That's just sick.
-
Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
Already a member? Login here then!
70_Fastback: RAT ROD - 193x Ford / 1942 GMC Truck
- Thread starter 70_Fastback
- Start date
70_Fastback
Hell Bent for Speed
"monkeystash" said:
Great, now the pressure is on. Maybe I raised the bar too high for my own good. LoL. And thanks.
"beach pony" said:
In a good way... aye? :craz
"M-train" said:
Well stay tuned.
AzPete
Well-Known Member
Glad to see you are keeping within the....
Definition
Originally a counter-reaction to the traditional hot rod, a label recently applied to undriven cars and super high priced "customs". The rat rod's beginning was a throwback to the hot rods of the earlier days of hot-rodding, built to the best of the owner's abilities and meant to be driven. Rat rods are meant to loosely imitate in form and function, the "traditional" hot rods of the era. Biker, greaser, rockabilly, and punk culture is often credited as influence that shapes rat-rodding.
The typical rat rod is an early 1930s through 1950s coupe or roadster. Early (pre-World War II) vehicles often have their fenders, hoods, running boards, and bumpers removed. The bodies are frequently channeled over the frame, and sectioned, or the roofs chopped for a lower profile. Later post-war vehicles are rarely constructed without fenders and are often customized in the fashion of Kustoms, leadsleds, and lowriders. Maltese crosses, skulls, and other accessories are often added. Chopped tops, shaved trim, grills, tail lights, and other miscellaneous body parts are swapped between makes and models. Most, if not all, of the work and engineering is done by the owner of the vehicle.
Recently, the term "rat rod" (or rat car, as modern cars are not actually hot rods like the name suggests) has been used to describe almost any vehicle that appears unfinished or is built simply to be driven.
Definition
Originally a counter-reaction to the traditional hot rod, a label recently applied to undriven cars and super high priced "customs". The rat rod's beginning was a throwback to the hot rods of the earlier days of hot-rodding, built to the best of the owner's abilities and meant to be driven. Rat rods are meant to loosely imitate in form and function, the "traditional" hot rods of the era. Biker, greaser, rockabilly, and punk culture is often credited as influence that shapes rat-rodding.
The typical rat rod is an early 1930s through 1950s coupe or roadster. Early (pre-World War II) vehicles often have their fenders, hoods, running boards, and bumpers removed. The bodies are frequently channeled over the frame, and sectioned, or the roofs chopped for a lower profile. Later post-war vehicles are rarely constructed without fenders and are often customized in the fashion of Kustoms, leadsleds, and lowriders. Maltese crosses, skulls, and other accessories are often added. Chopped tops, shaved trim, grills, tail lights, and other miscellaneous body parts are swapped between makes and models. Most, if not all, of the work and engineering is done by the owner of the vehicle.
Recently, the term "rat rod" (or rat car, as modern cars are not actually hot rods like the name suggests) has been used to describe almost any vehicle that appears unfinished or is built simply to be driven.
70_Fastback
Hell Bent for Speed
"AzPete" said:
Sooo..... what are you saying exactly Pete?
Sarcasm... or nay?
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's Pete's way of saying he admires your mad skilz and wishes he had some.....any.
AzPete
Well-Known Member
Your skills are good and right on the intended rat rod theme.
As for my skills, the past is the past. Being retired, I have no reason to advertise the past.....just enjoy now.
As for my skills, the past is the past. Being retired, I have no reason to advertise the past.....just enjoy now.
tarafied1
Well-Known Member
Your making me sick! This thing is wicked! When your done with this prototype frame and then build the real one, can I have this one? JK, make sure you remember how to do this, I'm gonna need a LOT of help on mine. Although time will have ended and the earth as we know will exist no more when I get started, I'll still need help!
RyanG85
Well-Known Member
Thanks again Jeremy for making my productive weekend look like squat! :rp
Doing some seriously nice work! Are you going off any type of plans or just creating on the fly? I know you have an idea on what youre doing but did you blueprint or draw it up beforehand?
Doing some seriously nice work! Are you going off any type of plans or just creating on the fly? I know you have an idea on what youre doing but did you blueprint or draw it up beforehand?
70_Fastback
Hell Bent for Speed
"RyanG85" said:
And I mowed. :vic
And as far as the latest updates; these were basically done on the fly. I grab my stool, sit down and stare. Then grab a pad of grid paper and start sketching a rough draft. I'll then draw out some to scale templates and cut them out of cardboard and transfer the pattern to the metal.
AzPete
Well-Known Member
"RyanG85" said:
Didn't you know....he cannot draw anything........ :lol :lol
daveSanborn
Active Member
Nice progress J. BTW, where did you get your rear coilovers and what method did you use to compute ride height/coil length/coil size/shock travel?
I've got an older set of coilovers on the rear of my '66 that are WAY TOO FIRM. I need to replace them with a lighter springed coilover, but am not keen on using a "trial and error" method to find the properly rated coilover.
I've got an older set of coilovers on the rear of my '66 that are WAY TOO FIRM. I need to replace them with a lighter springed coilover, but am not keen on using a "trial and error" method to find the properly rated coilover.
70_Fastback
Hell Bent for Speed
"daveSanborn" said:
Thanks Dave.
As far as computations - there really hasn't been too many hard calculations yet. The coilovers were a freebie from my Dad. He bought a whole case of them at a swap meet and rebuilt this particular pair to use - then decided to not use them and went with some other coilovers that he had due to length -- as they are fairly long.
I currently have the length shortened as much as posible. But as far as the spring rate - that is adjustable as well via the adjusting nut below it. Right now they are compressed pretty tight - with a maximum spring compression of only 3" +/-(distance between all of the coils before bottoming out). I have lots of room to adjust the spring height though - I don't know how far they will extend to as I have not messed with adjusting them at all. I figure mine will be trial and error to be honest. And I really won't have much weight back there at all on mine.
And question for you - look at the bottom mounting point on my shocks - does the orientation of that matter at all? Does the mounnting holes need to be parralell, perpendicular to the axle tube - or does it matter, or even affect pivoting? To me it seems the holes should be parralell with the axle tube to work with the articulation of the 4-link attachments. Thoughts?
Lots of set-ups have the spring ends mounted at heights below the axle tube centerline. Some by quite a bit. I can't think of a mechanical reason why it would make too much of a difference if you were a little above or below.
I would be more concerned about the angle at which they mount top to bottom. When I first looked at your set-up (bad ass as it is!) my first thought was it might be a bit "steep". When that wheel hits a bump you want the force to travel up through the shock/spring. The further off perpendicular it is from the ground the more force leverages against it than travels through it. Did I explain that clear enough?
I would be more concerned about the angle at which they mount top to bottom. When I first looked at your set-up (bad ass as it is!) my first thought was it might be a bit "steep". When that wheel hits a bump you want the force to travel up through the shock/spring. The further off perpendicular it is from the ground the more force leverages against it than travels through it. Did I explain that clear enough?
70_Fastback
Hell Bent for Speed
Yes you did. My shocks are oriented at a 33° angle. And to clarify, I am not concerned about the shocks extending below the axle tube - I question if the orientation of the lower mount - which will be bolted - will matter. Shold the bolt run parallell or perp. to the tube? Or does it even matter?
daveSanborn
Active Member
Jeremy,
If it were me I'd design axle tube coilover mounts/brackets that enabled the coilovers to be fit as depicted below:
The coilover's lower mount should be perpendicular to the axle tube to allow axle articulation.....
On your coilovers..... understand that the threaded collar (that compresses the spring) is not designed to establish ride height. Cranking that lower collar "upwards" on the strut's cartridge WILL alter ride height, but technically the collar should only be cranked down enough to slightly compress the coil spring. The more you tighten that collar/compress the coil spring, the greater chance you run of suffereing a strut failure.... the strut cartridge piston will violently rip out of the strut cartridge. Been there, done that, learned the hard way.
If I were in your shoes.... and I was commited to using those particular coilovers..... I would loosen the lower collar until the spring was just barely compressed between the lower collar and the fixed upper collar. Then I would design my upper and lower mounts such that the desired rear end ride height was at the halfway point of the cartridge's piston travel. Usual piston travel is approx. 7 inches, so your mounts would be designed at ~3.5 inches less than the eyebolt to eyebolt measurement.
I've been in contact with TCP recently on the purchase of a new set of coilovers for my rear suspension. Their questions to me were: 1. At desired ride height, what is the existing measurement from the top mount (on the one-piece frame) to the bottom mount (on the axle tube). This is so they can determine the correct length strut 2. What is the weight of the rear of the car? This is so they can determine ride the correct length/spring rate spring. Determining the weight of the rear of the car is on my list of "things to do".... as soon as I figure out how to do it. TCP guesstimated a 350# spring for a stock Mustang, but my car..... including the rear half of it..... is far from stock. I'm at more of an advantage than you are as my coilover lower mount has a 4" adjustment range. Yours I assume will have a fixed position.
Lastly.... when the handle of your floor jack starts to "spin" without engaging the notch for the hydraulic mechanism within the jack, remove the handle and clean out all of the debris that's accumulated between the end of the handle and the "notch". I have the exact same floor jack, but by the looks of yours mine has seen a lot more use.
If it were me I'd design axle tube coilover mounts/brackets that enabled the coilovers to be fit as depicted below:
The coilover's lower mount should be perpendicular to the axle tube to allow axle articulation.....
On your coilovers..... understand that the threaded collar (that compresses the spring) is not designed to establish ride height. Cranking that lower collar "upwards" on the strut's cartridge WILL alter ride height, but technically the collar should only be cranked down enough to slightly compress the coil spring. The more you tighten that collar/compress the coil spring, the greater chance you run of suffereing a strut failure.... the strut cartridge piston will violently rip out of the strut cartridge. Been there, done that, learned the hard way.
If I were in your shoes.... and I was commited to using those particular coilovers..... I would loosen the lower collar until the spring was just barely compressed between the lower collar and the fixed upper collar. Then I would design my upper and lower mounts such that the desired rear end ride height was at the halfway point of the cartridge's piston travel. Usual piston travel is approx. 7 inches, so your mounts would be designed at ~3.5 inches less than the eyebolt to eyebolt measurement.
I've been in contact with TCP recently on the purchase of a new set of coilovers for my rear suspension. Their questions to me were: 1. At desired ride height, what is the existing measurement from the top mount (on the one-piece frame) to the bottom mount (on the axle tube). This is so they can determine the correct length strut 2. What is the weight of the rear of the car? This is so they can determine ride the correct length/spring rate spring. Determining the weight of the rear of the car is on my list of "things to do".... as soon as I figure out how to do it. TCP guesstimated a 350# spring for a stock Mustang, but my car..... including the rear half of it..... is far from stock. I'm at more of an advantage than you are as my coilover lower mount has a 4" adjustment range. Yours I assume will have a fixed position.
Lastly.... when the handle of your floor jack starts to "spin" without engaging the notch for the hydraulic mechanism within the jack, remove the handle and clean out all of the debris that's accumulated between the end of the handle and the "notch". I have the exact same floor jack, but by the looks of yours mine has seen a lot more use.
Fast68back
Guest
:nta I think I have the same jack as well.... I covered the handle with foam in case it smacks the car...
I can't see why it would matter the direction of the bolt but I would recommend designing the mount so that the bolt is supported on both ends (like a saddle type mount). This almost eliminates any concern of shearing the bolt. I thought I remembered Dave writing something along this line in a thread some where...
FWIW, I've put a lot of time into researching building my own 4 link set-up. I spoke with lots of people and got a lot of good info and guidance form a couple guys at Martz Chassis. I'm still thinking I might just go with them for my needs. Costs more this way but theirs is good stuff. It's not like I don't have enough projects to do as it is!
FWIW, I've put a lot of time into researching building my own 4 link set-up. I spoke with lots of people and got a lot of good info and guidance form a couple guys at Martz Chassis. I'm still thinking I might just go with them for my needs. Costs more this way but theirs is good stuff. It's not like I don't have enough projects to do as it is!
daveSanborn
Active Member
Yes, I re-designed my lower mounts to eliminate the side shear load on the bolt by fabbing a saddle type mount. I mentioned over on the VMF a couple years ago when we were all looking at pictures of an aftermarket kit that didn't use a saddle mount design, but easily could have. I forget which kit is was, but it wasn't anything cheap. It bugs me when an expensive rear coilover conversion kit has stupid little design problems... these kits should be developed by a qualified engineer.... and then problems can be spotted a mile away by a novice builder.