Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Brian B. Kansas City · Post by **Brian B. Kansas City** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:08 am

So I bought this chassis with elliptical springs at the Model T Haven auction and now I’m trying to figure out what all the parts and pieces to it are.
It appears to be a Model T frame with the front spring inverted and then attached to the suspension of and axle of another manufacturer. Plenty of early cars had full elliptical front springs and axles that are similar to this setup but I’m having a hard time finding spindles with a grease fitting in the middle of the spindle.

Any ideas on where this axle, springs and spindles came from?

Post by **TXGOAT2** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:34 am

That setuip would be a handful to drive without good double-acting shocks. Was any other motor vehicle ever equipped with full elliptic front springs, let alone full elliptic front springs and a transverse spring also?

Post by **dobro1956** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:36 am

Brian. I looked at that chassis at the auction. I probably talked to you about it. I was trying to let as many T guys know about it so it would not go to the scrapper.
I'm pretty sure it is a factory made kit to put full eleptic springs on the front and 3/4 eleptic springs on the rear of a T. I think the rear part of the kit is all there as well as having some kind of accessory brake actuators.
I think the front setup is mounted wrong . It appears to me that there probably was a pair of brackets that mounted to the frame similar to the rear setup. In my opinion mounting a full eliptic spring to the Ford transverse spring ends will not work well.. If you look closely at the front setup mounting bolts and hardware, they are a mis match of all kinds of stuff. I do think the full eliptic springs and some of the other components are correct for the kit.
I think that the rear setup alone would be a very unique setup for a speedster. Use it with a stock T front axle or some combination of drop axle or lowering brackets to have 3/4 eleptic rear and transverse front. Then make sure to have a fenderless speedster so everyone could see it. The front setup could also be used by making some custom brackets. I could be wrong about the front setup as I only had a little while to really study it. So more research is probably needed.

I'm not sure what to call the front setup as-is,
maybe... "double hung, transverse,, full eleptic ??????"

It's a good thing I had no room to haul it back or I would probably be starting another speedster project ......

Good buy, and good luck with it

Have fun and be safe ...........

Brian B. Kansas City · Post by **Brian B. Kansas City** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:42 pm

Thanks again Donnie!

I agree the rear setup is much better than the front.

Just am hoping to get the front figured out. I blew up the picture from the ad Dan Treace posted on a different thread and it looks like on this kit at least, there is a something a little more solid than another spring cradling the front cross member.

Wayne Sheldon · Post by **Wayne Sheldon** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:19 pm

The front axle is most likely either Chevrolet or Overland. Both used front axles similar to that, and are fairly common. I know that some Chevrolet spindles did have a treaded boss for grease/oil fittings on them like that. However, in other ways, it does not look quite like any of the several early 1920s Chevrolet front axles I have been up close with. For that reason (flimsy as it may be?), I would guess maybe Overland. There are other possibilities, but offhand I cannot think of them.

The entire assembly front and rear is interesting. It certainly looks a lot like the advertisement that Dan T posted on the other thread? However, overall it looks like a really bad idea.
A lot of cars before 1915 had full elliptic springs on them. Many on only the rear, some on only the front, and a lot of them on both front and rear! Metz up until about 1916, many Buick models before 1912. EMF/Studebaker four cylinder cars had them on the rear only for several years until about 1916.

The problem with this setup is that the springs (both front and rear, however especially the rear!) are set too close together. Unless the axle/housings are specifically design to distribute the weight this way, the springs need to be as close to the outer end of the axle or housing as is practical. The model T front axle is designed to support the car from about eight inches from the wheel hub center. But this has moved the front to nearly a foot from the wheel hub center. The marvelous thing about the model T's rear suspension is that the crossways spring puts the car's weight less than five inches from hub center! Even at that, the model T axle often sags in the middle if it is overloaded too much or worked too hard. Hence, truss rods being added to some model Ts. This setup, with the weight placed squarely fully a foot in from the hub is virtually guaranteed to crush the housings if used hard.

Otherwise, it is a really neat item! If it were mine? I would HAVE to figure out a good way to use it!

Post by **dobro1956** » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:45 pm

Wayne, One of the truss rods that goes under the rear pumpkin to clamps around the axle tubes near the hubs should solve the rear axle issue you mention.

Wayne Sheldon · Post by **Wayne Sheldon** » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:34 am

Donnie, It certainly would help. But given the purchase angle with the weight halfway between the pumpkin and the wheel? A typical single truss rod would probably not be enough.
Ever since I first saw a photo of this on the other thread a few days ago, I have been intrigued by it! I just don't know what kind of car I would want to put that under? It needs to be something special.

Post by **TXGOAT2** » Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:48 am

The forward rear spring mounts place the load well outboard of the lightweight frame rail, which puts torque on the frame rail. The T frame rail is not designed for that kind of loading at that point. That type of mount is common on heavier frames which have a substantial crossmember located at that point to resist torque. Driving that thing, even with a very light body, would be like riding on top of a stack of 8 mattresses loosely tied to the top of an old Buick with no shocks. It looks as if the ride height would be higher than a stock T, which would aggravate handling issues. Lacking any kind of damping beyond friction between the spring leaves, it would unsafe at any significant speed on anything but a smooth, level surface. I'd think bump steer would be a problem, too, especially when a little wear developed in the spring shackles. I wonder if that isn't a special purpose vehicle conversion and never intended for general road use.

Post by **Bill Dizer** » Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:30 pm

I don’t think that front suspension is going to be as poor handling as has been suggested. The wishbone will keep it centered and prevent side to side movement, the other springs appear heavy enough to not have that much bounce and rebound with a light weight T body and engine. There is not that much mass and inertia involved. The front ford spring is stiffened because of more frame contact further out which will help with excessive flex there. The outer sections of the front axle seem to be made heavier as well. It will be different from stock, but no worse. The rear I would agree leaves far too much of the outer axle unsupported and more likely to be bent on the roads of the day. I cannot see any advantage to the half spring on top. That would appear to me to be more likely to make the rear hard to control when side loads are involved. A panhard bar crossways from the frame on one side to the axle on the other would help. Just using a frame extension instead of the half spring would be better too. Crossmembers under the frame from side to side for both ends of the springs to hook to could move the springs out closer to the ends of the axle as well. It appears that there is a block under the front engine mount to help align the driveshaft u joint. That u joint needs to be kept as straight as possible to prevent vibration, since there is just the one. Too much bend in the joint will cause binding and vibration. Changing one thing, such as driveshaft angle, changes many other things that have to be adjusted. You raise the frame over the rearend you change the u joint angle, so you raise the front of the engine, now the radiator may not clear the crank, and hoses don’t line up, the hood no longer fits right, the pedals don’t fit the slots in the floor boards and so on! A whole new bag of worms to deal with!

Post by **TXGOAT2** » Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:49 pm

It would be very interesting to find a complete car fitted with one of these outfits. I believe you'd have plenty of side motion in the front axle, even when everything was new, and turning the steering wheel would probably pull the axle from side to side relative to the frame. A panhard rod could reduce that tendency somewhat, but given the amount of vertical suspension flex that looks to be available, the panhard rod would itself cause the axle to shift from side to side as the springs flexed, as would the cross steering. The interaction between the two forces on an undulating road might get very interesting. It's one thing for the rear of a chassis to have some side sway, but quite another when the front end does, let alone both ends, and the two would interact under many road and steering input situations to make controlling the vehicle challenging. It would offer one heck of a lot of flex. It would have been more controllable with a proper steering gear and full spring damping. It looks like it would have been more of an off-road crawler than a road going vehicle.

Post by **Bill Dizer** » Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:35 am

As I said, the wishbone prevents side to side movement. Through triangulation, the axle can’t move side to side, just pivot at the pan mount. If you mount the panhard bar parallel to the axle, it minimizes any induced movement. Dodge 4x4 trucks with solid axles and coil springs have used them for years! They do get very hard to drive if the link gets loose! As you say, it would be interesting to see one of these systems in use. The fact that there aren’t any around might be the answer in itself! The added weight on 20 horses probably didn’t help either.

MTFCA Forum

Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?

Re: Ellipitical Springs and Axle Whatizit?