Traction Bar Idea.....
 

OK... Been Brain storming many ideas for traction bars... I Know... Scary... :run:

Well there is the traditional bar (top Image) Which would push up on the frame infront of the rear axle lifting the front end. Then there is my Idea (bottom image) which pulls down on the frame behind the rear axle lifting the front axle... Question is... Which lifts the front LESS... the pivot point is the axle... I know that by making the bars in front of the rear axle shorter you would take away some of the leverage( closer to the pivot point) I am thinking that short bars behind the axle would provide even less lift. I know its not the normal way of thinking but...

Attachment 57963


Comments?

You may put the shackle in a bind running it backwards like that.

why are you going in reverse in your pics?

That is the direction that the axle housing would rotate... :D

Aaron, Try this site. Lot's of good info.
Axle Wrap Prevention

Like diesel-n-dust said, you run a pretty good chance of binding the shackle that way, as your axle travels up, the shackle wants to move it back, but your traction bar idea wants to push it forwards, so binding is gonna happen.

Your other problem with doing that is that you want the front end to lift (more so in a rwd car, but even in a 4wd truck it makes sense), the more front end lift you get, the more weight you'll get transferring to the rear end, and lets face it, the front end has plenty of weight on it already. Now a good 4-Bar setup runs with a link on top and on the bottom of the axle, which when properly setup and adjusted will give you perfect straight launches, without any impossibility of axle wrap...but thats the advantage of not running leafs I guess.

no offense, but if something like that worked, then i think it would have been thought of before. although theres a first time for everything. to me, the 2nd image (your idea) would push the front acle up more, b/c the weight of the truck going back, and it smomentum forward seems like that would push it up more. idk how to exaplin it, but thats my opinion.

:rolleyes2:

'Cause we all know that EVEYTHING that could be thought of has been...

hence the "theres a first time for everything" quote.

--but that set up would almost be like a spring shooting the front up. at least thats how i picture it working. also, i dont think the frame of any vehicle sticks out far enough past the rear wheels for that to work properly.

These truck have plenty of frame left to do that with. I wouldn't touch it, stick with the original design.

if u have somethig to beat upo, then go for it, but until then, i wouldnt...

Your traction bar idea...
 

Your traction bar idea should work as I have successfully created a traction bar concept like your drawing. My Super Duty is lowered and I had two options for my exhaust - a stack or out in front of the tire. I opted for the front of the rear diff and had no realistic space for a traction bar in front. But - the rear mounting point of my setup is level with the front, so as the suspension moves up and back nothing binds. If you have access to a way to put weight in the back of your truck, mach some mounting point ideas, measure loaded and unloaded lengths to the differential mounting points and you should be on track.:U:

:humm:

Got pics?

I'll get some pics for ya this weekened. :c:

Bobby,

I think you will find that in your design, there will be no weight transfer to the rear end, to obtain traction.

Essentially, the rear will "squat" as a result of the axle being "lifted" away from traction. Effectively, you would now have 2 axles (Front and Rear) with no weight for traction.

I'll try to explain.

Inertia transfers weight naturally to the rear end of an accelerating vehicle. This tends to "lift" the front, and "squat" the rear.

In your first example, the physics involved would "push" the rear axle toward the traction surface, therefore taking advantage of the inertia shift, providing better traction to the rear, while also attempting to place more load on the front axle.

This would have the effect of resisting the "squat" normally incurred by the weight transfer, and allowing an additional "pushing force" downward, to where traction exists.

In your second example, the physics involved would actually "lift" the rear axle away from the traction surface, increasing the "squat" and not taking advantage of the inertia shift, thereby lowering rear traction, and simultaneously lowering weight on the front end...

Hope this helps.