Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 20 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is there any advantage to using a spring behind axel as opposed to a spring over or vice versa. I am starting to construct my own frame for a 41 Ford 1/2ton rat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,061 Posts
FRame height. Spring over will sit higher. Reversed eye on spring over not as high. Spring behind drops your frame without an axle drop. Many ways to do it.
What are you using?
I-beam and split bones or tube axle and hairpins?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
suicide front end

I'm not using anything right now, just getting ready to build my frame. I want to make sure everything is planned before starting. I have never used this type of front end, but I want the Old Skool look for my hot/rat rod truck. Don't want to use M11, tired of the look.
 

·
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
I know one thing, with the spring behind the axle you have very little room to put the tie rod where it belongs, behind the axle. If you put it out front you have to be sure to have the proper spindles to allow the tie rod to be long enough for proper Ackermann angle. If you don't have this angle correct the inside wheel doesn't turn a tighter radius as required when you go around a corner.

Brian

 
  • Like
Reactions: DeeW

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
spring over !

With a spring over , if something broke you have a better chance of the frame-parts not hitting on the ground and turning you up-side-down. and that's how the name started. That said, My second T bucket has a straight tube axle , spring behind, the only thing with a spring over is My 1922 T speedster. 27 T spindles that gives a 1 in drop reversed eye spring 1 in drop , and a 3 in dropped axle... My picts are all too large. what front axle are you going to use. ? our 46 ford truck uses 2 spring, parallel front end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Well like I said, I have no idea what combination will work for this front end. It's a 41 Ford 1/2ton cab on a 4"x2"x3/16" frame that I am building. I am going to "Z" the frame to drop the cab and give it the proper stance. The front end has me concerned. I have seen a similar truck with. 47 Chevy 1/2ton front axle setup. I want to keep it as simple as possible as well as practical and will be using standard 350 setup. It sounds like the spring over is the best bet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
Well some of this sounds way far left then it should be... I use the spring behind a lot better to set it low if you wanted too... As far as the frontend fallin off... Well ...That shouldn't happen if you set it up right... And as far as the Ackermann angle.. T-bucket's been running around for many many years that way with no problems..Here's a few I'm doing now That might give you some ideas..The frames are much easier then some make it out to be.... Your not building a road course racer..:D

Here's some ideas..
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/getting-rid-ugly-197376.html
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/daddys-new-toy-making-216777.html
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/my-sons-new-toy-213588.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeeW

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
wrong akerman

wrong akerman works just fine going straight ahead. It will scrub off the tread on turns, You can get into trouble when going around a turn on a bumpy road..The front wheels are pointing different directions and the one that has the most traction decides which way you will go. You can put the spring behind and the tie rod behind with careful measurements, I have done a couple from scratch You don't want it to cross the white line with a semi coming toward you ! ! You could look at quarter eleptical springs on the front with a panard bar. , make it your self from your ford pieces
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
second look

I google'd ford pickup and it shows the spring in front like the cars used for 40-41. Post war used a 4 spring open drive line chassis on trucks . I have left the spring in front on one chassis I built and Z'ed the frame , If you want a spring behind, you can split the wishbone and use a shorter spring , I have seen quite a few pict's on the Hamb of that style setup. It lets you get lower, spring to the rear from the tierod. Google suicide front ind and you sill get lots of picts to look at, The Hamb site has a very poor search engine and they don't have a seperate for sale wanted section . It can take a while searching there. another site is ratrodsrule
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
That's funny.. I put this to the test on this car..I took four inch's out the crossmember, Turned the spindles on backwards, Used a geo rack, Behind the crossmember, And had no problems, No wear on the tires afther driving if for a few years.. EVERYDAY. and the guy that bought it from me NEVER had a problem as well.. We became good friends that's how I kept up with the car... So Try it first hand before saying it won't work.. I did...:mwink:
And I have many many people that can back this up that knew the car and drove the car as well..It's real easy to post what you read about the Ackermann angle,, But until you test this.. to see just how much differece it really makes.. Then your only going by what you read... Like I said ..T-bucket's have been running around like this for YEARS..

Oh.. and this car NEVER had a frontend alignment..Didn't need one..

Here's the car..



and here's the frame everyone said wouldn't work... It sure did.. And is still around today..


And here's the frame..
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: DeeW

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
Guess I was just lucky..:D
And the guy that bought it from me..
And the guy that bought it from him A FEW YEARS LATER..


Does it change the Ackermann angle ???? Sure it does... I don't diagree with that one bit... But how much is the key thing here... That's why t-bucket's still use this today..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
OK, From what I have gathered from all info, I plan on using a spring over axle, straight with a 4"drop and hairpins. Speedway has this setup very reasonably priced. I do have some flexibility with the spring frame mount so I should be fine. If anybody knows of any drawbacks to this setup, please let me know. Thanks for all the input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
T bucket info

The last 2 T bucket chassis built I used a set of plans from CCR, $ 25 for everything. and there are Free downloads of youngsters plans here on the WIKI , Everything fit, . Before I used to do a mockup using 2 X 4 lumber. T bucket frames are similat to a lot of home built rat rod . One I put 8 in more in the front frame section and another 4 in more after the rear kickup.
 

·
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
It doesn't "Change" Ackermann angle, it eliminates it. And not only does it eliminate it, that would be cool if the only thing that happen was that both tires turned at the same angle as it rounded a corner. But just switching the spindles side for side literally flops it 180 degrees and makes the outer wheel that is turning a larger radius turn a tighter radius than the inside side tire!

Does it "work" without it, yes but it is going so radically against proper steering geometry one is seriously asking for trouble. People do it because it's easy. People have building cars for years with serious bump steer because of lowered axles putting the drag link at a horrible angle (did it myself and drove for years every day) but because people have done it and got away with it doesn't make it right. That's one of the things I dig about alignment geometry, there is little opinion, it is either right or wrong, proper steering angle or Ackermann angle (same thing, people don't use the Ackermann name much any more.) either exists or it doesn't.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeeW

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
It doesn't "Change" Ackermann angle, it eliminates it. And not only does it eliminate it, that would be cool if the only thing that happen was that both tires turned at the same angle as it rounded a corner. But just switching the spindles side for side literally flops it 180 degrees and makes the outer wheel that is turning a larger radius turn a tighter radius than the inside side tire!

Does it "work" without it, yes but it is going so radically against proper steering geometry one is seriously asking for trouble. People do it because it's easy. People have building cars for years with serious bump steer because of lowered axles putting the drag link at a horrible angle (did it myself and drove for years every day) but because people have done it and got away with it doesn't make it right. That's one of the things I dig about alignment geometry, there is little opinion, it is either right or wrong, proper steering angle or Ackermann angle (same thing, people don't use the Ackermann name much any more.) either exists or it doesn't.

Brian
Doesn't even pay to argue with you about this.. We did a 100 times already.. Like I sayed.. I did it.. And as far as bump steer.. We are talking about two different things here.. If everyone would take what you say.. No one would ever build a car.. You can't do this and you can't do that.. Man get off your ***** in try sometimes.. You just might learn you can.. Very sad Brian.. Very sad..Thank God you was never around to tell me not to try.. I would have never had the fun in building ALL the cars I did..Thank God..

Thanks God the Wright brothers didn't listen to the ones that said..the BOOK'S say it won't work.. Don't do it..:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
The last 2 T bucket chassis built I used a set of plans from CCR, $ 25 for everything. and there are Free downloads of youngsters plans here on the WIKI , Everything fit, . Before I used to do a mockup using 2 X 4 lumber. T bucket frames are similat to a lot of home built rat rod . One I put 8 in more in the front frame section and another 4 in more after the rear kickup.
A t-bucket frame is one of the easiest frame to build.. Not very hard to do your own planning..

Here's the one I just built myself..
 

Attachments

·
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
There is right and there is wrong. I remember my very first job, sweeping the floor at a full on rod shop. They were building a 29 Model A roadster with a blown 392 Hemi. They had chromed all the front suspension and were installing it and found that the tie rod hit the hairpin radius rods. The guy swapped the spindles side to side and that is where I learned about Ackermann angle, one of his friends explained it to him. I was 17 years old at the time and I have made sure I never made that mistake in the many cars I have co-built, or built. Never did make that mistake, because it's a choice. Do it right or do it "good enough". I chose to do it right. I am not telling anyone "you can't do that" I am offering a suggestion how how to do something, that is all, offering a suggestion. They can chose to do it as I suggest, or some other way.

I am also not saying that everyone who has chosen to ignore the Ackermann principle is a bad person or hack or anything like that. You are very right Randy, it has been done for years and "worked". I don't always do the best body and paint work that I am capable of, depending on the job and the expectations of the owner (me or someone else) on that particular car, the quality I choose varies greatly, just as most any one of us.

While building a car or modifying one we make many choices, this is just one of them. You can say it's ok to run no Ackermann and I can say one shouldn't, it's two opinions given to a guy building a car who can then chose what is best for him. It's great that a guy can come to a forum like this and get different opinions isn't it?

And by the way, there is NO argument, we are not arguing, we not trying to convince the other of what we are saying. We are giving someone who asked a question a suggestion that is all we are doing, it's no big deal.

Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
suspension angles.

In the mid 60's a Local engine builder built a 53 stude for bonneville , 392 hemi T 10 4 speed, halibrand rear end. A couple times I told him his front end geometry was wrong. It was going to dance on him.. He ran over the record , and on his back up it turned over at 190 plus, broke apart, the t 10 broke his arm as it went out the back window.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,051 Posts
There is right and there is wrong. I remember my very first job, sweeping the floor at a full on rod shop. They were building a 29 Model A roadster with a blown 392 Hemi. They had chromed all the front suspension and were installing it and found that the tie rod hit the hairpin radius rods. The guy swapped the spindles side to side and that is where I learned about Ackermann angle, one of his friends explained it to him. I was 17 years old at the time and I have made sure I never made that mistake in the many cars I have co-built, or built. Never did make that mistake, because it's a choice. Do it right or do it "good enough". I chose to do it right. I am not telling anyone "you can't do that" I am offering a suggestion how how to do something, that is all, offering a suggestion. They can chose to do it as I suggest, or some other way.

I am also not saying that everyone who has chosen to ignore the Ackermann principle is a bad person or hack or anything like that. You are very right Randy, it has been done for years and "worked". I don't always do the best body and paint work that I am capable of, depending on the job and the expectations of the owner (me or someone else) on that particular car, the quality I choose varies greatly, just as most any one of us.

While building a car or modifying one we make many choices, this is just one of them. You can say it's ok to run no Ackermann and I can say one shouldn't, it's two opinions given to a guy building a car who can then chose what is best for him. It's great that a guy can come to a forum like this and get different opinions isn't it?

And by the way, there is NO argument, we are not arguing, we not trying to convince the other of what we are saying. We are giving someone who asked a question a suggestion that is all we are doing, it's no big deal.

Brian
Just sad to see people make it out to be such a BIG problem when it really isn't... People blow chassis building WAAAAAY Out of proportion it's funny.. People have no clue just how easy it is to build a chassis without worrying about all The IF THIS, IF THAT..Man !!! Some of the things people will say to someone will scare the hell out of them.. Teaching them is one thing..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeeW
1 - 20 of 90 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top