Author Topic: Old -vs- New Traction Masters  (Read 2003 times)

Royce Peterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2020, 12:17:36 PM »
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. 


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.
1968 Cougar XR-7 GT-E 427 Side Oiler C6 3.50 Detroit Locker
1968 1/2 Cougar XR-7 428CJ Ram Air C6 3.91 Traction Lock

gt350hr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2311
  • Randy Gillis in real life - 5353 original posts
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #16 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. 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
 
Celebrating 46 years of drag racing 6S477 and no end in sight.

shelbydoug

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4600
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #17 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?
68 GT350 Lives Matter!

Royce Peterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #18 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.


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?
1968 Cougar XR-7 GT-E 427 Side Oiler C6 3.50 Detroit Locker
1968 1/2 Cougar XR-7 428CJ Ram Air C6 3.91 Traction Lock

pbf777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2020, 08:41:50 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.

     
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 08:44:04 PM by pbf777 »

2112

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3059
  • Fox Island, WA
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2020, 11:29:36 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?

gt350hr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2311
  • Randy Gillis in real life - 5353 original posts
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2020, 10:54:58 AM »
    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
Celebrating 46 years of drag racing 6S477 and no end in sight.

pbf777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
Re: Old -vs- New Traction Masters
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2020, 02:22:59 PM »
     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.