"They" say you can't do that.

I think part of it might be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of tradition.

Tradition is at bottom a way to disseminate knowledge, by passing it down from generation to generation. Where it works best, each generation adds the benefit of its own experience, innovations that have proved genuinely beneficial; and thus the quality of knowledge improves with each passing-down. One often finds an evolutionary, cumulative improvement in traditional know-how.

But the nature of traditional knowledge is empirical. It happens in practical experience of things for which articulated theory is not necessary, and therefore manifests in rules-of-thumb rather than exhaustive explanations. Expressed differently, it proceeds not from first principles but from current practice.

Traditional rules-of-thumb are always subject to conditions that might not be apparent except when viewed from a rational/theoretical rather than an empirical/traditional perspective. I think that this is the source of a lot of "it can't be done": the failure to understand the conditions under which a rule-of-thumb holds true.

The traditional/empirical and theoretical/rational views are often thought to be antithetical to one another, but they really should converge. It is incumbent on the theoretical/rational view to be self-critical and always recognise that it needs to be rethought wherever it fails to coincide with the traditional/empirical view, as the latter is not equipped to do so. When theory is well thought out it allows us to understand why traditional know-how works.

But it will also tell us the conditions under which traditional know-how does not work. For instance, the effectiveness of a spring or damper depends on its angle from the vertical - but only as long as there is not a lever arm involved, whose own angularity might throw the rule-of-thumb out entirely.

Too often those endowed with a wealth of experience will discount the theory entirely - as if theory were something fundamentally at odds with practice - and then slam a proposal for contradicting their experience in a situation that the theory will reveal to be inapplicable to their experience.

Sometimes people just don't listen, or read. Sometimes they read something into what someone says without registering some crucial detail. The result is a sort of straw man by accident, i.e. panning an idea crucially different to the one proposed under the guise of the one proposed, and being too thick-skulled to have the error pointed out.

 

I don't say stuff "can't be done", but not every idea or method is the best (OR safe).

When it gets to the point that other motorists on the roads are being endangered by your half-assed "engineering", that is when I take issue with it...

 

Maybe "cant" isnt the right word, but I can think of many shouldn'ts and Ive been on both sides of them too.

 

Who the hell are "THEY" any way? "They" seem to do and say a lot of shit.

 

Note to Ned Ludd...........as usual, I enjoyed your thoughtful comments..

Ray

 

“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He
comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only
weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man had no
claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of
muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant,
he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs
weapons,and to make weapons - a process of
thought. From this simplest necessity to the
highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the
skyscraper, everything we are and we have comes
from a single attribute of man -the function of his
reasoning mind.”

-Ayn Rand

 

This thread belongs on Face Book.

 

This whole thread should be on the next Dr. Phil show
Peace be with you

 

Can't be done. No cats

 

Running a spool on the street is easy to set up to handle correctly. I have used them on all my road-race cars [ because they are predictable ]
A spool will aggravate an understeering car but it isn’t the cause of understeer.
Understeer is a product of “roll couple” [ the relationship between front roll stiffness and rear roll stiffness ]

Generally the easiest way to do this is to stiffen the rear roll stiffness by either an anti-roll bar or stiffer rear springs, or soften the front
If your car has no forward bite, use soft rear springs for weight transfer and a stiff ARB.

If you do a bit of high speed driving ,fit a pair of 2-way adjustable shocks on the rear and stiffen the rebound and soften the jounce.
This helps the car squat down on corner exit but also unloads the inside rear tyre on corner entry

The most difficult part of running a locked rear is convincing the “Road Nazis”: that you actually know what you're doing [ over here they order your car off the road ]

mounting the springs off the bones behind the axle alters the motion ratio [ softens the front ] which actually improves the ride when the car is lightened, and also reduces understeer

 

That's good point that I never thought of. Thanks for the compliment.

 

Agreed!

Nice, maybe that's why the wife puts up will all the noise and exhaust fumes! But only there's no vibration.

You do have one hell of a way with words.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have someone standing right in front of you telling it can't work. You have the proof right there and they'll still argue with you because that's what they heard.

That's all you can do is post your experience if the poster uses the information or not so be it.

Wow Ned that's pretty deep shit!

I'm not sure if your half-assed "engineering" comment was directed at me. I would think you would of used "someone" instead of "your" if it wasn't. If you were referring to me I find that statement laughable. You can ask anyone that knows me, I'm super anal about doing things the right way. Which includes to the best of my knowledge to be engineered and built safe. And most of the time I've been accused of overbuilding and engineering the stuff I build.

But I'm not an Engineer or certified welder so maybe I shouldn't build hot rods and take up knitting.

BTW My wife, 2 year old and 5 year old ride in my truck all the time. I would never put my family in anything I thought wasn't safest it could be for an 80 year old homebuilt car.

Also, if this was directed at me can you tell me which part you saw or think is half-assed engineering? I'd be glad to discuss it. Maybe there is something I don't realize is half-assed "engineered". And I would change it if it was. If it wasn't directed at me then disregard my entire post.

I can agree with this.

Isn't this a discussion about hot rods? I thought that's what this place was for. Besides I didn't post one picture of what I had for dinner.

What he said.

 

many years ago i was building a dune buggy. It had a saturn motor that was fuel injected and everyone was telling me that i needed a fuel return at the top of the tank. Well i had just bought and mounted the thing and i couldnt tig weld, in fact i had only just heard of it, sorta. Well i had just taken a intro to physics class and decided that i could just put a t at the bottom of the tank and run the return back to that. Everybody told me i couldnt do that. The place that was to hook up and tune the motor tried to turn it away saying it wouldnt work. I demanded that they should just try it first. You know what it worked. It worked flying through the dunes too. Never had a problem with that. I dont know why people even do it a different way.

 

Ah, "they" can whine and moan all day. In the end, you have a killer truck with all of the "can't work" parts. For what it is to them, your truck runs on high octane unicorn blood.

 

whew, elephant in the forum. As a broke college kid, all I can currently afford to own is off topic stuff that I come by for cheap, but I am all about the craftsmanship and engineering so I joined in the fun anyway. One of the only things I posted on was a thread a guy started asking about a panhard bar that he fabbed. As an engineering student, I knew the pros and cons of his particular design. However as a fan of design-it-yourselfness, I put in a vote of confidence and encouraged the guy to give it a try. Another member went out of his way and posted a "you shouldn't do that" in reference to my post, basically saying yeah it would work but its not what comes out of a race shop or oem. Sorry for the story, but for all the "tradition" and similar mumbo jumbo, I have seen so many posts like that one where creativity is shut down. I dig what people design on their own because that is what hot rodding is, building stuff. I just wish the people without the guts to try, (and before i get a smart ass post back, yes i mean try SAFELY) would stay out of the way of real creativity.

 

The can't do that guys are funny. I have even put Chevy stuff together that Chevy dealership shops said couldn't be done. Course, I was too young to know better then and working on submarines, where I found I had to do what needed to be done at sea. There ain't no shop or parts warehouse down there. I know when I get my modified 302 on the road and my Z-28 emblem on the front of the hood I'm gonna get some static. Tuff, it is (was) a REAL a '69 302 Z-28, I just tweaked her here and there. From '69 on they are all pretenders with a Z badge ! ! ! Particularly weird are the years Z-28s came in TWO different cubic inch displacements. Hooray for the FIRST GEN - the REAL Zs.

 

WELL SAID now I will have that beer

 

If I spend all my money on rebuilding a 325 hemi, cobbling together a 31 a truck body(chopped and channelled), Paint it with a brush, build a frame, drop the axle, hang a quick change,use my chrome reverses, can I run a 700R4 and radials till I recover financially?

 

Maybe a dumb questions but I'm gonna ask anyways.. What's the benefit of solid motor mounts?
And I just wanna make sure I'm understanding number 5 correctly. You're talking about mounting the front spring to the wishbones, no? I didn't realize "they" said that was a no no, that's how I set mine up.. axle in the front with the spring mounted to the sides of the split wishbones behind it.