Quote:

---

Quote:

---

First I don't want to start a war here, I am just trying to understand what my simple mind is failing to understand. I know that Calvets raced 60's mustangs and with the rear leaf spring design that they and other leaf spring cars, I can diffinately understand there need and how they function. A wonderful way to solve there problems but I get a little lost on there need on a Mopar. I understand the need for a very stiff front segment but once you acheive that how does there design put more down force on the tire???

---

Why would it make any difference that's its a Mopar. Leaf springs are leaf springs. If the design helps a Ford or Chevy....it also helps a Mopar

The goal is to make the segment as stiff as possible. ANY flex here is too much

Monte

---

The Caltrac science does help the ford leaf springs better then the Mopar leaf springs. The axel is centered on the 60,s mustangs that Calvert designed them for, While the axels are much more forward on the same era mopars.

Monte, the statement Any flex here is too much" isn't accurate. At least in a lot of these front shorter segment Mopars.

A solid front short mopar front spring segment can be to violent reacting on a 450#+ torque motor on say a Abody,


The science behind the Caltracs is more then to make it just a solid bar.

Cause that's Easy to do.


EDIT; And the science behind the Caltracs isn't that technical.

Its like, okay my axel wants to rotate, can I put a lever off the bottom of my axel to push another lever from a pushrod to a V lever to push down on the upper part of my front spring so it wont rotate so bad.

The only science is to figure out the approximate lever lengths. And even those lengths will be a guestimate to what works better. Good idea to build in some adjustability here.