Panhard Bars?

[SeaSlugs]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Uhh Ohh, ...you spotted a speed secret!!

.

.




It's called a Shoe, (--or in the Purist's world, a pitted Model-A front bumper bracket! ) . A Shoe is an era safety device so that if you lose a spindle or front wheel, the Shoe acts as a ski to keep the front from digging in and potentially barrel-rolling the vehicle.

Ohhh I see, thanks! Yea I thought it looked pretty stout so I was thinking like a recovery hook or something but it would definitely prevent the car from flipping for sure.

[Tom Wesenberg]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

Uhh Ohh, ...you spotted a speed secret!!

.

.




It's called a Shoe, (--or in the Purist's world, a pitted Model-A front bumper bracket! ) . A Shoe is an era safety device so that if you lose a spindle or front wheel, the Shoe acts as a ski to keep the front from digging in and potentially barrel-rolling the vehicle.

And here I thought it was a tow hook for break downs.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Phred

For the Model A Ford and panhard bars:

1) If one was only going to have only one bar, is a front or rear bar most beneficial?

2) Other than ease of attachment:

Does it matter if the bar is anchored to chassis at the steering box side or the other side?

Does it matter if a front bar and a rear bar are anchored to the same side of the chassis, or should they be anchored on opposite sidea?

Thanks in advance.

I would put it on the front. You only need it if you are going into the corners hard.
It should be level with the front axle also. I have one on my speedster.

[RockHillWill]

Hey, guys, I just woke up from my nap. In spite of the expected response, I stand by my earlier thinking. My reference to racing was not that some folks weren't willing to use a stock Model A suspension configuration, but that those given the option, most did not! The need for a 'shoe' should validate one viewpoint.

Think for a few moments before you install a panhard rod at either end of the chassis that is not the same swing arm length and location as the distance between the outer pivot points of the spring shackles. You might not notice it on dirt, but it will prove to be an expensive encounter on the street/asphalt.

All of this 'technical chassis stuff' is like pissing upwind unless you have a rigid platform from which to monitor suspension movement, balance and predictability. Who is going to be the first one to suggest that a Model A frame has any degree of rigidity? Just as a reference, oval track cars in the early 2,000's had between 7,500 ft./lbs. and 11,400 ft./lbs. per degree. At one point in my restoration endeavors, I 'twisted' ONE Model A frame and it twisted less than 105 ft.lbs. per degree, at which point I forever quit trying to make any suggestions on how to make a Model A handle any better.

Once again, this is only the perceptions of one old man!

[duke36]

OK thanks for the info. As a side note, checking with Snyder's catalogue, it lists "Pannard Bars" front and rear with instructions, which state to not use with modern shocks both front and rear.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by RockHillWill

Hey, guys, I just woke up from my nap. In spite of the expected response, I stand by my earlier thinking. My reference to racing was not that some folks weren't willing to use a stock Model A suspension configuration, but that those given the option, most did not! The need for a 'shoe' should validate one viewpoint.

Think for a few moments before you install a panhard rod at either end of the chassis that is not the same swing arm length and location as the distance between the outer pivot points of the spring shackles. You might not notice it on dirt, but it will prove to be an expensive encounter on the street/asphalt.

All of this 'technical chassis stuff' is like pissing upwind unless you have a rigid platform from which to monitor suspension movement, balance and predictability. Who is going to be the first one to suggest that a Model A frame has any degree of rigidity? Just as a reference, oval track cars in the early 2,000's had between 7,500 ft./lbs. and 11,400 ft./lbs. per degree. At one point in my restoration endeavors, I 'twisted' ONE Model A frame and it twisted less than 105 ft.lbs. per degree, at which point I forever quit trying to make any suggestions on how to make a Model A handle any better.

Once again, this is only the perceptions of one old man!

All is well Will. I'm just funnin' with you. I do agree with you that racing innovation has definitely moved light-years ahead, but back in the day, I'm pretty sure more folks used an A or T front axle on their big-cars than what those that used Franklin stuff. With regard to a Model-A frame flexing, some of the B-ville Boyz running V4 classes are still required to use an 'A' frame in their car, albeit braced and with a cage. Likely still nowhere as stiff as even your old Carolina Tractor Torino.

Speaking of stiff chassis',I think you have seen Blake's Modified for 2016 (the car saw two W's last season, -one of them close to you)...







....but here is his new Late Model endeavor that he designed in SolidWorks & built over the winter. Only been out with it 4 times this year. No W's yet however they did put it on the pole down in Cochran, GA at a NeSmith race the last time out and we came out with a P6 finish. Two other top-10 finishes and one 13th.






Ok, so back to the Panhard Bar. Because of the mud I can't tell for sure on Steve's car, but it looks like he has a Panhard Bar on his front axle.

[RockHillWill]

Way cool!!!!