Moparts
Caltrac Science???
Posted By: Cuda367
Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 04:16 AM
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???
Posted By: 1967dartgt
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 04:27 AM
The front triangle pivots and increases the down force on the rear tires. The hard you make it pivot the harder it pushes down on the spring. You don't need it till you go faster then tens.
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 04:42 AM
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
Posted By: Sport440
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 06:22 AM
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. 
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 07:26 AM
Front segment stiffer = better......period. The stiffer the better. There is no instance where some spring wrap is good.
Monte
Posted By: Cuda367
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 04:49 PM
Thanks so far. Lets say I can put X amount of torque to the pinion and read the amount of preasure to the front spring eye bolt. Now I install caltracs and repeat. For there to be an increase in traction the preasure at the front spring eye would have to increase and I am not understanding how that would happen. I have to be missing something because the answer here is always to put caltracs on it and I am fine with that as soon as I can understand why. My opjection to them is that they hang down below the car and make me think I am looking at some brank X with slapper bars on it. I am thinking I could put a bracket on the top of the axle and install the front part of the caltrac pionting up rather thab down. Now hidden, but won't put anything on until I understand why I am doing it. Thanks again
Posted By: Duner
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:06 PM
You are trying to lift the front of the car with the rotational force of the pinion climbing the ring gear. If you are trying to lift something - you want leverage on your side. If you are trying to lift something but the bar is bending (front segment of the spring), most of your lifting effort is lost.
If you make that bar both stronger and give it some additional power by changing the amount of motion that lifting action creates - you get the lifting movement you are looking for. That's why you have the rear portion of the caltracs below the axle.
If you want to try and put that above the axle - then you will simply lock everything up with no "reaction" force to make it work. It would be trying to lift the front - but the leverage point would be on the wrong side of the force.
Posted By: superhog88
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:07 PM
I am no expert and will never claim that i am. My under standing is that the caltracs bars do the same thing that a pinion snubber only better. they limit the rotation of rear differential. the front segment of the spring and the caltracs bar act like a 4-link.
Posted By: MoParFish
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:14 PM
Quote:
Thanks so far. Lets say I can put X amount of torque to the pinion and read the amount of preasure to the front spring eye bolt. Now I install caltracs and repeat. For there to be an increase in traction the preasure at the front spring eye would have to increase and I am not understanding how that would happen. I have to be missing something because the answer here is always to put caltracs on it and I am fine with that as soon as I can understand why. My opjection to them is that they hang down below the car and make me think I am looking at some brank X with slapper bars on it. I am thinking I could put a bracket on the top of the axle and install the front part of the caltrac pionting up rather thab down. Now hidden, but won't put anything on until I understand why I am doing it. Thanks again
You would lose the down-force on top of the spring. As the bottom bar pushes forward, the "triangle" pivots off the spring eye bolt then pushes down on top of spring. I consider it a kind of basic four link?
No expert here either but, works good on my stuff
Posted By: 340B5
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:18 PM
Quote:
I am no expert and will never claim that i am. My under standing is that the caltracs bars do the same thing that a pinion snubber only better. they limit the rotation of rear differential. the front segment of the spring and the caltracs bar act like a 4-link.
Pinion snubbers are worthless unless on a low powered car and a really greasy track I finally learned that when I got mine to run in the tens. I had a little wiggle(tire slippage) when shifting to second gear so I modified the snubber for a 2" plus gap and the wiggle went away.
Posted By: Big Squeeze
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:18 PM
Quote:
I am no expert and will never claim that i am. My under standing is that the caltracs bars do the same thing that a pinion snubber only better. they limit the rotation of rear differential. the front segment of the spring and the caltracs bar act like a 4-link.
The difference is that a snubber does NOTHING to keep the leaf springs from wrapping up...when leaf springs wrap up, they don't consistently wrap up the same way plus wrapping up wears them out...
That's ALL Cal-Tracs do...keep the leaf spring from wrapping up...and they're adjustable to compensate for different power levels and track conditions...it's not any more complicated than that...they DO NOT apply more downward force on the tire or anything like that...The more power you have and/or the more available traction you have, the less leverage you need pushing down on the top of the leaf springs to keep them from wrapping up, and vice versa....
IMHO, the only reason to run them is if you have to (like in a restricted headsup Class) or if you don't want to install ladder bars or a 4-link, because they're both way better...
BTW, the reason for different length front spring segments is to move the Instant Center (front spring eye) closer to the 100% anti squat line....If the body tries to seperate from the rear wheel, you need a stiffer rear shock adjustment or you can move the front spring eye forward...
Posted By: dizuster
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:34 PM
Quote:
I am thinking I could put a bracket on the top of the axle and install the front part of the caltrac pionting up rather thab down. Now hidden, but won't put anything on until I understand why I am doing it. Thanks again
You absolutely could do this. The problem that you have, is that it puts the threads of the heim joint in tension instead of compression, which is much more likely to fail then the other way around. I thought about doing the same thing to help "hide them".
As for your question on caltracs creating more "pressure" on the tire. While there is no special geometry about them that makes more "pressure" on the tire from a static evaluation (links/torques/etc...) the part your missing is what happens in the DYNAMIC tire event.
When the car launches the pinion tries to climb the ring gear. One of three things happens.
1) The axle rotates up (car doesn't move).
2) The axle stays still and the tires spin without forward car movement.
3) The axle stays still and the car moves forward (traction).
In reality all three of these things can/do happen similtaniously. However during the initial "hit" the majority of the movement is #1 above. This is mainly because the force to rotate the pinion is less then any forces required to overcome the intertia of the body/tire.
What happens is that when the axle rotates up, there is a vertical force translated through the front spring segment to the front spring eye.
If you remember from high school science class, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, when the spring tries to pick up the body through the front spring eye, the opposite "Force" doing that is pressure on the tire. You can imagine this even in a static environment, if you put the jack under your tire, whatever force you apply to the tire, is translated to the front spring eye.
This all happens VERY quickly. Because shortly after the "hit" the torque of the tire start to overcome the inertia of the car to move it forward. So there is a very small window between "hit" and forward movement.
That all being said, what the caltrac does is allow the front segment to become very stiff almost immediately. If the front segment is soft, during the time period of tire "hit", all of the energy from the pinion rotation will simply be used to bend the spring (no additional force on the tire). However if the front spring segment is "stiff", then it allows the energy to transfer immediately to the front spring eye. When it tries to quickly accelerate the body upwards, the inertia from the car resists the movement. The result is that the sidewall of the tire "looses" the force battle, and the tire gets planted into the ground HARD.
Once you have the tire planted, it is less likely to spin because you now have more traction. More traction means that you can accelerate the car forward sooner/quicker.
Make sense?
Posted By: dizuster
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:38 PM
Here is a post I previously made showing some pictures of what I'm talking about.
https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/show...amp;Search=true
Posted By: Dodgeguy101
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:42 PM
Alright, I have to ask.
What is the difference in what you just described vs the old traction bars you bolted under the spring? The rear is trying to rotate but the traction bar is stopping it from rotating when the snubber, front of the traction bar, hits the bottom of the spring? Isn't this the same principle, to keep the rear from rotating up?
Or, I'm just not getting it?
Posted By: Duner
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:50 PM
There must be a little more to it than simply stopping the housing from rotating.....
I made new rear mounts for my Caltracs that added 2.5" more "arm" to them - and dropped my 60' numbers by 2 tenths without changing anything else. I'll let some experts tell us why it worked - because I'm one of those "try it and see" kind of guys. I don't necessarily HAVE TO understand all of the science behind it. I try it anyway.
Posted By: dizuster
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 05:56 PM
Quote:
Alright, I have to ask.
What is the difference in what you just described vs the old traction bars you bolted under the spring?
There isn't a whole lot of difference, except one thing.
The caltrack through the front bracket pulls DOWN on the front of the main leaf segment at the front. The slapper bar pushes UP on the front of the main leaf segment at the front.
Since this area is already trying to bend UP (and is the primary source of spring flex), the slapper bar is less effective. It basically makes a large portion of the spring segment "solid", but it doesn't fix the biggest area of bending (front main leaf right behind the front spring eye).
Also, since most slapper bars have a rubber snubber on them, the rubber compresses (no different the having the spring waste pressure/energy through flexing).
The caltrac is steel on steel, so there is very little flexing. As Monte pointed out, you don't want ANY flex in the system.
Posted By: Dodgeguy101
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 06:02 PM
Well,
here is why I am asking. I wanted to try something different. So, over on bigblockdart.com, in the tech section, there is fellow across the pond, that made a bar system that goes under the spring plate and goes to the front bottom of the spring. Now, I made a set, and put them on the car.
Car has worn out springs that have been on the car for 30 years. I know I am going to beat up over this, but for the amount I drive the car, it was ok. It doesn't spin, car takes off straight as an arrow. The car was starting to bend the front portion of the spring. I put these homemade bars on, it stopped the bending and the car dropped the 60ft time from average 1.45 to 1.39. Now mind you the convertor isn't optimum for the engine, but it is what I have. Its a high 9 second car. It weighs 3100 with my 200lbs in it.
I just want to know, if these bars aren't great, I may get the Caltracs and new springs and move on.
Posted By: Just-a-dart
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 06:03 PM
Well said Dizuter
Posted By: dizuster
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 06:05 PM
Quote:
There must be a little more to it than simply stopping the housing from rotating.....
I made new rear mounts for my Caltracs that added 2.5" more "arm" to them - and dropped my 60' numbers by 2 tenths without changing anything else. I'll let some experts tell us why it worked - because I'm one of those "try it and see" kind of guys. I don't necessarily HAVE TO understand all of the science behind it. I try it anyway.
It's not exactly about stopping the housing from rotating, it timing the energy from the housing rotation, to apply it to the tire when you need it.
When you added length, you did two things. You lowered the pressure on the caltrac bar because you changed the ratio's between the axle arm and the front caltrac pivot arm. But you also accelerated how long it took for the front spring segment to go solid. 1 degree of axle movement resulted in more horizontal cal track bar movement, which made the front bracket rotate quicker. This is the same principal as putting the caltrac in the top hole (changes the pressure on the spring), or adding preload (changes the time before the front spring segment goes solid).
My guess is the reason that this worked on your truck is because you needed to keep the front spring segment a little softer because the shocks you have couldn't control the "hit" on the tire. I have no idea where the IC is on your truck either, so that may have something to do with it since it's a little "out of the norm" compared to other stuff.
P.S. There is nothing wrong with a "Try and See" approach. It's how most drag racers have been going faster and faster every weekend for years. I am fortunate enough to understand a little more science behind it, so I just try and share it in an easy to understand explanation.
Posted By: Duner
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 06:58 PM
Lucky for me I don't have to be that smart to get results.....
Now if you could just point me in a direction to knock off a couple more tenths for $3 worth of steel and an hour's worth of labor I'd be EVER so grateful. LOL
Quote:
Alright, I have to ask.
What is the difference in what you just described vs the old traction bars you bolted under the spring? The rear is trying to rotate but the traction bar is stopping it from rotating when the snubber, front of the traction bar, hits the bottom of the spring? Isn't this the same principle, to keep the rear from rotating up?
Or, I'm just not getting it?
I've run both slapper bars and Cal-tracks on my car. I've looked closely at how my Caltrack setup works, and here's what I see:
Once the slapper bar touches the spring, it just stops the rotation of the axle. The leverage it creates will push the axle down a bit, but with no flex in the front segment, it is literally just pivoting off the front eye with all the lift flex coming from the back segment of the spring.
With the Cal-track bars, it takes that axle rotational force, and transfers it into down-force on the front segment. So it not only stops the rotation, but now you're actually pushing the front segment down, forcing it to flex in the opposite direction that it normally would. This is where I would dissagree with Monte somewhat. Coupled with flex in the rear segment, this pushes the axle down squarely, instead of rotating off the front eye. This keeps your pinion angle more correct.
If you look at it this way, the difference in Cal-Track bars vs. slapper bars, is very similar to the difference between a 4 link vs. a ladder bar.
Posted By: OUTLAWD
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/01/14 08:54 PM
Quote:
Well,
here is why I am asking. I wanted to try something different. So, over on bigblockdart.com, in the tech section, there is fellow across the pond, that made a bar system that goes under the spring plate and goes to the front bottom of the spring. Now, I made a set, and put them on the car.
Out of curiosity, have a link?
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 08:04 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Alright, I have to ask.
What is the difference in what you just described vs the old traction bars you bolted under the spring? The rear is trying to rotate but the traction bar is stopping it from rotating when the snubber, front of the traction bar, hits the bottom of the spring? Isn't this the same principle, to keep the rear from rotating up?
Or, I'm just not getting it?
I've run both slapper bars and Cal-tracks on my car. I've looked closely at how my Caltrack setup works, and here's what I see:
Once the slapper bar touches the spring, it just stops the rotation of the axle. The leverage it creates will push the axle down a bit, but with no flex in the front segment, it is literally just pivoting off the front eye with all the lift flex coming from the back segment of the spring.
With the Cal-track bars, it takes that axle rotational force, and transfers it into down-force on the front segment. So it not only stops the rotation, but now you're actually pushing the front segment down, forcing it to flex in the opposite direction that it normally would. This is where I would dissagree with Monte somewhat. Coupled with flex in the rear segment, this pushes the axle down squarely, instead of rotating off the front eye. This keeps your pinion angle more correct.
If you look at it this way, the difference in Cal-Track bars vs. slapper bars, is very similar to the difference between a 4 link vs. a ladder bar.
When you bend a leaf spring......where does it bend?.....answer, right behind the spring eye........Now, where does the Cal Track push DOWN on the spring......answer, right behind the spring eye.
The answer to all this is the same as it has been for years....make the front segment as solid as possible. Calvert developed these for one reason. As already covered, slapper bars, J bars, South Side bars and all the others contacted the spring under or right behind the spring eye. YES, this stiffens the segment, but as power increases, you WILL bend the spring. No ifs ands or buts. By designing a bar that actually pushes the spring in the opposite direction of where they bend, the Cal Track bars solves two problems.
Here is what we did years ago on our Super Stocker, when we realized the "J" bars were not keeping us from bending springs. We stacked the FRONT of the spring segment with 6 or 7 leaves. We had two that came completely under the spring eye and the rest were incrementally shorter, as factory spring packs are. We adjusted the REAR of the spring pack to get the desired ride height. We then measured the ARCH of the spring pack with the car sitting on the ground. At that point we took the springs out from under the car, placed then in a press and flattened the pack, until we reached "as under car" arch. Then proceeded to drill the front pack all the way through at every leaf and bolted the pack together with grade 8 hardware. Did it work......you bet your azz.........was it heavy as hell and a ton of work......you bet your azz. The Cal Track and similar devices do exactly the same thing. Just much lighter and less labor intensive.
And by the way, while the Cal Tracks work great, I personally prefer the "Assassin" bars. They are more adjustable and I think work a little better..........plus are much easier to mount on most cars, especially Mopars
Monte
Posted By: madscientist
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 08:38 AM
Monte,
I looked at the Assasin (sp???) bars but it looks like you have to drill a hole in the leaf. What do you think of that? How are the asassin (sp???) bars more adjustable than Caltracs?
What about the slide a link bars by CE?
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 08:51 AM
Quote:
Monte,
I looked at the Assasin (sp???) bars but it looks like you have to drill a hole in the leaf. What do you think of that? How are the asassin (sp???) bars more adjustable than Caltracs?
What about the slide a link bars by CE?
Many more holes to change the leverage............drilling the hole.......no big deal. I have used these bars several times on customers cars. I like them a lot
Monte
Posted By: madscientist
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 09:06 AM
Just took a closer look at the Assassin bars. Glad I did. Didn't remember all the adjustment holes. Big bonus.
Posted By: onig
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 02:16 PM
I once read that the caltracs can break springs in really high horse powered cars, 1500 hp and up. When they switched to the assassin bars they did not break the springs. Caltracs work good. For most of us here they won't break our springs. The assassins do have more adjustments for fine tuning. I do believe the assasin bars sit just a little lower than the caltracs. When it's time for my suspension, I will probably look closer at the assassin bars.
Here is the link to the website:
http://www.srdparts.com/index.php?page=s...rt&Itemid=1
Posted By: Dodgeguy101
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 03:31 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Well,
here is why I am asking. I wanted to try something different. So, over on bigblockdart.com, in the tech section, there is fellow across the pond, that made a bar system that goes under the spring plate and goes to the front bottom of the spring. Now, I made a set, and put them on the car.
Out of curiosity, have a link?
Here you go. If it does't work, go to www.bigblockdart.com and on the home page look for the tech articles, and you will see the 3-link topic.
http://www.bigblockdart.com/techpages/3link.shtml
Posted By: Quicktree
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 03:40 PM
don't you guys wonder if the extra holes really does anything? some of them are pretty close.
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 11:15 PM
Quote:
don't you guys wonder if the extra holes really does anything? some of them are pretty close.
A real 4 link has a lot of holes to and a one hole change can be huge. Boils down to this.......if you are the type guy who never changes anything, be it travel, shock adjustments, ride height, or anything else, and you think what you have works "good enough" you DON'T need these bars. Parts such as this are for the guy who wants to "try stuff" in an effort to get all he can from his car. The way I see it, the Assassin bars are the same price as Cal-Tracs. If I had nothing, I would buy the bar that appears to have more options as far as adjustment.
Depends on what you are trying to do. We had double adjustable Santhuffs all the way around on our drag radial car. These are what I consider about the best shocks you can buy. However, we just bought a set of Menscer shocks for the rear, that cost us about $1600. Why?.......because there is a chance they could be better and we are looking for everything we can get. You don't KNOW if something is better unless you TRY it.
That "3 link" deal.........personally I see NO WAY that front slide deal won't bind when you hit it with power
Monte
Posted By: Sport440
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/02/14 11:29 PM
Quote:
Front segment stiffer = better......period. The stiffer the better. There is no instance where some spring wrap is good.
Monte
I agree that stiffer is better, but disagree that there are No instances where some spring wrap/flex is good.
The Caltrac design/science has this flex and minimized spring wrap feature. When they could of easily come up with a Solid front segment design IMO.
SSM bars for the Mopars make the front segment 99% solid IMO I know Ive had them and tried them.
When I tried them on my A body 20" front segment, with 500# of torque, it made the front segment rotation to violent, with no real amount of spring wrap.
Granted, I didn't go to the extra effort of trying to control this with a stiffer shock.
I just want to point out that the Caltrac Science, does have some flex/spring wrap built in, When they, like I said, could of removed that flex/wrap up and made them solid with a design more like SSM bars.
I don't even think SSM makes their bars for mopars anymore. They still do for Fords and chevys though. Not arguing here, just talking
Posted By: madscientist
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/03/14 12:03 AM
And here lies the truth of it all. 99% NEVER really test. Most don't actually know how. It's damn near impossible to test on a test and tune day, let alone a race. If you want to really test, you need to start on the dyno and work on it until you are sick of it.
Then, you rent the track. And, if you are lucky or really good and have done your homework, you may be close enough to evaluate changes made at a race or test and tune.
I have rented the track 4 times in one year and still didn't get what I wanted. Back to the dyno and keep on going.
Now, I know there are some super tuners who roll new [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] right out of the box and rotate the earth. Those dudes are few and far between.
Posted By: Monte_Smith
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/03/14 12:35 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Front segment stiffer = better......period. The stiffer the better. There is no instance where some spring wrap is good.
Monte
I agree that stiffer is better, but disagree that there are No instances where some spring wrap/flex is good.
The Caltrac design/science has this flex and minimized spring wrap feature. When they could of easily come up with a Solid front segment design IMO.
SSM bars for the Mopars make the front segment 99% solid IMO I know Ive had them and tried them.
When I tried them on my A body 20" front segment, with 500# of torque, it made the front segment rotation to violent, with no real amount of spring wrap.
Granted, I didn't go to the extra effort of trying to control this with a stiffer shock.
I just want to point out that the Caltrac Science, does have some flex/spring wrap built in, When they, like I said, could of removed that flex/wrap up and made them solid with a design more like SSM bars.
I don't even think SSM makes their bars for mopars anymore. They still do for Fords and chevys though. Not arguing here, just talking
Is a ladder bar too stiff........is a 4-link too stiff........answer NO. All these traction devices are basically an attempt to make the leaf spring act like a short ladder bar........BUT, the stiffer you make it AND the more power you hit it with, the BETTER shock you need to control the housing. ANY and I repeat ANY force that is not directly applying power to your tires to move the car forward is wasted motion. Just because your car became too violent when making the segment really stiff, does NOT mean it was wrong. It just means you didn't control it.
As far as EASY to make a front segment 100% solid..........sorry but that is NOT easy to do, aside from completely removing the front spring segment itself and replacing it with tubing or something similar, which is NOT legal in any class of racing that requires the car to have it's stock type suspension.......
....We tried something years ago that involved replacing the front segment with a piece of .250 wall 2x3 rectangular tubing lying flat and a mono rear segment to hold the car up and still "CALL" it a leaf spring. It quickly buckled even the .250 wall tubing. The next plan was to "stand" the tubing up, but the rules makers nixed the idea quickly anyway. Said we were in a "grey area" of the rules, but they quickly rewrote them to make it crystal clear.....LOL.
Next idea, build a super stiff front spring pack, run "Assassin" bars with NO rear leaf and install coilovers. Worked well......then they nixed that idea as well and the rules got even MORE clear on what was and was NOT legal.........LOL!!!
The point here..... not new to trying to make leafs work, but one thing I do know, is that in my own experience, we NEVER got anything TOO stiff.
Monte
Posted By: dizuster
Re: Caltrac Science??? - 11/03/14 01:53 AM
As pointed out, the ONLY reason that you would want the front segment to "flex" is if you didn't have a good enough shock to control the power you were throwing at it.
Now back to reality... MOST of us DON'T have a good enough shock to control the housing. The adjustability of the caltrac allows the spring to bend slightly, which is a band-aid for poor housing control.