Plasticman

Mike,

Please note that Tom does not have his front TM mounting plates welded in place. They are attached to just the front bolt for the rear leaf spring. I expect that his TM front plates would then pivot about that bolt center (not bind like what I saw and felt when welded in place).

However, I at first had my front plates like Toms (just pivoting on that front bolt), and saw (and heard and felt) when the plates were pivoting (they caused squirrelly handling and traction for one), and would bang into the edge of the front spring perch.

As Tom stated, there are differences between his TMs and our later units, and think there is a difference in the amount of pivoting & leverage that they exert.

Plasticman

DZAUTO

Yes and no.
The ride/handling is the same, but under hard acceleration, I notice a more positive attitude in traction.
No noises, no squeaks, no bumbs and no squirliness.
Of course, these old cars left a lot to be desired in cornering at speed and under power. And that hasn't improved or decreased.
I CAN dirt track it, but in city driving that attracts toooooooooooo much undesired attention. Plus, around here, there are too many unmarked cars today, both city police and hiway patrol.

Tom Parsons

Vet65te

Plasticman - I was just curious as to what Tom noticed after the addition of the TM bars. I just finished taking off both of my radius rods and will clean and paint them and put them away so I can see how the car feels with only the slightly modified version of the Traction Master setup I have on this '61. After seeing the old/original radius rod bushings having more rubber to compress than the new replacements that have a steel inner and 'outer' sleeve arrangement, I'd expect the ride would be even harsher after swaping in the new style bushings.
While the car is up on jackstands, I am probably going to make the swap to the organic rear shoes so it might be a while before I get around to driving it and seeing how it rides without the radius rods in place. I'll report back when I get it on the road.
Mike T.

Plasticman

Mike,

All understood. I just wanted to make sure you understood that there is a significant difference in Tom's setup as opposed to mine (with your setup being even more potentially "firm" due to the Heim joints stopping any fore/aft movement).

With the rear mount of the TM bars farther away from the center of the rear axle (center of axle rotation under high engine torque load), they would have a larger difference in arc (from that of the rear spring ( and Radius Rod) and therefore more potential for binding - if the Radius Rods were also in place) and leverage would increase as well. With Tom's setup, the TM bars are closer to parallel to the leaf springs, and the potential for fore/aft movement is lessened.

Good luck,
Plasticman

Vet65te

Hey Plasticman - I really appreciate the help you guys are giving me on this subject. Getting input from people who have already done the 'experimentation' sure makes it easier on those of us just getting into these systems.
Mike T.

DZAUTO

This is the TM, radius rod and 60 housing on the 56.

















Tom Parsons

Vet65te

Tom, I dug up an earlier thread on the subject of Traction Masters and thought I had seen your '56 with the rear sway bar and the pics you just posted show it as well. So, the 'geometry' of your setup is probably not all that different from what I have on my '61.
From the feedback I've gotten (and read from old threads) it seems that most like to run just the TM setup and eliminate the radius rods.
Once I get the darned rear brakes done (seems the parking brake crossbar spring doesn't come with the 'hardware package' so I'll have to dig them up separately) I'll be real curious to see if I can detect a difference in the car after having removed the upper radius rods. Of course, the mere 100 'mostly easy' miles I put on the car didn't exactly put the rear suspension to the test but I can say it felt very stiff. The air shocks are only kept at about 30 pounds but there isn't much give to them so they are probably responsible for some of that stiff ride.
In that 100 miles, there were a few times I got on the gas and all I can say is that it was unlike any other car I've owned. Not because of the blinding acceleration (I wish) but because of the car responding so immediately to the hit, no squat, no planting of the rear wheels, no real rise in the front end...just a quick response with no body movement. I kinda liked it, really.
Mike T.

Plasticman

Tom,

After looking at your photos, I really don't see any significant difference in the rear mounting point compared to mine (in the mounting distance below the axle). So I have to take back what I stated previously, and admit I am stumped why our bars react so differently.

Plasticman

Frankie the Fink

I cringe whenever I hear about extra stiff suspensions on these fiberglass cars...like they don't get enough stress cracks from normal wear and tear..

Vet65te

Frank - Before I headed to Austin to see this car, 62Jeff had already tipped me off to this car being raced a lot in autocross and drag events so I expected the suspension to be a bit on the stiff side. In addition to the 5 leaf springs/air shocks/Traction Masters I found on the back end, I found 90/10 drag shocks on the front end as well as slightly shorter than stock front coils. The front shocks were replaced with Monroe Sensa-Tracs which helped but I think I will notice a bit more compliance in the ride when I make the changes to the rear end with the upper radius rods and air shocks removed. The rods are already out but I'll have to wait till I replace the wheels and (255-60) tires out back before I can take out the air shocks. "Firm" is okay...so stiff that my head bangs the underside of the hardtop on bumps is not so okay.
Mike T.