding!
One more comment, maybe two, first, I had no problem using my front brake operating levers in the upright position like an "A". Second comment, it has been a pain in the rear on the rear end everything has to be modified, but my problems with the radius rod to backing plate may be partly due to the fact that mine are inverted and swapped side to side because I have a "Kiwi Quick Change" installed BUT NEVER AGAIN.
Now that is very interesting. I have the same Kiwi Quickchange with the upside down, left to right radius rods!
What is this - a new trend - mechanical brakes? Seems like regression instead of progress. Please, never get in back of me. Even the old school boys used hydraulics.
Is this in your roadster? Can I ask why? Do you want to use the '32 set-up for the knowledge and kudos that they are '32, or for the larger surface area of the '32 brakes? Are they so much better than a well set-up set of A mechanicals (cast drums, floaters, possibly Flathead Ted floaters) to warrant the grief?
I guess it was the challenge. And maybe to be different, after all , anyone can put on hydraulics, salvage or new kits. But if you really want to be period correct, mechanicals. Actually, to tell the truth and I wouldn't want to lie to you, I installed the front axle complete and it required only changing the spring perches and my buddy supplied those so I thought why not just use 32 brakes all around and so the nightmare started and as I am a stone tinkerer I just, perhaps crudely, solved each one as it confronted me. I don't plan on using floaters as a good and well adjusted set of mechanicals will stop as well as hydraulics but with more pedal pressure required. I will use these for a short while, until the fuzz is worn off the shoes and then do a complete readjustment.
The Jalopy Journal
