Panhard bar interference - Page 3 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Suspension - Brakes - Steering
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 10:52 AM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,432
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,567
Thanked 1,321 Times in 1,146 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 27Tall T View Post
Have it on a hoist and extremely difficult to really see the clearances as you are looking up at the problem instead of directly at it. Can only see a bit at a time with a mirror as the mufflers, driveshaft etc. are in the way. My last photo shot was when I jammed the camera at one end and kept shooting until I had a decent picture portraying my latest problem (couldn't see the view finder). I think the only solution is to recut the floor (cut it to clear the banjo housing). I find that TCI puts out a good product, but they need to do more suspension engineering. Another instance was when I had to cut the front fender supports to clear the independent suspension!! Why they didn't widen the stance to clear the brackets is beyond me.
Because the control arms would have to be too short to keep the tires from hitting the fenders. And by the way on that floor, I am thinking you take it all the way off from the side supports to the rear body panel, to over the rear end, the whole thing, replace it with one that gives you more clearance. I am thinking this would very possibly be the easiest way to handle this. Without a bunch more photos it's kinda hard but take a look at this idea and make your choice.

Brian

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:47 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,284
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 829
Thanked 1,146 Times in 945 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 27Tall T View Post
I find that TCI puts out a good product, but they need to do more suspension engineering. Another instance was when I had to cut the front fender supports to clear the independent suspension!! Why they didn't widen the stance to clear the brackets is beyond me.
Can you see how contradictory this statement is. If they made a good product, there would have been no reason for this thread in the first place. If a company makes junk and people buy it, they will continue to make junk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 03:36 PM
lakeroadster's Avatar
Hot Rods are Built, not Bought
 

Last journal entry: Lakeroadster's '31 Model A Tudor
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: High Plains - Rocky Mountains
Age: 53
Posts: 707
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 39
Thanked 113 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
Can you see how contradictory this statement is. If they made a good product, there would have been no reason for this thread in the first place. If a company makes junk and people buy it, they will continue to make junk.
TCI builds good quality parts from my experience. I used some of their parts with no problems whatsoever when I built my Model T RPU and Model A Tudor. The builder is the one that has to make sure that the combination of parts he selects works for a given application. We're building hot rods here, not a bolt together factory five kit car. If things don't work right on the initial test drive then modifications are needed, and that's ok. That's what this forum is all about, right? Hell that's why GM, Ford, etc. build "test mules", to work out the bugs.

And when it comes to panhard bars, the length you need has a lot to do with the suspension type you have and what, realistically, the articulation of the rear axle will be. I have a '65 C10 also and when I modified the rear suspension I wrote a tech thread on my research of how much difference a longer panhard bar would make... check it out here: http://talk.classicparts.com/showthread.php?t=14368/

I've made a living as an engineer for over 30 years. So I too like well engineered components. But simpler is almost always better. Watt's links are cool, but they are way overcomplicated, compared to a panhard bar, for a street driven vehicle. That's why they don't put them on factory built vehicles, they simply aren't needed.

Last edited by lakeroadster; 07-11-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 03:51 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,284
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 829
Thanked 1,146 Times in 945 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeroadster View Post
TCI builds good quality parts from my experience. But the installer is the one that has to make sure that his combination of parts works for a given application. We're building hot rods here, not a kit car. If things don't work right on the initial test drive then modifications are needed. That's what this forum is all about, right?
With all due respect to you sir, building good quality parts does not include fashioning a Panhard bar that is half as long as it needs to be according to good engineering practices. Again, if you guys continue to buy their junk, they will continue to produce junk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:16 PM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,432
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,567
Thanked 1,321 Times in 1,146 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeroadster View Post
TCI builds good quality parts from my experience. I used some of their parts with no problems whatsoever when I built my Model T RPU and Model A Tudor. The builder is the one that has to make sure that the combination of parts he selects works for a given application. We're building hot rods here, not a bolt together factory five kit car. If things don't work right on the initial test drive then modifications are needed, and that's ok. That's what this forum is all about, right? Hell that's why GM, Ford, etc. build "test mules", to work out the bugs.

And when it comes to panhard bars, the length you need has a lot to do with the suspension type you have and what, realistically, the articulation of the rear axle will be. I have a '65 C10 also and when I modified the rear suspension I wrote a tech thread on my research of how much difference a longer panhard bar would make... check it out here: Track Bars, The Short and The Long Of It... - Classic Parts Talk

I've made a living as an engineer for over 30 years. So I too like well engineered components. But simpler is almost always better. Watt's links are cool, but they are way overcomplicated, compared to a panhard bar, for a street driven vehicle. That's why they don't put them on factory built vehicles, they simply aren't needed.
I have to tell you, your diagrams prove the point! Now, I am not here to argue the NEED for the longer bar, I understand that with a lot of cars there is so little travel it isn't going to make a big difference. However as Bugs Bunny would say "It wouldn't hoyt". But getting back to your link that was posted. In the first one it shows a short panhard bar with the suspension fully bottomed out and the rear end has moved 11/16 of an inch! That is darn near 3/4", which is a TON when you are talking about some of these cars. A fenderless model A with tires tucked up next to the body, that is a TON. And exhaust to shocks and on and on, that is a lot for a rear end to move.

Then on the diagrams with the long panhard bar it shows to moves a half an inch, first off, yes that is less than the short bar, but look at the steep angle of the bar! That is exactly what we are talking about. If that bars mounting points were at the same height it wouldn't move the rear end over anywhere near that 1/2".

You have apples and oranges if we are to be looking at what is the difference in lateral movement of the rear end with the short or long Panhard bar.

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:18 PM
lakeroadster's Avatar
Hot Rods are Built, not Bought
 

Last journal entry: Lakeroadster's '31 Model A Tudor
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: High Plains - Rocky Mountains
Age: 53
Posts: 707
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 39
Thanked 113 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
With all due respect to you sir, building good quality parts does not include fashioning a Panhard bar that is half as long as it needs to be according to good engineering practices. Again, if you guys continue to buy their junk, they will continue to produce junk.
Have you ever seen a Chevrolet C-10 truck built from 1963 thru 1972? All the 2 wheel drive models utilized panhard bars that attached to the frame on one side, and to the center differential housing on the other end. Worked great on the millions of trucks that GM sold. I wonder, were those junk according to the "Tech Inspector Good Engineering Practices Manual"?

Guys I agree that watts links are better than a long panhard bar. And that a long panhard bar is better than a short panhard bar. But what works for a given application, and what is most cost effective is the "real world engineering" approach.

27Tall T is looking for the simple fix for his situation. Talking about watts links and longer track bars is interesting, but not needed in his case. All he needs is suspension to floorboard clearance. Keep it simple.

Last edited by lakeroadster; 07-11-2013 at 04:31 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:34 PM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,432
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,567
Thanked 1,321 Times in 1,146 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeroadster View Post
Have you ever seen a Chevrolet C-10 truck built from 1963 thru 1972? All the 2 wheel drive models utilized panhard bars that attached to the frame on one side, and to the center differential housing on the other end. Worked great on the millions of trucks that GM sold. I wonder, were those junk according to the "Tech Inspector Good Engineering Practices Manual"?

Guys I agree that watts links are better than a long panhard bar. And that a long panhard bar is better than a short panhard bar. But what works for a given application, and what is most cost effective is the "real world engineering" approach.

27Tall T is looking for the simple fix for his situation. Talking about watts links and longer track bars is interesting, but not needed in his case. All he needs is suspension to floorboard clearance. Keep it simple.
Now that's the truth!

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:47 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,284
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 829
Thanked 1,146 Times in 945 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeroadster View Post
I wonder, were those junk according to the "Tech Inspector Good Engineering Practices Manual"?
So, now you have to get snotty and make it personal???? Have a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:11 PM
sedanbob's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Louis
Age: 66
Posts: 626
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 61
Thanked 80 Times in 77 Posts
Tech, You were the one in this thread with all the attitude. My suspension was designed by Pete & Jakes, and uses a panhard bar from the frame rail to the far side of the pinion support - similar to the TCI design - too short and lousy engineering by your statements. I checked the side to side movement throughout my suspension travel (which is very short like a lot of '30s rods). My bar is level at ride height. The side to side movement is about 3/16" as the suspension cycles from center to the top, and from center to the bottom. A panhard bar works quite well in this application.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 08:12 PM
lakeroadster's Avatar
Hot Rods are Built, not Bought
 

Last journal entry: Lakeroadster's '31 Model A Tudor
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: High Plains - Rocky Mountains
Age: 53
Posts: 707
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 39
Thanked 113 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
So, now you have to get snotty and make it personal???? Have a nice day.
Nothing "snotty" at all. Answer the question, you opened the door, walk through it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:43 PM
NEW INTERIORS's Avatar
Believe in yourself !!!!!!
 

Last journal entry: 41 WILLYS FRAME
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In My Shop..
Age: 49
Posts: 10,296
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,440
Thanked 690 Times in 507 Posts

Last edited by NEW INTERIORS; 07-11-2013 at 09:53 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 10:27 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 412
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 404
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Okay, I did a mock up and with one pivot point of the panhard bar 3/4 " from the sedan floor (attached to the frame) and the other 2 3/4" from the floor ( making a 2" difference) and increasing the length of the bar 3" (now 22 1/4"), I have an angle of 3 degrees downward slope. I know that the pivot points have to be in line, but nothing is perfect in this world, and neither is my suspension. However, I think this would give me the clearance I need. Any comments on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2013, 02:56 AM
327NUT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: So. Utah
Age: 68
Posts: 3,300
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 98 Times in 87 Posts
I've stayed out of this since it got "technically" involved, I read now that my chassis is "junk" because my panard bar is not long enough.....and I am perpetuating this unsound engineering because I bought it. Well so be it, funny thing though besides TCI, Pete & Jakes, Heidts, Roy Brizzio, SoCal Speed Shop, Mr. Roadster, Chassis Engineering and I'm sure a few more all use the shorter panard bar from the port side to the pinion support. Just look at thier web sites......so these guys sell junk also, Hmmm and a custom built turn key '32 roadster from Brizio starts at 185K.

The reason for the junk engineered bar you ask?? Well there's several, it's probably a lot cheaper to make, there's not a lot of room under an old Ford when you add in 4 bars or split wishbones, shocks, exhaust pipes etc. and the main reason is....it's just not needed. The above company's have thousands of their chassis and turn key hot rods out and about and never once have I heard an owner complain that their panard bar was too short.

I totally agree with the comments by "lakeroadster" and "sedanbob" and yes 27T as I'm sure you know or are finding out these are not bolt together kit cars. If something doesn't fit you have to modify or dare I say re-engineer it for you application.

In regards to your front fender braces, TCI as with other chassis builders have to build a chassis that will work with most of their customers cars. It's not bad or shoddy engineering it's just the way it is, I had to modify my fender braces also but it was no big deal, still have to weld in a backing plate. The headlight bar acts as a support so the strength really isn't compromised that much, some full fendered cars don't even use fender braces. Anyway I'm done for now, too bad this post had to take this turn......Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	000_0445.JPG
Views:	42
Size:	731.4 KB
ID:	75592   Click image for larger version

Name:	000_0448.JPG
Views:	48
Size:	822.2 KB
ID:	75593  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2013, 07:15 AM
lakeroadster's Avatar
Hot Rods are Built, not Bought
 

Last journal entry: Lakeroadster's '31 Model A Tudor
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: High Plains - Rocky Mountains
Age: 53
Posts: 707
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 39
Thanked 113 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARTINSR View Post
.. but look at the steep angle of the bar! That is exactly what we are talking about. If that bars mounting points were at the same height it wouldn't move the rear end over anywhere near that 1/2".

You have apples and oranges if we are to be looking at what is the difference in lateral movement of the rear end with the short or long Panhard bar.

Brian
Brian,

I agree in theory, however the angle of the long panhard bar shown in the analysis I listed above Track Bars, The Short and The Long Of It... - Classic Parts Talk reflects the CPP "kit" that folks are buying for the 63 through 72 suspensions. The kit bar bolts to the stock frame location and then CPP supplies a panhard bar mount that bolts to the u-bolts at the trailing arm to axle location. Is it ideal, no. Is it the kit folks are using, yes. Does it work, yes. The point of the analysis was to show a stock panhard bar vs. the CPP kit that folks are being told is a "must have" for lowered trucks, which simply is not true.

Here is a photo of the "kit" (not my truck). Photo lifted off the internet.

CPP Kit

Last edited by lakeroadster; 07-12-2013 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 412
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 404
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Hey 327...... what you did for the front braces is exactly what I had to do as well. You would think that they would have addressed this issue before selling a product that you have to modify. It's like buying a Ferrari and then deciding you want to make it look like a '57 Chev. Why not buy the right thing without going through the hassle of modifying (which incidentally can be a lot of fun, but at the same time frustrating)?? I suppose its like buying jockey briefs....one size fits all!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Suspension - Brakes - Steering posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
panhard bar. elcaminoman69 Suspension - Brakes - Steering 10 11-24-2013 08:26 AM
wish bone, panhard bar, track bar BigBlockT Suspension - Brakes - Steering 6 02-11-2010 11:25 AM
4 bar & panhard blackbart Suspension - Brakes - Steering 41 11-24-2009 08:33 PM
panhard bar uncertainty crackfiller Hotrodding Basics 1 04-03-2007 05:06 PM
Panhard bar revision 5window Suspension - Brakes - Steering 2 11-06-2003 05:31 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.