torque tube VS wishbone length

Thank you, I am quite fond of it myself. What do you think of my Georgia?

 

I think drZ had a legitiment question in his original post. I am certain there was no intent to stir up a ****-storm.

 

Its a vehicle with some incredible thought and fabrication.
Sure I'd change a few things but...its still a car that forces your head into a whole different thought process, and thats a really good thing.
Damn cool...and with 3" total suspension movement I guess you could get away with it...

I wanna see the steering chain!

 

I hope those front wishbone mounting pieces never get tested...

 

I would reply to this guy trying to pile on but I don't want to come off as being defensive.

 

Back in 55 I tried the torque tube drive with split wishbones on a Zed frame 29 model A roadster pick up and I can't remember how rough it rode but I was only 18 years old and thought it would work. It might have had some travel but not much since the rear radius rods attach to the rear end with two bolts and to the frame with a steering joint and this forms a triangle. With the torque tube and the short radius rods fastened to the frame you have two very different archs. This car was very low, the bottom of the frame had 4 1/2" of clearance so it could not use much travel, front or rear. Used model A driveshaft housings with baffels on the outside of the frame for exhaust because there was no room for mufflers under the car. That car today would be called a "Rat Rod", but we called it a "Hot Rod" back in 55.

 

This is absolute rubbish. You do not have to give up anything at all with lowering, if the suspension geometry is correctly designed. You are not going to tell me a sports truck handles far better than a Formula One race car, because being built tall "it does not have to give up it's advantages". The geometry shown in that article will cause binding, and vastly increased stress in all the parts. It is certainly not clever, and deliberately reducing suspension travel is not a good idea either. This is made to look "cool". It is not made to be a well behaved good handling ch***is.

 

Not trying to "pile on", and you don't need to be defensive....just talk about the strength of those parts and installation....

 

Well, I contacted you, not to attack or down your builds, but because I hoped that you would be able to explain some of your choices in this rear suspension setup. It seems like you guys went to a lot of unecessary trouble to build it that way so I thought there must be a good reason. They're obviously not ****, and are well thought out in many respects, but "lowered cars are all about compromises" in an aggressive tone is not what I was hoping to hear.

 

LOL!

You know you just defined a lowrider and not a hotrod, right?

.

 

Wow. What an interesting thread. I think it comes down to those of us that are reading this thread, that have built many early Ford ch***is' - can clearly see that this rear suspension being discussed will clearly not work well. The three methods they are using of locating the rear axle are all in different arcs - I'm shocked that it has a 3" range of motion will all of the hardware tightened up.

Nice website and presentation, but I'm a little confused on some of the other parts of that particular build...lots of machined parts...why not run a open drive and an aluminum Currie housing? that would seem to match the style and theme of that truck.

 

I've been watching this thread with interest. The thing I still can't get my head around is this. These guys clearly have a good eye for detail and styling (whether it is your style or not). They also have some skills because there is a heap of nice work in that truck. How is it that with that eye and those skills there are very basic engineering issues?

It's is obvious that OSHR cannot back up the engineering of that suspension with any theories, facts or knowledge of how it should work. Maybe these guys are stylists that farm out the fabrication work and then just bolt it all together? All the time this thread has been running I have been wondering and I can't think of another explanation.

Pete

 

An aluminium Currie housing? Good I'm sure...but it kinda misses the point in a Traditional style build!!!!

(I know...so does a steering rack...but the "Uncertain T" a**** others used one way back when, so that part isn't so hard to swallow!)

 

yeh i think you are onto the truth there striper,
function lags a long way behind form here.

i think the word is 'entrepeneur'

 

Here's another one '********ter'

 

i still havent seen a video of it working..
its really easy to stop all the "speculation" when the proof is so easy to obtain.

 

I've never seen a video of a big hammer hitting my ****, yet I can guarantee what the result will be.

The question is not whether the car will 'work', as it will definitly drive, but:

A, Why built the suspension totally wrong, when so much time and money has obviously been spent?

B, How LONG will it work for before something breaks under the strain?

Certain m*** production manufacturers have built cars with 'incorrect' suspension linkages before, probably still do, but they get round that by using huge soft rubber bushings to accommodate the built in bad geometry.

 

Looks to me like it would stay up with no rear spring. The short radius rods are solidly attached to the rear and the torque tube controls rotation. Folks,we are looking at a solid suspension. The fact that this pile of terrible engineering is for SALE puts it in the catagory of theft by deception.

 

Hahah..understood Morrison..
I was just pushing ,if you will..to see if there would be any visual back up to what everyone has been telling this guy...but alas..no video

 

Oh, so you think they are going for traditional? That certainly is not a traditional stance - way over chopped - over channeled, over everythinged to be a traditional car to me - those huge machined front wishbone mounts that bolt to the top of the frame rails...etc, etc...far from the McGee roadster here boys...

 

Well...it's far from a Boydster here boys either...

Steelies, Bias plies, Flathead/early box/banjo, solid axle...etc.

The good post War builders were well capable of machining a part or two if they needed it, so I wouldn't sell them short by saying machined parts are "non-Traditional".
Many were just out of the war effort and trained as Engineers/ machinists etc...

I'm pretty sure the guys here were going for a traditional STYLE, but not a pure Traditional build anyway.

I've seen pics from the day of cars with a stance that looks very much like this one...but that doesn't matter.
It's 2008.
MOST of us are going for our own interpretation of the Trad style.

(The dedicated guys who take 40's/50's Traditional all the way are few and far between...but deserve the highest respect.)

Bottom line...I'd free up the movement of the torque tube and stick with the banjo housing rather than order an aftermarket Aluminium rearend in this vehicle.
The Banjo just works as a visual element. (for ME anyway.)
The modern rearend setup wouldn't.

Don't agree??? NO problem on this end!

Have a good one Tim!

 

The question wasn't if it was traditional, the question is how can it work?
.

 

Dude - the Aluminum housing suggestion was a tongue in cheek thing.....I get it...

 

my god! what sort of ****-storm have i started?! ... at least i got an answer to my question.
thanks guys!
-drZ

 

I agree; look at the photos in Nov SR... where they said it was "well thought out and expertly executed" (!!) The rear axle cannot move forward or back, which means it cannot move up or down either.

Great workmanship, bad engineering. I wish the magazine had paid as much attention to the latter as they did to the former.

 

Clearly it's not a comfort ride.. No windshield.. aluminum seats.. Guys come on. Enough of the critical and cynical.

It's a rigid or as some circles call it "Hard Tail"

Haha