Again, still workin in my '32 frame. I'm asking myself what's the big difference between the rear end stabilizer bars in the pics. The obvius is that the first one have more than one pivot bar (don't know if it's the right therm) That link the axle to the frame center. But assuming both are correct the second one (Bass) looks like it miss one stabilizer bar, Maybe because of the different linkage method? There is a way to use henry bars and place less stabilizer round "bad looking" "less traditional" stupid tubes?? Thx Luca
On the Henry look...examine a 1942-8 bar. They were used fornt and rear, and I suspect some combination of that harware will allow you to put a Ford bar into the '32. The odd one you show is commonly called a "Watt's linkage", common on circle track cars. It is designed to eliminate the slight side thrust of the traditional panhard/sway bar as in first picture.
Bruce, unless I'm blind, neither of those pictures have a Watts linkage. Both have panhard bars, just different lengths. The first picture is using split Bones and has a third link to keep them from bending. Otherwise the leverage of being mounted only at the bottom of the axle would cause them to fold like a pretzel. The second picture is using Ladder bars, and they are designed not to need any additional support as they already mount above and below the axle tube.
I'm with you Don. Panhards on both frames. The only difference is one attaches at the left side of the frame (Bass' frame), and the other attaches at the right side of the frame.
The left picture is a coil over sprung axle laterally located via a panard rod application. Lower control rods seem to be more traditional 1935/36 radius rods and a torque arm going to the front that triangulates brake and wheel torque. Works fine except the torque arm should be on the right hand side of the housing for max efficiency. Right picture is a transverse spring style application where the spring locates the lateral movement of the axle, no panard rod necessary if you oppose tension spring. Radius style rods triangulated locate housing fore/aft. In either case the panard rods run a liitle to high.
The Panhard bars are there to stop the axle moving laterally as the shackles lean over under cornering loads. The longer the panhard bar, the longer the arc it will travel through as the axle moves up and down as the car goes over a bump. Don hit the nail on the head about the split bones plus third link vs the ladder bars. Both of these systems are there to locate the axle front-to-back (or longitudinally). Again, longer is better so they impart less torsion on the rear axle in roll and less pinion angle change in bounce. Apart from that, they're both from teh same basic family of rear suspension systems. Cheers.
Agreed - both of those are inducing a High Roll center which can make the car have a bit of an oversteer on initial turn in, but it will lessen body roll.
I just glanced at the smll pic and assumed the bottom of the watts...good lord, that is a short bar! Longer is better, and that's crazy!
What? How's this work? A panhard needs to be mounted low to prevent oversteer? Stock '48 Fords had them mounted below the spring, so is this how we should build ours?
It works just fine. In fact, it's no shorter than the typical panhard bar that's used when running a quick change. (Obviously in this case it's attached to a 9" Ford.) I do prefer a longer panhard bar when possible, but anyone that has ridden in my coupe will attest to the fact that it handles corners very well. No offense, but in my estimation, real world driving experience is preferable to internet speculation in almost every instance. The reason Ford added a panhard bar to their '41-up passenger cars is that they changed the spring and shackle angle, making the shackles closer to perpendicular with the axle. This was intended to soften the ride a bit, and they then needed a panhard bar to stop lateral movement, or the axle swinging back and forth on the shackles. Running the shackles at an angle closer to 20-30 degrees from axle centerline may keep this lateral movement from taking place, but there actually is some benefit from running the shackle angle a little looser and working in a panhard bar for the same reason Ford did it. The length of the panhard bar for most buggy sprung hot rods is not too critical because of the lack of suspension travel. Up and down placement is more important because of the effect on roll center, as has already been stated. But honestly, you won't notice a whole lot of difference from mounting it a little higher or lower in normal driving situations.
A good idea when designing things is to find a go by. I have a 60 Chev. and that is my go by. The link is long and mounted low. A high mounted bar introduces some side to side jarring when one wheel moves. A long bar is more stable. The pictured bars are way high and might require floor bumps for clearance.
Andy, forgive me for saying so...but '60 Chevrolets aren't known for their cornering prowess. My panhard bar fits underneath the factory Model A trunk floor/rumble seat riser...which has been slightly relocated for the kick-up in the '32 frame.
Andy, I like your idea of finding a set-up that works well and copying it in a way that suits your car. That's good advice.
"but '60 Chevrolets aren't known for their cornering prowess..." Understatement there! Decent early Fords have far better manners with much better control of sway and roll, including Fords with and without sway and roll bars. Most '50's and '60's cars, with GM at the extreme, had LOTS of roll, usually plentiful sway in rear, and huge understeer. Everything was sacrificed to the marshmallow ride, and apparently the public liked that...
I rode in a stock '65 Goat a couple of years back. Even there Bruce, like a marshmallow, just a surprise that's all. Coke-bottle, if you took the second setup shown, removed the panhard bar, and had the shackles at ~ 45 degrees when loaded, you would not see a great deal of side-sway/body roll. Especially in a light coupe or roadster.
Good lord. Bruce and Bass, Have given some great advice here. DICK SPADARO knows his stuff too. Building working HotRod suspensions isn't rocket sience...
Well, Ford got it right, shackle design pretty well obviated the need for bars on stockers '28-41, and they put on anti-sway when the went to essentially dropped shackles for the last generation early Fords. On hotrods there may be greater need for panhards on the earlies because of all the possibilities: Worn springs or de-arching, reversed eyes, etc. that might move spring length out of the proper range, and of course no one really knows ride height or spring arch until the car is finished and carrying its own weight...
Agreed, and the lower Ford bars are acting like columns in compression and depending upon the mount type, bending. The new upper arm in tension. Watts link diagram is from another thread.
That tube is just the shock crossmember. The spring is held in the stock Ford crossmember that's cut off by the bottom edge of the pic.
The Jalopy Journal
