Is anyone running the vintage IFS unit that Fat Man Fabrications offers? If so, how do you feel about it? The ad I saw on it was a tad bit confusing, as it claimed it allowed you to convert your existing tube front axle in as little as one weekend. I assume this means swapping out the tube axle for the one from Fat Man's instead of modifying it in some manner. Any rate, anyone seen this application on a Model A or is currently using this IFS? Any pics to share? Was it an easy swap? Does the 4 bar set up come with it? What does the entire unit consist of? From the picture I have seen, I could not tell if there was a monoleaf spring used or the stock springs. Will this unit easily adapt to a 1930 Ford? Thanks, Huey
Forget it. You use existing tube axle and cut it in half and pivot it at the center. This will cause front end jacking in turns like the swing axle Corvair before it went true independent. (Unsafe at Any Speed) Ford trucks used longer axles pivoted off opposite frame sides (until the Firestone/rollover lawsuits) and this was recently done by www.flaming-river.com as The Domin Ator, but at $4K I can see why it's only for '32 Fords.
It's a gimmick and a poorly concieved one at that. This set up would need constant attention to maintain alignment. Coil over shocks on the front would reduce set up time and would be easier to maintain correct camber over time. FUGLY too...
O/T....but....twin traction I beams were in use for about 40 years in about a billion trucks. The Firestone/rollover thing had NOTHING to do with the switch to longarm/shortarm IFS. The switch was to deliver better ride and handling. More car like. As for the FM IFS...I like the idea, but tube axles and I-beams work so damn good I don't know why you'd bother. I can't see the improvment (if there is one) in ride quality being worth the expense.
Just google twin I beam lawsuit. Here's one "Further, because the Ford Explorer SUV itself was claimed to have a high center of gravity and historic instability problems, plaintiffs also contend that the Ford Explorer itself is defective. The claims of defect in the Explorer include model years 1991-1994, which had the Twin I-Beam suspension, which dangerously raised the SUV*s center of gravity in turning motions and in accident avoidance maneuvers (a concept referred to as "jacking")" I've had a twin I beam for 35 years and not rolled it, but it is starting to have camber problems and is due for new springs, another problem with this design.
Hmmm.........First I've ever heard of that. But.....ok. I myself like solid axles. They work. They don't break down much. Tried and true. May not ride "as good" but they don't ride that bad either. I drive my Dad's '47 Ford every chance I get and it drives as well as any other car I've driven up to and including normal highway speeds.
Didn't Ford have an I-beam for over 30 years? While other companies were trying to implement IFS, Ford kept going. That could be stubborn, but I think it has alot to do with the fact that these beams held up and worked real well. I'm for using it as a solid unit.
Ford Twin I-Beam works well. I bought a new '69 Ford F-100 and ran it for years. I have '72 F-100 Ford pickup in the yard and enjoy driving it, but that 360 FE only gets 10 mpg . Just because one design concept is good, doesnt mean another similar to it will be good too. That would be like saying all double A arm IFS systems are good. Not so, some are great and some suck. Good engineering makes the difference. The Ford Twin I-Beam axles are l--o--n--g and overlap many inches, probably at least a foot. The Fat Man set-up splits one axle in half. Diagram the axle swing and camber change for each front end. Ray Charles (RIP) could see the difference. Ford good, Fat Man......????????.
The Fat Man set-up splits one axle in half. Diagram the axle swing and camber change for each front end. Ray Charles (RIP) could see the difference. Ford good, Fat Man......????????.[/QUOTE] I agree w/ what he said!
1904-1948 cars got solid beam axles and trucks till like '65 (? not positive when the change was made). So Ford used solid axles for about 60 years.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the Fatman system, just like all swing arm suspensions, will eat the hell out of your tires. I was told that it might even cut their life in half. I know saftey is the primary concern, but $$$ effects things, too.
The Ford twin I beam axles pivot about the far frame rail whereas the Fatman splits it in the center, which is not good, would lead to drastic camber changes due to the short axle length. I think it was the Allards that used a similar arrangement, which I had read that they felt quite unstable at high speed. Like one of the others about stated, it is more of a gimmick. My dropped I beam rides and handles just fine.
Funny you should mention an Allard. I just came back from a 1200 mile run (in a 1936 Cord) and one of the guys had an Allard. The Fatman axle setup is similar to the Allard. The guy riding shotgun said the steering was terrifying on the mountain roads.
The reason it had problems on a light Explorer but most trucks did fine is it can't jack a heavy load as easy. And if you drive a PU much you know most of the weight is on the front.
Thanks for all the input on this set up. Interesting that almost no one actually has one or has direct experience with running/operating one. Any rate, this is one concept that is scratched from my project. Not enough good posted to overcome any of the negative comments and possibilities or potential for disaster. Thanks to all who replied. I greatly appreciate it.
Don't discredit our lack of experience with that particular product. That system is nothing new, what you should gleen from the posts siting similar designs is the function. Design is design, no matter who did it the fundementals still stand.
I know were there is one sitting on a shelf collecting dust.(fatman kit) I bet you could get it for half price. PM if anyone is interested and I will forward you the info.
It's the fact that it shares some awful design flaws with things that didn't work in the past and still don't. These design flaws make it an unsafe and ill handling suspension. It is a novelty and nothing more. It is what someone once called a "show suspension"... i.e. for looking neat at car shows, but not practical on a real driven car...
The Jalopy Journal
