For you engineering types out there... would you believe 28° degrees of rotational movement (as a provision to a rear trailing arm connection point) would support a general threshold (possibility) of rear axle movement. This 28° of rotational free movement would be available in all directions in tandem with full range of movement in a primary arc (up and down.
From the standpoint of the above conversations. How did you provide for movement beyond the typical up and down....or did you just allow the i beam to twist....allowing for that spectrum of movement outside the typical up and down.
I have a set under a 40 Ford coupe. There when I bought the car. There is also a panhard bar of sorts made from what appears to be steering linkage. The system works well with the orginal spring. Years ago I had an oval track car with a set as well. They were used in NASCAR before builders began fabricating there own components. The only thing I see as a problem is that the arms hinder exhaust pipe routing on my 40.
Great...my favorite type of rear suspension. Have done several over the years. Gonna put them under my 54 f100 next
These arms were used in 60-72 C-10 pickups, and are now being reproduced by Dynacorn and CCP. I contacted them both, and could not get thickness specs or any construction details from them. I am going to use this set-up on my 40 Buick Coupe build, and wound up buying a used OEM set. They are too long for this car and I had to shorten them 3". Tin Works also makes a variation of this design that looks good, and were willing to make them in the length I needed.
Back in the day we used them in our late model stock cars. Smokey Unick had a book out with direction on how to set these up. They did work good with the right spring setup.
The beam NEEDS to twist to work properly. Otherwise, everything is in a bind. While the suspension will work...sorta...it's not working well. This is my 54 Studebaker Conestoga (station wagon). Mike
The Jalopy Journal
