I've restored and installed the traction master under ride bars on 1816. The original tubes both had a slight bend that were straightened out. My concern is will they just bend again once I start driving the car? Are the newer tubes with the correct end marking sold by traction Master made with thicker wall tubing or will they bend up just as easily? I don't plan on changing any of the original mounting brackets just the tubes. With the reasonable price for the complete set and accurate tube markings I was thinking may be a good choice. Any advise or opinion appreciated.
Shawn
Quote from: Shawn on August 20, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
I've restored and installed the traction master under ride bars on 1816. The original tubes both had a slight bend that were straightened out. My concern is will they just bend again once I start driving the car? Are the newer tubes with the correct end marking sold by traction Master made with thicker wall tubing or will they bend up just as easily? I don't plan on changing any of the original mounting brackets just the tubes. With the reasonable price for the complete set and accurate tube markings I was thinking may be a good choice. Any advise or opinion appreciated.
Shawn
Yes, the original tubing is too thin. It will bend again. That's very common.
You need to replace it with 3/16" wall DOM tubing. You can get that from several sources on ebay cut to the length that you need.
It's easy to do if you can weld. The original ends get cut off, cleaned out and rewelded on the new tubing.
Check your rear leafs for cracking under the big clamp. They can crack right through the locating hole. That can be caused by the bent tube or cause it to bend.
I went one further and added an extra long top leaf like many of the R models and T/A cars did. The car rides better and level that way. Takes some of the stress off of the rest of the rear assembly.
Take the rear Konis out. Put in Cure-rides. Paint them orange if need be? You won't believe the difference with these changes.
I've replace the leaf springs with a new set. I did keep the original lower leafs with part numbers, finished correctly and used a new set of the correct bands. I have a new set of Konis but am curious about the Cure-rides you mentioned.
The problem with all Traction Masters is that they are replacing half the leaf spring with a section of tubing. Inevitably they bend because they don't flex. Or they break at a weld. Or both. It's just part of the fun, you should expect it.
Quote from: Shawn on August 20, 2020, 09:43:43 AM
I've replace the leaf springs with a new set. I did keep the original lower leafs with part numbers, finished correctly and used a new set of the correct bands. I have a new set of Konis but am curious about the Cure-rides you mentioned.
To make the extra leaf rear spring work right without being choppy, you need to take the clamps off.
In '66, Shelby did a project with Cure-ride for the "drag cars". Essentially they are just a huge piston compared to stock and Konis.
Konis get there additional control from added cylinder pressure. Cure-rides just use a larger piston.
1-3/8" diameter I believe?
That makes the shock response smoother and not as radical as the Koni. Makes a great riding and handling car.
I've had the Cure-rides on the car since 1980 or so. I've never regretted it at all. For me, it is the way to go.
Quote from: Royce Peterson on August 20, 2020, 09:50:45 AM
The problem with all Traction Masters is that they are replacing half the leaf spring with a section of tubing. Inevitably they bend because they don't flex. Or they break at a weld. Or both. It's just part of the fun, you should expect it.
I am not sure I understand the replacing concept. The traction masters don't replace any leafs. It bolts under the leaf spring plate in the rear and to the unibody in the front. The tubes are mounted in bushings front and rear and pivot as the leaf springs flex. Not to say that there isn't some flex stress put on them in their range of motion but typically not enough to bend.
Quote from: Shawn on August 20, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
I've restored and installed the traction master under ride bars on 1816. The original tubes both had a slight bend that were straightened out. My concern is will they just bend again once I start driving the car? Are the newer tubes with the correct end marking sold by traction Master made with thicker wall tubing or will they bend up just as easily? I don't plan on changing any of the original mounting brackets just the tubes. With the reasonable price for the complete set and accurate tube markings I was thinking may be a good choice. Any advise or opinion appreciated.
Shawn
The tubes bend more commonly because some uninformed person puts a jack under them or road trama not typically as a result of their range of motion. If that was the case every car would have that problem after 50+ years and they don't. The original tube is not that stout. If you didn't get the tubes perfectly straight I would use a thicker wall substitute tube as has been suggested and cut the ends off of the old. Don't think that you can buy the new ones from TM and expect a perfect fit. There is a possibility that they will fit but don't get your hopes up. Minor variations in mfg between then and now may complicate things .Given they are welded in the front on your car makes any replacement to have to be a very exact in total length fit .
Thanks Bob - Really appreciate your expertise and clarity on the subject
Quote from: Shawn on August 20, 2020, 10:58:39 AM
Thanks Bob - Really appreciate your expertise and clarity on the subject
Use a thicker tube. 3/16 wall is motorcycle chassis tube.
We need a tie breaker. Ask Randy.
To add a little bit to Bob's reply and Royce's too , under ride bars bend because they are in "compression" . The physics are "natural" motion of the differential under acceleration is OPPOSITE of tire rotation. Without traction bars this makes the front half of the spring "arc" upward and the rear half downward. Those two reactions typically cause the rear of the car to squat. Because of the "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", the spring "unwraps " and usually causes wheel hop which traction bars usually stop. Because the axle housing is rotating in this action , the under ride bar is compressed and because the tubing is thin wall , it begins to "arc" like the spring does eventually forming a noticeable bend. Changing to thicker wall tubing will stop the bending but will also transfer the energy to the "next weak link". I have seen the forward mount welds cracked on the side closest to the leaf spring because of this. I have also seen bent spring pads on the axle housing itself.
This does not happen on an over ride bar because the bar is in "tension". In this case the "normal" reaction is ripping the front mounting bracket out of the unibody. Guess how I know!
Randy
Thanks for information and the "week link" scenario certainly makes sense. The original frame mounts were never removed and recall the welded area looks fine.
Quote from: gt350hr on August 20, 2020, 11:41:51 AM
T add a little bit to Bob's reply and Royce's too , under ride bars bend because they are in "compression" . The physics are "natural" motion of the differential under acceleration is OPPOSITE of tire rotation. Without traction bars theis makes the front half of the spring "arc" upward and the rear half downward. Those two reactions typically cause the rear of the car to squat. Because of the "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", the spring "unwraps " and usually causes wheel hop which traction bars usually stop. Because the axle housing is rotating in this action , the under ride bar is compressed and because the tubing is thin wall , it begins to "arc" like the spring does eventually forming a noticeable bend. Changing to thicker wall tubing will stop the bending but will also transfer the energy to the "next weak link". I have seen the forward mount welds cracked on the side closest to the leaf spring because of this. I have also seen bent spring pads on the axle housing itself.
This does not happen on an over ride bar because the bar is in "tension". I this case the "normal" reaction is ripping the front mounting bracket out of the unibody. Guess how I know!
Randy
Randy,I am positive you have exposed Tracton Master bars to their worst case scenario on numerous occasions over the years .
Right at 1,000 miles 1/4 at a time. Poor old thing. The front brackets have been re welded twice by me in my 46 years of ownership.
Traction Master was still in Burbank across from the Old Lockheed plant when I got a new set of bars made because my old ones were badly bent. The guy that ran TM was great, he tack welded one end on so I could test fit the bar for a perfect fit. I also used new leafs with the half torque leaf added. No issues. I don't know if they are still there.
^^^ I would be pleasantly surprised if they were still there.
So often the kids or grandkids liquidate, the name gets sold and production moves to China.
I went to the Traction Master store / fabrication shop around 2001. It was in a seedy little strip shopping center on the outskirts of downtown Los Angeles. A tiny little space, he had to roll a rack full of completed TM bars outside in order to have room to walk around inside. The whole inside space was maybe 15' X 25'.
Bob I say replace because that is what the TM or many other types of traction bar do. They eliminate movement of half the leaf spring and make all the bending movement happen in the rear half. Something has to give and it is usually the TM bar bending or one of the TM welds breaking. Just what I have observed in decades of using them and fixing them.
Quote from: 6s1802 on August 20, 2020, 09:00:09 PM
Traction Master was still in Burbank across from the Old Lockheed plant when I got a new set of bars made because my old ones were badly bent. The guy that ran TM was great, he tack welded one end on so I could test fit the bar for a perfect fit. I also used new leafs with the half torque leaf added. No issues. I don't know if they are still there.
Les Ritchey (rip) used "Gold Seal Traction Masters" on his early Galaxie race cars BUT the bar went to the back of the car. This again put the bar in tension. He promoted the heck out of them.It is "my" opinion the direction was changed for "ease of installation" purposes. They were popular on MANY leaf springs from T birds to Tri Five Chevys. The "lift bar" design used on '64 Thunderbolts changed the way traction devices were made and the traction master faded in popularity until John Calvert changed to an articulated front mount and created Calvert bars which revitalized the original concept . The Calvert bar concept is MANY times superior to original design. Traction Master was a distributor for Cure Ride shocks and made the original Monte Carlo bars for SAI , "back in the day"
Randy
So is the car better or worse off with them on the car? I know it is different.
Some say they think the bars make the car oversteer but I haven't seen that but I can feel what they mean.
Of course I am running the extra leaf as well as a track bar so all things may not be equal?
I think they are worth the trouble if the car came with them originally. If not the Calvert bars are the fshizzleness LOL.
Quote from: shelbydoug on August 21, 2020, 05:08:01 PM
So is the car better or worse off with them on the car? I know it is different.
Some say they think the bars make the car oversteer but I haven't seen that but I can feel what they mean.
Of course I am running the extra leaf as well as a track bar so all things may not be equal?
Quote from: gt350hr on August 21, 2020, 01:51:40 PM
Les Ritchey (rip) used "Gold Seal Traction Masters" on his early Galaxie race cars BUT the bar went to the back of the car. This again put the bar in tension. He promoted the heck out of them.It is "my" opinion the direction was changed for "ease of installation" purposes.
Randy
I'm curious as to the "rest-of-the-story", as I'm having trouble understanding how this would function with the shackle also at the rear, at least this being in the original O.E. installation?
At the typical position forward the bar does limit the function of the forward section of the spring "some" as even though the spring eye is a semi-rigid mounting (the bushing allowing some motion) but the flattening of the arch of the spring causes the differential to move rearward, though this now is now being limited somewhat as the result of the rigid bar being attached to the differential housing and the vehicles' floor pan (or what ever, same as the leaf) puts the relationship to the springs' intentions into a bind. And as the leaf spring is compressed with the reduction in the arch, both fore and aft of the axle, with this result inevitably the leaf increases in its' straight-line length, hence the implementation of the shackle as a pivot at the rear.
But with the bar attached to rear? :o
Not saying it wasn't done, nor that I haven't seen some strange engineering implementations actually work, and I see where there are some possible effects, perhaps positive and negative depending of intention, but there must be more to it, to have it be "good engineering"? ???
Reminds me of a road race customer we had years ago, a "real" rocket engineer (he would contact the State of Florida to report businesses which used the word "engineer" in the name title, as it's not permitted unless someone in the company is truly a degreed engineer), and he "re-engineered" the SN95 chassis with shared forward and rearward facing control arms (don't ask! ::) )! He presented his "engineering" plans to me asking my opinion (boy was that ever a mistake! ::) ) But he was probably really just gloating his engineering prowess), I looked at him and said: man........just step back a minute and look at it again, I don't think that's gonna work! Well, perhaps I'm not the most tactful speaker, and often have an opinion (right or wrong), but my statement didn't go over well; but a few months latter he showed up in our shop after a few races with examples of broken driveshafts, transmission tailshaft housings, transmission cases with the bellhousing mounting ears ripped off, along with control arm mountings failure, wondering if we had any ideas why he was experiences such? Well............ :o
Scott.
Quote from: Royce Peterson on August 21, 2020, 06:53:00 PM
I think they are worth the trouble if the car came with them originally. If not the Calvert bars are the fshizzleness LOL.
What would that make a Torque Arm?
A Calvert bar has an articulated front "mount" that is designed with an upper cross bar to actually "load" the front half of the leaf spring under extreme acceleration. In that sense , the bar is not "fixed" like it is on a traction master and it doesn't induce bind with suspension movement.
Doug ,
Most road racers remove or deactivate traction bars on leaf spring cars. I am not a good road racer so "I" can't tell the difference. LOL
Scott,
In the early '60s the trend was to have the rear "squat" for traction and have the front end up for increased weight transfer. Putting the traction master bar to the rear aided in rear end squat. Obviously this was changed to forward mounted bars and has stayed that way. Evolution is a good thing.
Randy
Thanks Randy for the response, and yes I understood the intentions for "squat" of the rear suspension, this still being in vogue with some, and perhaps applicable in certain instances even today. :)
Having the bar mounted behind and envisioning the chassis mount as being high in the relationship, would certainly create the effect in attempting to utilize a greater sum the rotational torque of the axle to cause the rear of the car to be leveraged downward in the rotation, coupled with the forward section of the leaf mounted rigidly, creating a fulcrum point of the axle housing in a value to lift the front end. But with motion within the suspension, this certainly would also create some interesting collisions of angularities and requirements in change of the euclidean distances of the mounting points, as the instant centers of rotation would be at odds. :o
When we were more involved in the tractor-pulling arena, specifically 4 X 2 and 4 X 4 truck, up to 9200 lbs., to goal was just the opposite, rather to create as much lift (separation) of rear as possible to assist in offsetting a portion of the loading (perhaps a 60,000 lb. sled!) from behind the axle, and attempt to institute a force to dampen the unwanted event of the front wheels being lifted from the ground. But unfortunately most any such really effective engineering endeavor was or would be outlawed;.............as I was informed by the powers that be. ::)
Scott.