First, aplogies to '51Farmtruck' I found this photo on your thread about the 34 5W you picked up at LARS, but i think this shot is a 32 frame. What you are looking at here (apart from the awesome old Dago 32 heavy axle) is a shock mount system I havent seen used before, and I think it has merit, and should be discussed here, if for no other reason than it avoids those bolt on lower shock mounts that i detest.. Now I try to do a lug welded onto the axle for a lower mount, i think its neater and allows you to keep original perch pins (which are often too short for the bolt on lower mounts) but with a dropped axle like this one, which has been 'pulled' a lot the lug area becomes a little small and tricky. On a recent front end i did, I tried the socal upper mounts that are patterned after F1 mounts but designed for fendered cars, and guess what? they dont fit when you use a socal bolt on lower mount! (this is on a fendered 34) the mount would have to be exactly where the fender brace is. If you used this 'rocker shackle' set up, and a short shock, the socal F1 mounts would work fine (as will an original F1) as the shock moves back almost 2" relative to the ch***is. From a mechanical standpoint i think this system is robust, and actually gives a small 'rising rate' effect to the shock action as the shackle pivots over a bump.. Just wanted to see what others thought of it, and whether its a common (ish ) thing, or some innovative thinking on behalf of whoever built it! let me know what you think!
Looks interesting. However, I do notice that the spring shackle is all the way down against the axle. I do wonder just how short that shock has to be in order to fit. Doesn't look very long at all.
Ain't workin for me Looks like more **** to fail , and having that spring eye resting on top of the axle ain't right Let alone the short travel shock Like to see this in full compression .. Wonder what it sounds like going down a bumpy road ? add a whole new meaning to chitty chitty bang bang And how many miles till the lower side of that spring eye is worn thin, or on a real hard bump the spring eye smacks the perch and snaps it off
yep obviously the shackle is too long to work correctly.. and obviously the shock upper mount has to be spaced high enough to allow full travel.. but putting aside the mistakes made in this particular installation here, in theory I think it has a lot of merit.
I always wondered why in hell people mounted their shocks at such a severe angle...rather that closer to straight up and down...
Now I know what I meant to call that spring... it looks like a 'dead man' mounting. I bet it doesn't ride right at all and more like a buckboard or a 10 ton truck without a load.
I think the shocks should be mounted solidly, either to the axle or a bracket bolted to it. The wiggly shackle shouldn't have to support a shock (pushing the shackle in the opposite direction) as well.
Hmm. It doesnt add much additional load to the shackle, in comparison to what it takes from the spring, the force back down onto the the perch pivot by the shock would be well within the capablilites of the shackle, and in reality the shackle angle change through the travel on a typical rod is maybe 20 degrees..so the articulatiom of the shock lower point becomes pretty irrelevant,I just think its a neat solution to a fendered shock mount, that avoids bolt on lower mounts. Goztrider, I realise that installation has problems..looking past that, to the idea itself, is what Im on about. As for shock angle, a little bit is fine,up to 15 degrees or so, its actually very hard to find the room for a near vertical mount on a traditional beam front end in a fendered Ford.. nicely spotted on that purple car, Human Fly!
you know I looked at this front end for quite a bit as well as the whole car, while looking at the front end I was talking to a buddy mentioning how they went out of their way to do something different and in the end it really wasn't a great idea. the shackle is totally bottomed out let alone the hole cut in the fenders for the shocks. think the owner was bummed on my comment, neat car, all in all, i thought leaving the dirt on it was a little silly though
Henry's were three hole triangle, these look like that but its hard to tell in that pic. Looks much better. That sea-saw action shackle isn't working for me. Looks half ***ed, hurried and almost ghettoesque to me. I'm guessing the spring is too long or been de-arched, or Maybe just wore out. Its kind of funny That these little details can drive us nuts. I have a few of them that do the same to me but different. Ive spent untold and countless hours eliminating them.
Oka y, im prepared to concede its not perfect.. Seventhirteen..was the top shock mount really up thru the fender? christ, if thats necessary to get enough travel then forget I even mentioned it! haha.
Wow, I just now noticed the hole thru the fender for the shock..Really? LMFAO..anyone got a top side pick of this abortion? I also like the bumper bracket attachment mod what else is like this on this car?
the top of the shock mount came through the fender where they had cut a 5" or 6" hole in the fender. i didn't notice anything else glaringly oddball on the car, it was a neat car, show car that had been in storage for 35 years i believe
Actually the idea works well. Speedway even sells a kit like this. http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Shackle-Plate-with-Shock-Mount-Hole,35384.html I have made them by welding a stud on the back of the shackle in tight situations.
I also think the idea "has merit" Lots of other ways, some may be better, but for a purely bolt on and totally reversible setup, it might be a workable solution. Lots of variables like ride height, upper mounts, and maybe making the shackle like a bell crank rather than a straight line, but, yes, in certain cir***stances, I can't see why it shouldn't work. Obviously, as stated you need to look past the glaring error on that car where the spring is contacting the axle. Mart.
Ch***is engineering has a kit like similar and closer to Henry's design. Much better looking too. Iirc its in '35 Ford section.
The 'principal' does have merit, and have seen similar arangements previously used on a rear transverse leaf arrangement, as it allows the user to properly 'tune'(via geometry) & select a shock to suit the role it plays, rather than just buying anything from a catalogue because it fits in a space. Using geometry you can use the mechanical advantage either as leverage, or alternatively allow for the shock to have a longer stroke, which will distribute the loading and wear better. Sadly, this example is poorly executed, undermining the good intent. Cheers, Drewfus
I think it is the last deuce in the 'Deuce book' has this set up also! Edit, its can also be seen in the post: The Million Dollar Question: 3W or 5W?..........last picture!
The Jalopy Journal
