Technical Would this be accepted on a traditional Hot Rod?

Recently i had this idea about a suspension setup, it all started from the idea of building a Hot Rod with road racing capabilities, while still keeping the traditional look.
First, some background which lead me to my idea: (Most pics here taken from other hamb threads)
I started researching and eventually found out about the Allard's suspension, which at first sounded like a good idea
(Yes, i know Allards use coil springs and not traverse, but the idea is the same)

Until i noticed it was in fact a Swing Axle design, which means it does this:

I don't know about you guys, but i'd rather have a solid axle than that kind of behavior with a swing, so i kept looking.

My next idea came from my background with Jeeps - The Planar/Planadyne suspension, used on Studebakers and 4x2 Willys vehicles (Wagon, Jeepster...)

Okay, that seems to have handling characteristics closer to the double wishbone suspensions, the problem is it still uses A arms, which defeat the purpouse of making it look traditional.

So my next logical thought was "what if we join these 2 together?"
Weirdly enough, i found out someone has already tried that out before, and on a Hot Rod nevertheless!



Now, that looks more like a hack job with those ball joints than a properly designed suspension, but lets say we change that for I beams like the Ford axle?
We would end up with something along those lines: (frame and mounts omitted)

And, looking around the Hamb some more i found this: Some European company has done this before on a production car (i think it's a Peugeot or other French brand)

This design left me with 2 questions, which led me to create this tread:

Would this be considered as an accepted suspension for a fenderless Hot rod? I mean in the context of something like a T with track nose and full hood (like the example above, but with a proper track nose instead of that squared one), where the mounts are hidden and only the spring and beams visible.
You don't need to tell me this would look atrocious all exposed in something like a '32 with no hood.

The other question is about the geometry- to locate the axle longitudinally, a simple solution would be split wishbones, very common, right? My question is, They wouldn't work with the wishbones mounted outside/under the frame, right? i did this quick drawing, and to my inexperienced mind, the suspension would pivot around the dotted line, which would cause all kinds of binding and alignment issues...
They would have to be more or less in line with the beam pivots to work (like the very first picture on this post), or am i seeing it wrong?

 

Just because something was done once doesn’t make it traditional.

But if you want to still do it, go ahead.

 

If your heart is set on a independent beam axle design, about the best you'll be able to do would be a variation of the Ford truck twin I-beam design. That will help with the camber issues but won't eliminate them...

 

Thanks for posting. I’ve never seen anything like this before. Hard to tell from the pics but appears the upward travel can’t be more than a couple of inches before the spring hits the frame. Is this correct? Don’t worry, being different is ok - aren’t we all anti-social nerds here anyway? Lol!

 

Its been done before. Fatman use to sell this kit, it was features in street rodder back in the day too. Never caught on, not sure why...
https://www.hotrodhotline.com/pr/2008/08fatmanapril/

 

Here's some more info on it:
https://www.hotrodders.com/threads/split-i-beam.169020/

 

bad news here, you are thinking like a hot rodder not a "traditional" hot rodder. But to your question, the Allard swing axle, Ford twin I beam etc. all worked to some degree. To what degree was determined by their purpose. Axle front, transverse spring is strict "traditional", anything else is straying out of the "traditional" hot rod box. Keep thinking that's what "hot rodding" is all about.
Curt R

 

You've put some interesting thought into this. But it cracks me up when guys want to debate "traditional" like a rabbi parsing scripture. In this case, it's not. But if you have an overwhelming compulsion to try this, knock yourself out and to hell with what people think. Some guys would say a Corvair engine in a T Bucket isn’t traditional, but it was still pretty damn cool.

 

Well, i never meant to imply that, i was just asking if it was "acceptable", that meaning, it wouldn't stood out like a sore thumb in an otherwise traditional car (like modern IFSs do)

Well, i'm just "Bench racing", so not set on anything, The Twin-I-Beam is kind of a compromise, being the same concept as the swing axle, but with longer arms to try to fix the problems of them.

It seems so in the European example i posted, not sure how they got around that. on the T the spring goes above the frame, so no such problem

I ran into these while researching, to me they seem the same as the Allard Axle, basically they are swing axles, so not what i'm after.

 

There 's a lot you could read about the ford twin I beam used in 2 x4 desert race trucks. They have feet of suspension travel and are stable at speeds over rough terrain. The elimination of rubber bushings is a great start.
The twin I beam works quite well if you understand how it works, the naysayers simply don't.
The first picture you posted with what looks like early ford brake drums is likely your best looking design. I would try to copy that with longer arms not one axle simply split in the middle. Remember you are essentially building two large triangles, they need to pivot freely and maintain both Ackerman and roll center geometry. The "Fatman" set up has the roll center all screwed up(there may even be two of them)

 

Doesn’t work well as the beams are too short, resulting in too much camber change. At least on the twin I beam the beams are much longer.


Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

You would do better to use a solid axle but with better springs or torsion bars and located by a 4 link arrangement. Such solid axle suspensions were used successfully by sports cars and racing cars like the Cunningham and Kurtis.
https://www.undiscoveredclassics.co...tis-style-chassis-hot-rod-magazine-july-1954/

 

I'm thinking that when Fatman tried them the selling point was a smoother ride than a regular I beam and maybe allowing for a lower stance because the axle pivoted from the middle allowing for tighter clearances.
I'm thinking if you did some serious reading on the V8 powered Allards the handing wasn't anything to write home about and they won races due to pure American horsepower pushing the light car faster than the competition.

Cool if you are building your representation of an early 50's home built sports car based on what you saw in photos of Allards at the time quite like a lot of guys who wanted sports cars in that time frame did when they didn't have the money to buy one. Not traditional Hot rod wise.

 

Of course the French tried it. When it comes to engineering, they have no box to think outside of.

 

the airbag lovers like to point at the AlaKart and claim that one car makes airbags traditional.

 

Will probably be banned for showing a photo of my quarter elliptic suspension. Too, replaced the front friction shocks with MG Midget rear shocks. Hot rodding is thinking outside the box, not a paint by numbers project.

 

No matter what you come up with, there will ALWAYS be the guys who will tell you its "not traditional". Even if it was done by others during the period of time that would make it acceptable, you will still have to defend its "traditionalism" to those who don't choose to accept it. Its just the way life is.

From a practical point, I think the engineering dynamics of making the thing work properly will be overwhelming and expensive as well as frustrating and possibly even dangerous. That said, if its what "YOU" want, then go for it. I would suggest looking at a Pete n Jakes catalog or some other reference that explains bump steer and other technical issues that steering encounters when the dynamics of those moving parts don't work in concert.

Today, too many people worry about making their cars acceptable to other peoples standards. Dave Freiburger wrote an article in the new issue of Hot Rod (April 2021) called "Entomology,Definitions,Labels" which discusses the problems of trying to make things fit a definition. My suggestion is to continue using your mind to create ideas and then adapt them to the car of your choice. Personally I enjoy seeing a lot of traditionally built vehicles but I don't try to pick them apart for authenticity......I just enjoy the fact that this or that car looks Kool to me and appreciate the fact that it emulates something rather than just duplicates it. Old time hot rodders built what they could afford and used all kinds of ideas. Some worked and many didn't. So I enjoyed looking at the presentation you made and the effort you put into it, but I think the engineering dynamics may be difficult........but don't let others deter you from building what you like. Real Hot Rodders always had their own ideas.

 

The Mallock sports racing cars out of England used a split beam on their early models (circa 1960). I think they may have changed later. They are very competitive, but race tracks tend to be smooth. You may be able to find information about them on line.

 

Well, that's exactly the point i'm trying to make, on my design the ends pivot, so the camber change should be similar to a double wishbone setup

Thanks for the link, i had not seen anything about torsion bars on a solid axle

Well, it seems some guys are missing the point i'm trying to make-
First off, i'm not asking if a one time thing is traditional, of course it isn't, i'm asking "if you guys saw this setup at a car show, in an otherwise traditional car, would you notice it like you do with a modern ifs or would it blend in with the traditional style?"

Second, i tried to edit one of the pics i've sent, to better illustrate my design. keep in mind my image editing skills are subpar at best

Ok, so here we have it. it's the same concept of the roadster, but with I beams instead of whatever they used

To further illustrate, i've included the pivot points. Lines in blue are the wishbones, Red dots are lower arm pivots, and yellow the top "arm" (spring) pivots.
Now, i know the center yellow ones are not pivots, but they are about where the spring movement gets restricted, theoretically making it a pivot of sorts

 

Exactly.

 

To the ones that replied while i was writing
-Denis- I've seen pics of your car, that setup is really cool to say the very least
-Ekimneirbo- I understand the practical standpoint, but well, i'm a mechanical engineering student. I wouldn't say i could pull it off just by that, but i surely can go after the theory in which it stands on. (about the "maybe even dangerous" part, a scale prototype is a way to put the concept into test without risking anyone)
-Terry- I'll look into those

 

Build a torsion independent banjo rear axle...
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/the-stump-puller-otherwise-known-as-the-odd-rod.988007/

 

I can't remember what the car was called, so I can't find the thread, but someone here on the HAMB was helping restore some super aerodynamic custom car that had been built in the mid 30's and it had some kind of independent front suspension made out of early Ford I beam pieces. The whole car had a lot of experimental engineering in it, I want to say it was built at a college, I know it was red.

If someone knows the one I'm thinking of and could provide a link, that would be one very early example to study.

 

I've seen 4 or 5 Allards in the last few years. The one you pictured is missing the travel limiter straps. At least it looks like it is. Frankly I think unleashing brutal AMERICAN torque out da corner like that would be braggin rights from coast to coast. And all this worry about "traditional" is, well perhaps, academic. I'd go through a case of beer arguing with someone why my suspension, built entirely out of old back-in-the-day parts, was NOT. Why? Says who? What's more in the spirit of it than innovation with available tech of the time? Common? Oh hell no. Real? According to what, or whom? Sounds like an adventure with Sherman and Mr Peabody in the WAYBACK MACHINE to see who did what is in order.

BTW, they didn't call the Allard J2 and J2X "The Blacksmith's Revenge" for nuthin. Go for it. Beats the livin shit out of a Pinto/Mustang gig.

 

First off, It would be more traditional than 4 link front suspension

The jacking is easy to remedy.
Back then the general consensus was to "raise the roll centre" so there is no bodyroll. But lateral acceleration was still there, so it "Jacks the car" instead of leaning over.

That example [pictured] probably has the centre of gravity lower than the RC.


If the centre pivots were lowered 4"-6" the jacking would disappear. This would require a camber correction from lowering the center, or offset pivots welded to the axle.

For a hot rod bend up a tube axle with a deep drop in it ,to get the same desired effect. The rear wishbone pivots [there should really be 2] need to be lowered or there will be too much anti-dive [causing jacking under braking]

A low RC is desirable, it transfers lateral acceleration into "overturning moment", which is controlled by "Roll stiffness" [springs]
A low RC car has more weight planted on the outside tyres.

 

Do what you want, enjoy your process and have a go at it.
When your relaxing, do a search for long long threads on here discussing GPS speedometers, Bluetooth stereos , cup holders and suspension threads and transmissions that didn’t exist until way past the 1965 cut off. Think any of those discussions were by folks worried if their vehicle would be viewed as traditional?
Design it, build it, see what happens. Revise what needs revised and take pride in the effort.

 

@GraeffSS it is not Traditional per Hamb definition but experimental genius IS and clearly was right alongside the Revered Many times Argued Traditional Hotrods...

That is Don Blairs Roadster with that cardboard Nose and he chose a perfect face to share with the Racers back in the day...

So Threaded in The Hokey Ass Message Board Forum you'll satisfy the Traditional Crowd and find interest as the Hotrod evolution was quite Diverse granted using vintage or fabbed parts would be a prerequisite to following the guidelines...

 

Hot Rods are all about passion, creativity, innovation, and just using what you got in your shed or lot. So much of this is being swept under the rug of history because people want to take the quick and easy way out in these modern times.
Stay the course, and create .... there are No-Rules in a real Hot Rod mind.

 

Wasn't that a Stocker built like a Brick Shithouse...

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/the-thomas-rocket-car-restoration.1110330/

 

One thing is for sure. It will definitely be noticeable and will generate comments from one end of the spectrum to the other.