Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical Can you "calculate" stance?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by gnichols, Jan 23, 2017.

  1. gnichols
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 10,798

    gnichols
    Member
    from Tampa, FL

    In the just wondering department... anyone ever try to quantify the "stance" (ie rake or slope of the chassis) of a car said to have great stance? For the most part, I think it's probably too subjective considering all the other variables - ride heights, tire sizes, wheel bases, car types, etc., but in the most basic sense, does anyone out there actually know what the slope of the chassis is on a car they feel has perfect stance?

    For example, I've been using 25" tall front and 29" tall rear tires for my model A plans, which is a good start for rubber rake, me thinks. So, that's about 4" difference in their respective heights, and divided in half that gives about a 2" difference in axle heights (the rubber rake). Starting with a level chassis, and spread out over 106" of model A wheel base, that 2" difference is only around a 1.88 percent grade or 1.08 percent slope to the chassis. Doesn't seem like a lot, eh? One teeny, tiny degree? But I've seen some cars with the same approximate rubber rake and that look pretty good.

    Ideas? Suggestions? Gary
     
  2. arkiehotrods
    Joined: Mar 9, 2006
    Posts: 5,940

    arkiehotrods
    Member

    I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it! ;)
     
    jvpolvere1 likes this.
  3. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,879

    squirrel
    Member

    the formula you came up with, is what I immediately thought of when I first read the subject line.

    Of course you need to draw a few cars with that formula, and see how they look

    and you might also try using an angle number or neat looking rake that matches the body line, to pick tire sizes.
     
  4. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 46,879

    squirrel
    Member

    For those who do visual things and not numbers, imagine a "vanishing point" a ways in front of the car, the lines of the body and frame and tops of the tires will all meet at the same vanishing point. The vanishing point will probably be on the road surface, too.
     
    Just Gary likes this.

  5. 19Fordy
    Joined: May 17, 2003
    Posts: 6,925

    19Fordy
    Member

    40 ford side view0001 (Small).jpg
    Best thing is to draw it all out (to scale) on a piece of paper.
    Even easier if you have access to AutoCad.
    Or, remove the tires and use jackstands and wood blocks under the suspension
    to get the look you like. Then take measurements from center of spindles and
    rear axle to figure out tire size.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  6. Mr48chev
    Joined: Dec 28, 2007
    Posts: 27,536

    Mr48chev
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Yuppers, even though I think you are on the right track it is still a stand back and look and adjust as needed thing. The math work might speed things up though.

    The other thing is saving photos and info on cars or trucks like your that have "the stance" such as axle drop, springs, tire and wheel size for future reference as you run across cars that look the way you want.
     
    olscrounger likes this.
  7. gnichols
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 10,798

    gnichols
    Member
    from Tampa, FL

    The only thing I've considered doing, but of course haven't, is taking profile shots of cars and actually laying down level lines to compare the angle of the frame with the ground or horizon. Most of the cool cars must have more than that silly 1 degree rake I was thinking about, eh? Gary
     
  8. henryj1951
    Joined: Sep 23, 2012
    Posts: 2,304

    henryj1951
    Member
    from USA

    Every car er truck el be DIFFERENT
     
    falcongeorge likes this.
  9. Jmountainjr
    Joined: Dec 29, 2006
    Posts: 1,222

    Jmountainjr
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Only considering rubber rake in your stance assumes that the front and rear suspension heights are equal. You can easily get a 2-3 degree frame rake and only have your 1 degree rubber rake.
     
    32Stoker likes this.
  10. tubman
    Joined: May 16, 2007
    Posts: 5,222

    tubman
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I don't think you can. I am building a "T" touring. A couple of years ago, I got it to "roller status" and moved it out of my shop to get a good look at it. It didn't look right to me. I took some profile shots and posted them here. Other than "it's sitting too high", nobody could add much. I remarked that trying to quantify stance was probably not possible, since it's more art than science and nobody disagreed with me.

    Here's the shot :

    Bucket 005.JPG

    Since this was taken, I've redone the front and rear suspensions to lower the whole thing about 4 inches and pivot the rear suspension directly under the front u-joint, but I still think I'm going to have to tweak it after it's complete and loaded.
     
  11. gnichols
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 10,798

    gnichols
    Member
    from Tampa, FL

    Sort of... I was using the respective front and rear axle heights as a reference point to determine a base rake. 2" higher at the back, starting with a level car and all 4 tires the same, just gives a very, very subtle rake / slope at 1 degree. But I suspect most cars with "stance" have more rake than that - regardless of axle height / tire diameters - and the best way I figure to measure it is at the top of the frame rails, under the body. So, got a car with a "perfect" stance? Then go out and put a degree meter on it and let us know what the magic number is!!! Gary
     
  12. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 7,151

    jimmy six
    Member

    It's rake not Stan..C. E. Whoever he is.
     
  13. Yep. For my 34, I knew I was going with 7.00x16 rear tires. I remember taking the front tires off, and spending a few hours in the driveway, raising and lowering the front with a jack stand to figure out what combination of tire and drop axle I needed for the stance I liked.
     
  14. scrap metal 48
    Joined: Sep 6, 2009
    Posts: 6,072

    scrap metal 48
    Member

  15. DDDenny
    Joined: Feb 6, 2015
    Posts: 13,791

    DDDenny
    Member
    from oregon

    Yep
    If there is a formula why do so many get it wrong!
     
    scrap metal 48 and olscrounger like this.
  16. Jibs
    Joined: May 19, 2006
    Posts: 1,525

    Jibs
    Member

    No formula, just trial & error. You'll know it when you see it.
     
    olscrounger likes this.
  17. What you "see" when you "see it" is 4* in the frame with the tire's rubber rake.
    That's the classic hot rod rake.

    The next is ride height or the relationship of lowest visual body line intersection of the wheels center line.

    Also what looks good is a dead level frame or lowest body line with a big and little combo. 2 ways to set that up.
    Pivotal around the rear tire with front end high (early drag car)or rear wheel arches raised/body lowered. Requires rear frame modifications.
     
    Just Gary likes this.
  18. There's too much air under the body.
    There's some 4x4 trucks that don't have that much ground clearance, it's as long and tall as a crew cab 4x4.
    The lowest body line hits the top 1/3 rd of the tire. Finished side pipe exhaust might camouflage some of that.
    Side aprons woul help, a 32 frame 6"
    Below the body would help, a deep z in the rear would help.

    Mock up some side aprons that faux a 32 frame. Cardboard and take a pic.
    image.jpeg image.jpeg
     
  19. tubman
    Joined: May 16, 2007
    Posts: 5,222

    tubman
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    You must not have seen the comments under the picture. One of the things I determined is with a car like this, the frame rails can' t be higher than the center of the wheels. I have already corrected this. As to the length, well, this is a re-construction of a 1966 T-Bucket build that was so cramped that I decided this time there would be room for my legs, the gas tank and battery, some luggage, and a couple of friends. Also, a steering wheel with a proper angle that was not right in my chest. Looking at the picture, I may have overdone it this time, but I'll live with the look for the extra comfort and convenience.
     
  20. Marty Strode
    Joined: Apr 28, 2011
    Posts: 5,151

    Marty Strode
    Member

    Mine sat a little lower to the ground. IMG_0910.JPG
     
  21. torana
    Joined: Mar 9, 2007
    Posts: 25

    torana
    Member

    yep, 3 degrees, works for me
     
  22. tubman
    Joined: May 16, 2007
    Posts: 5,222

    tubman
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    On Marty's car, the centerline of the frame rail looks just about the same as the centerline of the front wheel. This is what I was talking about earlier.
     
  23. gnichols
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 10,798

    gnichols
    Member
    from Tampa, FL

    I don't need a lot of rake myself, as larger rear wheels are already making things look racy. A lot of older Indy cars, like the roadsters, and other open wheel oval racers (sprints, midgets, silver crown) look great, too, yet their chassis are almost nearly level (but super low because they need to be and aren't drivers on public roads). A sloping nose does help, too. Gary
     
  24. Calculating stance? Absolutely!!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

    Also good for any problems requiring proportion ratio adjustment. Within there are the answers to many questions about why sometimes things look right or look wrong.
     
    Blues4U likes this.
  25. 340HilbornDuster
    Joined: Nov 14, 2011
    Posts: 1,911

    340HilbornDuster
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

  26. When I set up my roadster I did it just like I've always done it , get a roller , set the body on and stand back. After a few adjustments like notching the frame in front to allow for spring clearance and a few turns on the coil-overs I got it to where I was happy with it. I've always thought it was more about how it looks rather than how it calculates out , but I've never been very good with numbers , degrees , angles etc. Like Tin Cup said " Grip it and Rip it !! " 001310.jpg fall hot rod pics 022.jpg P2220223.JPG
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.