traction bars compared...READ
01-24-2008, 03:33 PM
#11
Baltimore Whore
iTrader: (95)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a van DOWN BY THE RIVER
Posts: 16,820
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps I did jump the gun a bit. I couldn't read the whole thing. I didn't have the time and it was pissing me off with all the arguments.
I think we're on the same page about the rear axle trying to drive threw the truck, as well as rotating itself. Which ever force is greater will happen. If its just leaf springs they are strong enough to enable the rear axle to push the truck forward, but not quite strong enough to eliminate any axle rotation. When you add a lower link, both forces are going to be applied. You will get some lift from a long bar. Maybe later tonight if I get some time I'll read their whole thread.
I think we're on the same page about the rear axle trying to drive threw the truck, as well as rotating itself. Which ever force is greater will happen. If its just leaf springs they are strong enough to enable the rear axle to push the truck forward, but not quite strong enough to eliminate any axle rotation. When you add a lower link, both forces are going to be applied. You will get some lift from a long bar. Maybe later tonight if I get some time I'll read their whole thread.
John
01-24-2008, 03:53 PM
#12
Perhaps I did jump the gun a bit. I couldn't read the whole thing. I didn't have the time and it was pissing me off with all the arguments.
I think we're on the same page about the rear axle trying to drive threw the truck, as well as rotating itself. Which ever force is greater will happen. If its just leaf springs they are strong enough to enable the rear axle to push the truck forward, but not quite strong enough to eliminate any axle rotation. When you add a lower link, both forces are going to be applied. You will get some lift from a long bar. Maybe later tonight if I get some time I'll read their whole thread.
I think we're on the same page about the rear axle trying to drive threw the truck, as well as rotating itself. Which ever force is greater will happen. If its just leaf springs they are strong enough to enable the rear axle to push the truck forward, but not quite strong enough to eliminate any axle rotation. When you add a lower link, both forces are going to be applied. You will get some lift from a long bar. Maybe later tonight if I get some time I'll read their whole thread.
travis at calvert racing (cal-tracks) told me that the type of shock that works best with his setup is one that is easy to compress, and hard to pull back out. that tells me that he wants the rear end squatting as long as possible. and if anyone is wandering what he recomended it was adjustable ranchos.
in the end i think its all about keeping the spring pack from binding up and making the wheels hop.
01-24-2008, 03:54 PM
#13
I did not read the above so sorry if this has all ready been said. Oh and sorry about the kindergarden drawings.......
I have done a little research in the past while planning my suspension on my Mustang and this is what I came up with. Everyone might disagree with me but this is what I believe and I think it makes sense..
The amount of force pushing down on the tire is entirely determined by where the axle or the rotational force is allowed to pivot...... Think of the pivot point as a center of a circle and the applied force is located at the edge of the circle. The longer the radius the more the force is amplified..... Like trying to use a 1/4 drive rachet verus a 1/4 rachet with a cheater bar.....
Standard Leaf spring (No T-bars or Caltracs)
Pivot force is located around the axle housing and rotation force is centered around the backside of the axle. So a small amount of rotation force is applied, since the rotation force is small the amount of force pushing down on tire is small. Not to mention when the force is removed or the tire slips the spring pops back into its orginal shape, thus creating wheel hop...
Standard Leaf Spring with Caltracs
Pivot force is located around the front spring eye, the force pushing down on the tire is located after the axle, Thus creating traction and eliminating spring wrap. The way a caltrac is designed it puts downward force (~4in from the spring eye) when the axle tries to rotate, keeping the leaf spring straight, thus moving the pivot point of the force to the leaf spring eye. By moving the pivot point foward it moves the rotation force futher back, thus putting more pressure on the tire.
Standard Leaf Spring with Long Bars
Works very similar to caltracs but moves the pivot point further away from the axle, thus putting more force on the tire. No leaf spring deflection becuase the axle is firmly mounted to the frame....
Now about lifting the front of the car. Physic 101, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As the rotational forces like mentioned about push the vehicle down in the back the front rise. Think of it like a teeter toddler with the pivot point in the middle. push down on one end and the other rises.....
I have done a little research in the past while planning my suspension on my Mustang and this is what I came up with. Everyone might disagree with me but this is what I believe and I think it makes sense..
The amount of force pushing down on the tire is entirely determined by where the axle or the rotational force is allowed to pivot...... Think of the pivot point as a center of a circle and the applied force is located at the edge of the circle. The longer the radius the more the force is amplified..... Like trying to use a 1/4 drive rachet verus a 1/4 rachet with a cheater bar.....
Standard Leaf spring (No T-bars or Caltracs)
Pivot force is located around the axle housing and rotation force is centered around the backside of the axle. So a small amount of rotation force is applied, since the rotation force is small the amount of force pushing down on tire is small. Not to mention when the force is removed or the tire slips the spring pops back into its orginal shape, thus creating wheel hop...
Standard Leaf Spring with Caltracs
Pivot force is located around the front spring eye, the force pushing down on the tire is located after the axle, Thus creating traction and eliminating spring wrap. The way a caltrac is designed it puts downward force (~4in from the spring eye) when the axle tries to rotate, keeping the leaf spring straight, thus moving the pivot point of the force to the leaf spring eye. By moving the pivot point foward it moves the rotation force futher back, thus putting more pressure on the tire.
Standard Leaf Spring with Long Bars
Works very similar to caltracs but moves the pivot point further away from the axle, thus putting more force on the tire. No leaf spring deflection becuase the axle is firmly mounted to the frame....
Now about lifting the front of the car. Physic 101, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As the rotational forces like mentioned about push the vehicle down in the back the front rise. Think of it like a teeter toddler with the pivot point in the middle. push down on one end and the other rises.....
01-24-2008, 04:00 PM
#14
dude i love your kindergarden drawings! they make sense to the noob (aka me).
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
01-24-2008, 04:07 PM
#15
dude i love your kindergarden drawings! they make sense to the noob (aka me).
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
I have some ghetto ms paint drawings of my own i'll put up in a few minutes
01-24-2008, 04:09 PM
#16
dude i love your kindergarden drawings! they make sense to the noob (aka me).
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
thats basically what i got out of all of the reading. they put a little more physics into it though. i like simple drawings that are easier to make sense of.
so in your studying, did you ever determine if you want the rotational force closer to the axle or the shackle???
I RC vs EC I have no clue. Like I said I research for my mustang. IMO you will get less force transferance with a longer wheelbase...
01-24-2008, 04:23 PM
#17
you want the rotational force to as far aft as possible, yep there is a rule of diminishing returns (you can't run the bars all the way up to the front bumper). Basically long bars mimic a 4-link design prinicples (minus 2 bars)... On a 4-link designed for traction the bars are parellel to the ground and perpendicular the axle. This keeps the axle in one plane. This keeps the front of the axle from distorting. The positon of the front link determines the "Teeter Totter" pivot... So in short, Long bars are the way to go....
I RC vs EC I have no clue. Like I said I research for my mustang. IMO you will get less force transferance with a longer wheelbase...
I RC vs EC I have no clue. Like I said I research for my mustang. IMO you will get less force transferance with a longer wheelbase...
as a catch 22, what if i put on caltracks, and put a spring clamp on rear end of the spring pack, in turn pushing the rotational force farther back???
01-24-2008, 04:29 PM
#18
Eventually I plan on building some long bars and the above pictured swap quick disconnects..... Honestly I wont need them but I like building stuff, any time I get to break out the welder is a good time!!!
01-24-2008, 04:31 PM
#19
But the most important thing I read if your tires are spinning the caltracs, long bars do nothing. You HAVE to get the tires to initially bite before any of the benefits of the what ever traction aid you are using will work. If your spinning you might as well have saved the money you spent on traction aid and paid a fat person to sit in your truck bed......
01-24-2008, 04:40 PM
#20
im spinning but its wheel hoppin. the bed is bouncing up and down...keeping the tires on the pavement has to help some even if its still spinning. and keeping the tail gate. i dont know haha.
im guna try and put more air pressure in next time and see how that helps/hurts. last time out i tried 13psi and got a 1.69 spinning. maybe relocating the battery to the bed will help get some weight off the front and into the rear...15psi got me a 1.70. im guna see if i can hook 17psi since its on a 10" rim. maybe im hurting traction by lowering it that much.
im guna try and put more air pressure in next time and see how that helps/hurts. last time out i tried 13psi and got a 1.69 spinning. maybe relocating the battery to the bed will help get some weight off the front and into the rear...15psi got me a 1.70. im guna see if i can hook 17psi since its on a 10" rim. maybe im hurting traction by lowering it that much.