Tell me why this wont work
07-10-2012, 04:31 PM
#21
Is that not the point of preloading, to reduce or eliminate shock loading? I fail to see an issue because you could make that same argument about any bolt that sees cyclic loading...
To be clear, you are talking about my idea of stacking a second plate on top of the nuts that are already there? Why not just weld a bracket on to the plate thats already there? Or is that what you meant? If so, how is it not the same thing as stacking a plate on top in terms of bolt shear?
I see what you mean about putting it on backwards...but I dont think I have room for a bar right there....time to measure again.
To be clear, you are talking about my idea of stacking a second plate on top of the nuts that are already there? Why not just weld a bracket on to the plate thats already there? Or is that what you meant? If so, how is it not the same thing as stacking a plate on top in terms of bolt shear?
I see what you mean about putting it on backwards...but I dont think I have room for a bar right there....time to measure again.
If you stack a plate its like building a house on a foundation and building a house on stilts. Which one is going to show more signs of stress in 20 years???
My argument is that your causing excessive binding with your design as apposed to controlled movement with a design like the assasin set up.
07-10-2012, 04:33 PM
#22
If you are running 4wd and strap the front end the lifting forces will push the rear axle down which will increase bite instead of lifting the front end. Real race cars dont squat, when a car squats is takes away the downward force thats applied to the tires. you want the rear to lift slightly to apply more force on the tires. If an axle over bar worked it would be used already. like everybody has said yes your design will work with axle wrap but thats it.
07-10-2012, 04:54 PM
#23
Yea, youre right, it will bind when its preloaded and the suspension compresses. Whplash is 100% correct it seems.
Back to the drawing board...I think I will end up with a design very similiar to the assassin one...I would still like to keep my ubolts how they are though, so mounting the bracket on the bottom is going to be interesting.
Too bad no one makes a thicker piece that resembles the factory lower ubolt bracket thing...
Back to the drawing board...I think I will end up with a design very similiar to the assassin one...I would still like to keep my ubolts how they are though, so mounting the bracket on the bottom is going to be interesting.
Too bad no one makes a thicker piece that resembles the factory lower ubolt bracket thing...
07-10-2012, 05:28 PM
#24
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Arizona Bay
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it'll prevent the leaf from wrapping up, but I'm not sure if it'll plant the rear any. That all depends on the mounting points on the upper link. It is entirely possible to have the same IC as caltracs though. I just think that without preloading it quite a bit it won't do much. The pivot mounting point and the point where it pushes down on the leaf are attached to the leaf itself. The caltracs, use the leaf bolt i.e. a rigid mount with respect to the frame. This allows the lower link to be fixed with repect to the frame and front leaf mount...and maintain the desired IC. The Assassin bars push against the front leaf mount as well. Without using the front mount or something on the frame...hmmm...you will get some binding.
Like someone stated the upper link will be in tension, but that is not better than compression. Buckling loads are much higher when compared to an equivalent load in tension for a rod end. The rod ends and your welds for the tube adapters will be undergoing tension while accelerating. Not a deal breaker, but just be aware of that when sizing the rod ends and welding everything up.
FWIW, there have been similar ideas to yours in the past. The first one that comes to mind is the leaf-link suspension.
This was used in the pro-stock days where a stock style suspension had to be used. It worked, and didn't cause any binding. At least not on track only cars.
The other was made by Metco for the Ford Lightning. They made an upper and lower version, and IIRC the lowers were/are more popular. I don't know if they worked better or what.
Like someone stated the upper link will be in tension, but that is not better than compression. Buckling loads are much higher when compared to an equivalent load in tension for a rod end. The rod ends and your welds for the tube adapters will be undergoing tension while accelerating. Not a deal breaker, but just be aware of that when sizing the rod ends and welding everything up.
FWIW, there have been similar ideas to yours in the past. The first one that comes to mind is the leaf-link suspension.
This was used in the pro-stock days where a stock style suspension had to be used. It worked, and didn't cause any binding. At least not on track only cars.
The other was made by Metco for the Ford Lightning. They made an upper and lower version, and IIRC the lowers were/are more popular. I don't know if they worked better or what.
07-12-2012, 09:08 AM
#25
11 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wouldn't generate any lifting force, and any mechanical force the was created would put tension on the top of the spring. What your looking at is more of a stabilizer for the rear end on a lifted truck with big bowed rear springs. Caltrac's transfer the force that trying to create axle wrap into a lifting force that is turned in to weight transfer. Buy going under the axle and lifting all the way forward at the frame you will get weight transfer that the bar set-up drawn won't give you. A set of long bars would work better and cost even less then what your looking at there.
07-12-2012, 09:27 AM
#26
think about how much force is involved back there. i have a feeling that the u-bolts are going to slide up and down the leaf pack when the traction bars start pushing things around. hell, i've seen spring clamps move several times and they don't see anywhere near the amount of force that the traction bar setup would generate. the spring eye is the best location IMO.
07-12-2012, 12:06 PM
#27
It wouldn't generate any lifting force, and any mechanical force the was created would put tension on the top of the spring. What your looking at is more of a stabilizer for the rear end on a lifted truck with big bowed rear springs. Caltrac's transfer the force that trying to create axle wrap into a lifting force that is turned in to weight transfer. Buy going under the axle and lifting all the way forward at the frame you will get weight transfer that the bar set-up drawn won't give you. A set of long bars would work better and cost even less then what your looking at there.
Well said!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Stainless Works
TrailBlazer SS
6
04-10-2016 04:34 PM
atxlt
Tuning, Diagnostics, Electronics, and Wiring
1
07-20-2015 11:06 PM
Nimoryan
GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion
0
07-05-2015 03:50 PM
