Thread: Really need help with front radius rods.....

Tweet

If you look at the picture I have attached you can see the radius rod is not paralell with the frame. Is that a problem? Should I move my hole in the frame up to fix it? Anyone have any ideas why it's like that and what I should do to correct it?

It would have been easier to cut front off and move frame down. I know I have NEVER seen anything like that.

You've got to raise the mount point up, ain't gonna work like that at all.

Your talking about where the rod bolts to frame?

I'm afraid if I would remove that kickup and run the frame straight out I'll be setting way too high.

OK-----like i said before--cut it off around the fire wall area--your frame rails are too low--on my buildsI have a fixture that I use so I can mock up the top edge of framerails at c/l of crankshaft--this fixture is made up of three pieces of 6 inch channel iron where the middle piece is welded back to back with the ends---the ends are referance for frame rail tops and middle just goes under bare engine block with out crankshaft or main caps---
This seems to work pretty good ---it will bring up your frame rails and then your wish bones will be right.

Bearcamp, take a look at Speedway's T-Bucket frames T Bucket Frame - Speedway Motors, America's Oldest Speed Shop The low stance is achieved by the kickup in the back and the spring mount in the front and the drop in the axle. Not saying buy a new frame, but like Jerry says, that front "Z" needs some serious attention.

Ok I don't like the way the frame looks.................. but it Ain't my ride. With that said, the radius rods do NOT need to be parallel with the frame rails. Your main concern will be having the proper ammout of caster in the front axle 4 to 7 degrees. That is the king pins angled with top of king pin angled towards rear of car 4 to 7 degrees. Your front spring perch should have a similar angle, so the spring will not bind when you set the correct caster. As long as you have the correct caster your present setup should work fine.

Originally Posted by dlotraf33

Ok I don't like the way the frame looks.................. but it Ain't my ride. With that said, the radius rods do NOT need to be parallel with the frame rails. Your main concern will be having the proper ammout of caster in the front axle 4 to 7 degrees. That is the king pins angled with top of king pin angled towards rear of car 4 to 7 degrees. Your front spring perch should have a similar angle, so the spring will not bind when you set the correct caster. As long as you have the correct caster your present setup should work fine.

The problem I see is that with unequal links on the top & bottom bar of the radius rods they will describe different arcs as the suspension moves, which is going to tend to shift the caster more than having them equal length. I'd be concerned with that contributing to some potential squirrely handling. As much as the bad geometry, they just look wrong to my eye. That said, like was said above, "...it ain't my ride."

Roger he has hairpins, I think you are talking about 4 links--
In suspension issues(other than what it looks like) should be referanced to the ground(mother earth)
If the links are parallel to the groung it doesn't matter what the frame looks like--If you look at the 32 ford pics in my gallery of the header build pics you can see where the block/top of frame is--keep in mind that that is a mock up block and there is no oil pan on it so its easy to see the height of engine(crank centerline) to the frame rails, which are basicly parallel to ground---and yes that one is a ifs , non an I beam axle but engine height to frame is what I'm referring to---

This subject car WILL have frame and suspension pieces bottoming out on ground as its laid out

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

Roger he has hairpins, I think you are talking about 4 links--
In suspension issues(other than what it looks like) should be referanced to the ground(mother earth)
If the links are parallel to the groung it doesn't matter what the frame looks like--If you look at the 32 ford pics in my gallery of the header build pics you can see where the block/top of frame is--keep in mind that that is a mock up block and there is no oil pan on it so its easy to see the height of engine(crank centerline) to the frame rails, which are basicly parallel to ground---and yes that one is a ifs , non an I beam axle but engine height to frame is what I'm referring to---

This subject car WILL have frame and suspension pieces bottoming out on ground as its laid out

Jerry,
Yeah, I recognize the hairpins, but they're sitting at maybe 30" top, 28" bottom which will rotate around the fixed mount on the frame describing different arcs. As the axle goes up in compression it will tend to reduce caster a bit (bottom travels shorter arc), and when it rebounds down through the static point it will increase caster. Granted the change is not going to be huge, and I understand that caster changes a little with equal length bars on the hairpins, but with equal lengths it tends to increase caster on spring compression and decrease on rebound. Seems to me this setup will create an opposite situation unless my mental math is bad....

And I think you're right about bottoming out.

By looking at the length of the motor mounts, it's obvious the front of the frame is way to low, as Jerry said. Any kind of 'band-aid' fix is going to leave a front end with terrible geometry problems and a car that will bottom out-with potentially lethal results!

Jerry's right, only way to salvage the thing is to get the frame rails at a height equal to the crankshaft centerline, then start on where the front end should be mounted.

Maybe not what you wanted to hear, Bearcamp. But it's the only way to salvage a very poorly designed chassis.....

I looked back at early posts looking for a pic of whole vehicle to get a VIEW that entailed the whole side picture--IF, this is cut off at the forewall area and rerouted the frame rails, they could also be narrowed as the go forward-- could be a very good looking vehicle---

Roger----with hairpins-----the axle does not rotate----it swivels up and down as a unit-- the hairpin is and works as a single solid piece,---
With hairpins, there is quite a bit of binding with the travel either end of the axle because the original suspension design was a triangular arrangement this didn't occur but splitting the wishbone and moving the arms out to lower the cars caused a severe binding---the use of surplas aircraft heims helped some(at least the quit breaking off the mounts)

The use of parallel 4 bars helped this but didn't solve it.

Remember that as a person looks at suspension , you have to keep in mind that the wheel does not go up and down , but the vehicle does--

with that being said----camber doesn't change on a beam axle---

.?????????

.

Right now my camber is a 7 to 8 degrees at both wheels and the tires that are going on it are 2 1/4" taller so ground clearance will be greater than what it looks. Hey,,,,,,when I first started this project I came to you guys for help and most said to replace the whole front axle so that's what I did. So it's all of you guiding me in the right direction cause without the info from here, I don't think I could figure it out.