I don't have any projects that will use/need a panhard bar. I just got to thinking about this while perusing other threads. As far as I know every panhard bar I've ever seen goes from one frame rail to the center of the rear end. Have you ever seen (or thought of using) a panhard bar that goes from one side of the frame to the other side of the rear housing, at or near the other spring mounting point? I ask because the arc would be fewer degrees and the side-to-side motion of the rear would be even less than if mounted to the center of the rear. Is it a moot point because the side-to-side motion of the arc is just not enough to worry about?
You are correct, the longer the bar, the better, I make mine full length, although in a hot rod with limited suspension travel, it don't make a lot of difference.
I have one like you describe on my coupe. When I built the chassis in the mid-'70's I put a '64 Chevy rear end under it and made the bar as long as I could, and for the reasons you describe. The 9" rear with the bolt on pinion support made the short bar pretty much a no brainer and like trollst said they likely work just as well.
The motion of the panhard bar will cause a lateral (side to side) displacement between the axle and framebody. The longer the radius or length of the panhard bar the smaller the lateral displacement. I've made a crude diagram to illustrate that. Hope this helps.
In race cars,sports or oval an off road it matters. In a hotrod with maybe 3in. of movemint it's find to be around a foot or so. If you have the room to run a long bar its a little better,yet you'll never feel it,if ya only have a few in. up n down anyway. Try to have bar level to ground,not like some drawing at angle.
Bottom line: 1) TRY TO MAKE THE PANARD BAR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. 2) MAKE THE PANARD BAR AS CLOSE TO PARALLEL TO THE GROUND AT RIDE HEIGHT AS POSSIBLE. If you want ZERO translational chassis movement when the suspension cycles consider a WATTS linkage. This may be the best solution for "road course" handling characteristics, if that is a priority for you.
My buddy has a short one on his Roadster. Frame to Axle center. Every time he hits a bump you can see the body/frame dart one way or the other. Rear end does not move body and chassis does.
I think the short ones are mostly aftermarket, designed to go where there are already some bolts...look at the ones made for '28-34 Ford fronts, 9" rear ends. OEMs tend to be long, finicky racers go long or use tricky designs that nearly eliminate undesirable motion. With long ones and normal suspension travel, lateral motion is pretty much theoretical.
I try to build them as long as possible and level when the car is at ride height. Many will disagree with that but it works for me.
This is how i made mine. To clear the axle i mounted it in a angle in front of the axle. Should work just fine.
atch - You are correct...in ANY car, they need the longest bar that can be squeezed in. Unless you like the tires rubbing on the inner fenders, the body swaying to and fro... Much of the reason for the short bars is space. In that case, like two of my cars, I run a wishbone device, which I have in my 54 Stude Wagon with a Quick-Change and my hot rod 60 Lark with the 9" in the back. No arch's to be concerned with, always centered. There's a couple others that keep things centered also. Mike
Exactly right Fuzzy. I first ran a TCI panhard set up on the rear of me RPU. It did just what you described. A very unsettling feeling. I lengthened the bar and made a mount on the 4 bar attachment on the opposite side of the frame mount. A complete change. Now 60mph bumps through a large curve are not worry some anymore. No unwanted lane changes.
Panhard bars also set the roll center so don't just mount them where where they fit easily vertically.. there are other things to consider to make sure that it handles well Sent from my SM-G920V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Like 1-800. Universal bolt-on kit. No modifications. No holes to drill, uses existing holes. Shipping included. Six months same as cash. Hello, is this The Hoffman Group.
Check, and check! Bit of extra work to find the sweet spot where there is clearance thru' full suspension travel, but on a low car running skirts the least sideways movement the better. Bear
The reason the pitman should be as low as possible is to lower the rear roll center. Pictures show better than words:
If you are obstinate, diligent, and have the right combination of parts, it is possible to have at least a front (IFS) roll center that is below ground.
I believe LOW roll center allows MORE roll for a given lateral input. That has some uses in things like dirt track cars, but seems to me high is more generally desirable. Did you know that the roll center in a 1953 Chevrolet has a Chinese part number?
The Jalopy Journal
