Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods Cowl Steering . . . just stop !

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Pete Eastwood, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. denis4x4
    Joined: Apr 23, 2005
    Posts: 4,198

    denis4x4
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Colorado

    959F80E4-AA45-4BA8-8C16-4A43B54C3A6B_1_201_a.jpeg

    If you look closely, there is a second hole on the pitman arm. I tell people that it is for adjustments. Truth is, we did it wrong the first time around!
     
    loudbang and kidcampbell71 like this.
  2. Hemi Joel
    Joined: May 4, 2007
    Posts: 1,528

    Hemi Joel
    Member
    from Minnesota

    Wow, I never thought of it that way before. That's good stuff, it makes perfect sense. Although it contradicts what I had previously been told, I believe it and will use it should the need ever arise. Thanks!
     
    kidcampbell71 likes this.
  3. Awesome story.
    My friends sometimes look at me funny as I look up info on subjects like this. The reason is this. When I first started repairing wrecks, a shop nearby closed down. One of their been here done that expert techs centered the rack on a unibody car. He was used to everything being square on a car. He pulled the rack over until it’s mounts were center. The alignment guy adjusted the tie rods to center the tires Never noticed the length difference. Shop delivered the car. Car come right back with steering issues. Shop manager and car owner go for a test ride. Shop manager turns into a dump truck head on killing the owner. The steering geometry was screwed because 2 technicians just did it how they always did it.
    I tell this story to my students. Never get to the point you think you know everything.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  4. theHIGHLANDER
    Joined: Jun 3, 2005
    Posts: 10,244

    theHIGHLANDER
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Seems a good place to bring this up since we're all on about steering, control, bump steer, etc. Some info I read says sway (anti-roll) bar in the rear and pnhard bar in the front. Some says the opposite. I tend to think sway bar in the front myself, that's where the weight most often is and where the best effect of "borrowing" load from the opposing side will do the most good. With a nice long panhard out back the desired effect of flatter cornering should be easily achieved. On senior series Packard models they added sway bars front and rear in the late 30s AND a panhard out back besides (with a cushion at one end of the panhard as well, nice...). That was all in the switch to their independent front suspension. So, in dealing with Henry's transverse spring systems, is there 1 way prefered over the other or simply dealer's choice? I'll close by saying I don't think the addition of either in either place will reduce or diminish the potential for failed geometry within the topic, just asking in the spirit of "...in addition to..." perhaps.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  5. Blues4U
    Joined: Oct 1, 2015
    Posts: 7,589

    Blues4U
    Member
    from So Cal

    Which axle gets a sway bar (anti-roll bar) depends on the handling characteristic of the car. A sway bar in front will reduce oversteer, a sway bar in back will reduce understeer.

    Panhard bars keep the axle centered. You shouldn't need on on an early Ford buggy spring chassis with the springs mounted in tension, because the tension should keep the axle centered, except on the front when side steering is used.
     
  6. brsturges
    Joined: Oct 22, 2008
    Posts: 931

    brsturges
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Miami, FL

    I agree with this. But I have always wondered why Ford went with a panhard bar on the rear on the last few years of the banjo rear end (42-48). I know those rear ends were wider, so maybe the wider axle had a greater tendency to wander. Not to hijack the thread, but I figure a lot of the chassis geometry gurus are watching this thread. Does anybody know?
     
    loudbang likes this.
  7. Fordors
    Joined: Sep 22, 2016
    Posts: 5,372

    Fordors
    Member

    I always thought the Panhard bar was added because the shackle bars were longer and the bushings had been changed to rubber, both of which could contribute to more sway.
     
    Atwater Mike and brsturges like this.
  8. theHIGHLANDER
    Joined: Jun 3, 2005
    Posts: 10,244

    theHIGHLANDER
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    My motivation here is about my car, a 39 tudor. I'm running some nice big 7.00s on a commercial 5 1/2" wide 5 wheels out back. At ride hgt I have a tight "2 fingers" distance from fender edge to tire. I like the look yet I imagine a freeway ramp at moderate speed with 4 people in the car. It might want to get too cozy with the sidewall in that scenario. As it is, unloaded, I can rock it side to side pretty hard and damn near hit the tire, hence my desrire to eliminate that dynamic. Frankly I don't imagine any adverse effect from adding one because I'm a fan of nice long panhards. The longer one can practically be the better the response. But why the front desire? Many years ago a friend had a street rod truck and got sick of how bad it leaned even on slow turns. It was a pro street kinda gig so narrow rear suspension surely aggravated the problem and I advised him we should just add a sway bar back to it. To him it was like magic and he said it never rode or handled that well in all the years he'd owned it. I thought it was obvious but was also impressed at how much we improved it in all driving conditions. His was a unique scenario insofar as he was running a BBC, a pickup, pro street shit, etc. Out back there was a really heavy duty diagonal link and served it's purpose well.

    Back to mine, I have a dropped axle and I think it will naturally shift a little extra load bias to the front suspension. Steering is stock box and proper dropped arms, I don't expect any untoward handling issues but think a sway bar is prudent. I've basically resigned myself to fabbing what I want as there's little to no out-of-the-box answers that seem to suit my needs, but hence my reasoning for brining it up. I have zero worries about the work involved other than time and effort vs return on "investment" in the way of gains. And yes, I know Henry's boys added a front sway bar in 40 and the rear panhard in the 42-8 variants. Too much thought? Over thinking it?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
    saltracer219 and loudbang like this.
  9. saltracer219
    Joined: Sep 23, 2006
    Posts: 1,071

    saltracer219
    Member

    If you are nunning a factory dropped beam axle you will gain about an inch of clearance om each side.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  10. theHIGHLANDER
    Joined: Jun 3, 2005
    Posts: 10,244

    theHIGHLANDER
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I'm running 6.00s on 3 1/2" wide 5s up front. I raised it up because of clearance issues on tight turns with the 6.00s. Still, a shift in forward weight bias is likely with a dropped axle and a front sway is my preference. Back to the question though, most set ups are rear sway, front panhard and I'm morbidly curious as to why this "appears to be" the norm. Again, I'm probably over thinking this and should just do what I plan to do but also though it might enlighten others in some of the front suspension/steering forces we're talking about here in this topic.

    And 7.00s up front would look sillyo_O
     
    loudbang likes this.
  11. jaw22w
    Joined: Mar 2, 2013
    Posts: 1,671

    jaw22w
    Member
    from Indiana

    Putting a sway bar on the front will make a car understeer. I think the engineers at the factorys nowadays set a car up to understeer because when the average driver gets into an understeer condition all he has to do is let off the gas, and the car is back under control. When that driver gets into an oversteer condition, it is harder to get it back under control than the push. Gotta be elbows up on the wheel. So it is safer for the average driver if the car has an inherent understeer in the chassis.
    Sway bar on the rear will create oversteer. You can help tune a chassis for under or over steer by changing bar ratings.
    By the way panhard bars and sway bars have nothing to do with each other.
     
    thintin, loudbang and Ned Ludd like this.
  12. theHIGHLANDER
    Joined: Jun 3, 2005
    Posts: 10,244

    theHIGHLANDER
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Right. Wrong. Maybe?

    To start this is the kind of chin music that helps, and in no way are opposing views unwelcome. I disagree to a point on a few things here. I'm well aware of the use panhard bars have. They either limit or control lateral forces which in turn can make load transfers in dynamic conditions more managable. For us hot rod guys it can help keep the fat tires from hitting fenders or 1/4 panels. For drag racers it can keep the axle centered. Sway (anti-roll) bars also help with load transfer forces, but they "borrow" load from the opposing spring to do it by forces induced in the opposite side (right turn, weight on the left, bar pulls down on the right as well) which then keeps the car flatter in turns. These simple bars do a lot. As to not having anything to do with each other, maybe. If the car is flat, has lateral force become more or less managable? Is the "work" neutralized by one or the other? Over/understeer set aside for a moment, I would think flatter cornering up front assisted by controlled lateral forces out back should make for a predictable and pleasant driving experience. Still, most parts packages sell the opposite for our early Ford mods.

    I also use the term load transfer because weight is always static. Weight transfer is one of those colloquialisms we've become accustomed to, like vacuum advance and the like. CG can change based on how loads are applied in certain chassis dynamics and the use of the right bars and management components can also make those changes preidictable. Rear anti-roll bars became popular among doorslammer drag cars in the 90s to help maintain equal loads on the rear tires at launch, steering be damned. Some also used panhard, wishbone or diagonal bars to manage lateral forces. I don't even wanna get into Watts links, sprint cars, road racers, etc. At the end of the day it's an old Ford with elegant farm implement underpinnings.
     
    warbird1 and loudbang like this.
  13. DannyBrent28Sedan
    Joined: Jan 15, 2017
    Posts: 50

    DannyBrent28Sedan
    Member

    Danny Brent told me that Roy Rockwell build a Tudor that is very much like my car, I wish I could find pictures of Roy's tudor!
     
    loudbang likes this.
  14. DannyBrent28Sedan
    Joined: Jan 15, 2017
    Posts: 50

    DannyBrent28Sedan
    Member

    Pete, can we get you to write a book so no one forgets this? Just put all that is in your head about building cars on paper, simple?
     
    loudbang likes this.
  15. All this pissiness makes me want to build another cowl steer car just to piss some of you off. Most of this discussion is about like Gibson players arguing with Fender players about why their way is better.
     
    Hollywood-East, GEBHARD and thintin like this.
  16. 2OLD2FAST
    Joined: Feb 3, 2010
    Posts: 5,215

    2OLD2FAST
    Member
    from illinois

    25 or so years ago when I was in the layout phase of building my T , I called a high dollar/ famous west coast car builder to ask his opinion on the bumpsteer issue ,after telling him what I had worked out , he chuckled , and replied " You're being awful fussy aren't you?" Then he said. " Our shop truck has over an inch of bumpsteer in 4" of suspension travel" So , its not the end of the world if you have a bit of bumpsteer , it'll still drive ! This from someone who has built waaay more ( both quantity & high dollar ) cars than most any of us here ! FWIW .
     
    Tman likes this.
  17. I'm not sure about guitars but @Pete Eastwood helped us above by posting:

    "That is exactly what makes bump steer & will only make it worse.
    It's geometry.
    Forget about components / axles / draglinks / wishbones / etc.
    it's points in space....

    Can you share your version of geometry, Tman? Thanks.
     
    saltracer219, GuyW, loudbang and 2 others like this.
  18. High dollar doesn't mean high quality. I hope your build turned out great so you could enjoy driving it.
     
  19. seb fontana
    Joined: Sep 1, 2005
    Posts: 8,442

    seb fontana
    Member
    from ct

    Ford put a sway bar in the front in 1940. And a Panhard bar in the front in 1941. 46-48 Panhard added at the rear with tube shocks in all four corners in 48. Cost $$ so Ford had good reason. Probably could retro a 39'..
     
    GuyW and loudbang like this.
  20. 2OLD2FAST
    Joined: Feb 3, 2010
    Posts: 5,215

    2OLD2FAST
    Member
    from illinois

    50k miles so far , drives great ! Thanks for asking!
     
  21. trollst
    Joined: Jan 27, 2012
    Posts: 2,108

    trollst
    Member

    PPrather, I have seen a lot of high dollar cars incorrectly built, I have had the pleasure of straightening three of them out. A lot of money and a bunch of chrome doesn't always buy you what you intended to buy, there are lots of garage queens because of poor handling.
     
  22. Already did when I sold my touring to George. 15-20K trouble free miles and neither one of had anything like scary bumbsteer. But, the setup I did on that was mild and the geometry was pretty tight for a cowl steer car, and yes we followed the P&J catalog while building it. As I said a couple years back on this thread, my 2000 Ranger daily had some of the worst bumpsteer I have ever seen, on a modern pickup designed by teams of engineers. Pwood knows his shit but so do Keith and Ken at Rolling Bones. There are so many ways to do things in this hobby that I am not going to take any one persons take on it as gospel. I will prob build another car like that but since my Tudor came with a nice Ford box it will get the Tardell treatment.
     
    Barrelnose pickup likes this.
  23. Yeah, especially when we all know that G&L's are sooo much better. :D

    Do you take on contract work in your garage?
     
    leon bee likes this.
  24. With all my remodeling I can't even find time to work on my own projects! OR play guitar ;) FWIW mine is a semi custom hollow body.
     
  25. HemiRambler
    Joined: Aug 26, 2005
    Posts: 4,208

    HemiRambler
    Member

    This was surely an enlightening thread! Absolutely LOVED where some myths were dispelled and equally entertained by those still denying it. Many many years ago I had a buddy with his freshly converted Straight Axle car stop by the house. We were both "kids" at the time and he had spent big money ("big" to us kids) having his Uncle do the conversion. The work was shoddy to say the very least, but the car drove perfectly fine other than the steering was a bit "lazy". Upon closer inspection I had noticed that during this conversion - ALL of the tapers had been drilled out of the steering arms and pitman arm! The tie rods were basically wobbling around in their holes! I told my buddy this was NOT a good idea (duh). We had a buddy machine some tapered bushings and welded them in place...there FIXED! We took it around the block and around 25 or 30 mph we hit a small chuck hole that induced a horrendous death wobble - felt like we were running over 4x4s and wouldn't stop until we were going about 1 mph! My "fix" just made everything 100 times WORSE. Based on some of the comments I read here I should have gone back and drilled all those tapers out again, but that's NOT what we did. It was time to LEARN and try to UNDERSTAND what was going on. I'm glad I read this thread - I learned something!!! Thanks Mr. Eastwood!!!
     
  26. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 23,263

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I feel like the cowl steering problem is one that will never die.

    It is going to live on like 010 blocks being high nickel, and crossmembers setting caster in transverse leaf front ends.

    The falsehoods sound too tempting to embrace reality.
     
  27. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 23,263

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Chance + limited suspension travel ≠ success.
    Chance + limited suspension travel = luck.

    Luck is not a survival strategy. To think otherwise is Russian Roulette Logic, also known as the Russian Roulette Fallacy. It is roughly the inverse of the Gambler's Fallacy. In both cases, the odds reset, every single time you engage in the behavior. Just because you did not win/lose the last time does not mean that you will lose/win the next time.

    The odds reset every single bump you go over.
     
  28. silent rick
    Joined: Nov 7, 2002
    Posts: 5,207

    silent rick
    Member

    do you mean like this tardell car?

    modelt27black1.jpg
     
  29. Dave G in Gansevoort
    Joined: Mar 28, 2019
    Posts: 2,598

    Dave G in Gansevoort
    Member
    from Upstate NY

    So I mentioned a while back a compromise solution, figured out by Frank Kurtis for Indy roadsters back in the early 50s. I did a crude sketch of how I see it in something with a tube frame, say like a T-bucket: IMG_1116.JPG Maybe someone who is a better draftsman than me can do a good detail drawing so we can discuss the pros and cons of trying this. As drawn the arm perpendicular to the chassis would connect to the steering box via the drag link. The arm underneath connects to the right side spindle like a Vega box. That's my $0.02 worth...
     
    bchctybob, loudbang and Ned Ludd like this.
  30. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 23,263

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    As long as the lower arm places the pivot point of the link attached to it on the same horizontal plane as the one on the steering arm, with the suspension assembled, and fully loaded, you should be as good as good can get.

    The bonus here is if you get a cowl box that is too quick, you can adjust that with the bellcrank arms.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.