I am looking into building a belly tank racer. I know zilch about it but that has never stopped me before. Anyway I have a question for those here more knowlegable than I. In looking at these cars it would seem that most if not all have no suspension. Some have it on the front but most have none at all. Doesn't this make for a much rougher ride? Is it just to save weight? I have found a place that sells fibre glass tanks so got that part solved. Looking at buying an old Formula V VW powered racer and using the reversed transaxle and frame and either a modified VW flat four or a Corvair flat 6 if it will fit. Mike
before you get too involved order a current copy of the official S.C.T.A. rule book - scta-bni.org - to figure out what class you want to run in. suspension? no pot holes, etc to worry about. see pic for frontend & more in a legal Salt belly tank
Most of the cars I have seen have some type of front suspension. It may be very limited in travel but most have something. Rear suspension can get tricky because you don't have a lot of axial room to work with in most cases. With the lack of axial room you are forced to have a extremely short drive shaft or a direct couple. If you wanted to run a rear suspension the rear of the engine would have to follow the arc of the rear end to prevent binding. It can be done, but its adds to the complication. There is always the option for a different type of suspension all together, ie. independent or a jaguar style. Mike
Besides the rule book, a trip out to the salt to observe would really be a good education, too. No pot holes there, but it's not a pool table either. Suspension helps keep the tires connected to the earth (even the front). Traction is always an issue. East coast has more suspended cars than the west has. Have Fun. It's the Best racing there is.
A current rule book is an absolute necessity. Suspension isn't. Without a rule book don't even think about starting a build. The SCTA have their rules about how it should be built. Safety mostly but its their rules and you play by them. The salt is graded and is very smooth. My sidecar is rigid all round and is a smooth ride. Don't build with weight saving in mind. As has been said, weight at Bonneville is your friend.
One of the most successful tanks and most respected was the Markly's 260. It had a swing axle rear, I believe, made of mostly early Ford parts. Kenze and Leslie seem to have been first with this set up. It is what is on my roadster. With cross torsion bars the rear is very clean. Pinion is fixed. Wheels move. The front of my roadster also has inboard torsion bars to keep junk out of the breeze. A very proud member of the Rod Riders.
This is a picture of what I was trying to discribe just above. Mine uses Lincoln torque tube ende and u joints attached to the Ford bells and stub axles. The axle housings, brakes and half shafts are "56 Olds,obile parts.Has been working fine for 45 years or so.
I am pretty sure Rich meant the pictures I uploaded. What was used for a universal joint at the pivot point? I am assuming that the differential was connected to the universal joint using a splined pin?
fordrat. You are correct on all counts. The u joints are from per '49 Lincoln transmission output shaft to drive shaft as are the external ball connectors. Standard Ford parts in the old days. maybe not as easy to get today.
My Tank has a solid rear and sprung front. I should know how it works in a few weeks. The Kelly & Hall Lakester was the same. When I drove it the only time I noticed the solid suspension was on the return roads. Wayno
That's good to know. I will have to keep my eye out for the right pieces to the puzzle. I chose to run suspension up front and solid mount the rear.
This might give you some ideas, it`s what my suspension looks like. It drives even better than I thought it would. http://youtu.be/ARphmRWmB3I
The Jalopy Journal
