Chassis stiffening for street car

Shocks, Springs, Brakes, Frame, Body Work, etc

Moderator: Team

User avatar
John Wallace
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:20 am
Location: was Central Illinois - Now in Sunny Florida!
Contact:

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by John Wallace » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:27 pm

There is also a reason the Vettes change to a solid axle when drag racing?

I figured the Mustang change was for street use or road racing type use, for turns?
(for the factory reason)

:?:
John Wallace
Pontiac Power RULES !
www.wallaceracing.com

Brian P
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:35 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by Brian P » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:02 pm

One would expect a solid rear axle to be better for drag racing for two reasons (1) less stuff to break (no CV joints), and (2) it is possible to have a decent amount of anti-squat in the geometry while still allowing suspension compliance (IRS causes the torque reactions at the diff to go straight into the chassis and these reaction forces therefore cannot be used to influence the suspension). I'm not a drag racer but I've still heard plenty of complaints about wheel hop from those who do, on various IRS-equipped rear drive cars.

If the intent is to go around corners then the balance tips to IRS. But it isn't an absolute necessity. The S197 Mustang handles very well. The 3-link-plus-panhard arrangement allows good toe control, has minimal binding, and avoids having the roll center too high, and it can be set up with anti-squat if you wish. The merits of this suspension design have been discussed before.

The limitation is still what happens on choppy surfaces. A live rear axle is a whole bunch of unsprung weight no matter how you slice it.

Still, on this car, I would consider a live axle to be "period correct", if you wish, and certainly easier to integrate into the design and probably easier to make it work properly.

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7687
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by pdq67 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:27 am

How's this thread coming along?

pdq67

BobbyB
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by BobbyB » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:51 am

I am enjoying my my comet more than ever. I had weldcraft widen a couple of wheels to fit 235-50-15 r888 tires to the rear and put 205-60-15 advan ao48 in the front. I have put 500 miles on them in about a month never getting more than 20 miles from home. These tires cost a lot and won't last long but i am having a blast with them.

Tomhorn, any falcon leads?

n2xlr8n
Expert
Expert
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Bama

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by n2xlr8n » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:16 am

BobbyB wrote: Tomhorn, any falcon leads?
I hope he read what I suggested, anyway.
He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world.

tomhorn1913
New Member
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:53 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by tomhorn1913 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:38 pm

Still here,

Still reading, thanks. Got side-lined on planning a new house for the missus, so the Falcon project got moved to the back burner. As a result, I've shown up a day late on a couple of promising prospects. I continue to process the thought-provoking input.

Thanks guys!

BobbyB
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by BobbyB » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:29 pm

The wife & I took the Comet to the Blue Ridge Parkway yesterday evening. It is about 60 miles from our house, the "Feels Like" temp went from about 90+ degrees to about 75 degrees in about an hour and 2500 feet of elevation. The car did great on the curvy roads. I really enjoy the 3 link. Tom, why the "tomhorn1913" handle? Are you a long range shooter? I hope you find your falcon soon.

tomhorn1913
New Member
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:53 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by tomhorn1913 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:47 pm

Bobby,

I'll "shoot" you a PM...

:D

peejay
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by peejay » Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:06 pm

PackardV8 wrote:Seeing a '63-65 Falcon or '65-68 Mustang stripped to the tub is scary. There's nothing there but bent tin and not much of that.
https://www.motorsport-tools.com/brand- ... shell.html

Rather similar to the Falcon/Mustang but with strut suspension instead of control arms for even more weight savings.

Firmly remember a long time ago someone posting that Ford engineers have made a science out of using not enough sheetmetal, but putting a fold here and a crease there makes it sturdy enough to work in the real world.

tomhorn1913
New Member
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:53 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by tomhorn1913 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:24 pm

I'm back...

No, really - keep your seats. Thank you everyone. Thank you.

Finally located a '64 Falcon Sprint. Needs just about everything, but the unibody is nearly pristine. A blank canvas to paint pretty much whatever picture I like. But back to that later. I need to hijack my own thread.

I picked up a rebuilt steering box. 19:1 ratio, I believe, 5 turns lock-to-lock. Problem(?) is, at the mid-point, there is a barely detectable bump in the otherwise smooth rotation of the steering shaft. Anyone had any experience with a 60s Ford steering box that would make them think this is "normal?" I don't want to install this box, or return my core, if I need to be returning the rebuilt unit.

Much obliged,
Matt

mk e
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4652
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:19 pm
Location: Elverson, PA

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by mk e » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:50 am

tomhorn1913 wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:05 am
OK,

I'll throw in another twist. After a couple weeks of internet research, I've found a few folks who are completely unapologetic in their condemnation of roll bars/cages in street-driven vehicles. They point out that a roll bar or cage is unsafe without a helmet, due to the risk of severe head injury in ANY vehicular mishap. I must admit to having bounced around in a few minor crashes, & discovering mystery bruises a couple days later, from striking parts of my body on who-knows-what in the cabin. The prospect of kissing a steel tube (even one wrapped with approved roll bar padding) with my melon, strikes me (pun intended) as, wellllllll - "bad"...

That's all true....but modern cars have what is effectively a cage built into the structure and they are safe. If you know it's a street car that will be driven without a helmet then you need to design the cage accordingly to prevent all the concerns you mention....a cage like structure is the only practical way to stiffen that car.
Mark
Mechanical Engineer

tomhorn1913
New Member
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:53 pm

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by tomhorn1913 » Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:19 am

Mark,

Yeah, I'm still inclined toward a basic cage, with the main hoop moved rearward as far as possible, without completely defeating its purpose. I'll be deleting the rear seating, so no worries of those passengers bouncing off tubes. Full harness restraints in the front seats should limit free movement of front seat occupants, in the event of a mishap. Cage on top of through-the-floor subframe connectors should add some rigidity? Plans may change, but if I try to be objective & realistic, I think I can get what I need.

Thanks,
Matt

mk e
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4652
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:19 pm
Location: Elverson, PA

Re: Chassis stiffening for street car

Post by mk e » Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:44 am

I saw a build on....bitchin rides? Where they put the cage behind the a-pillar trim and up under the head liner....if you didn't know it was there you'd probably miss it. They were after looks but I think safety wise it made a lot of sense....a classic "doing the right thing for the wrong reason"
Mark
Mechanical Engineer

Post Reply