Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Calvert Split Mono leafs and Cal Trac Bars. They only use the front half of the split mono leaf spring with the Cal Trac's and have Coil-overs to suspend the car on it, along with a wishbone or panhard bar, it Basically turns the front half of the leaf spring with the Cal trac into a ladder bar and ORSCA says it is legal..? It's no secret Cal trac's work very well evidently, but is this set up really that much better than how they were intended originally?????
There is a Nova in this class set up the same way. They let the Leaf spring cars do this because some of the Mustangs and Late Model Camaro's are 60' in the low 1.20's in EZ Street, and that is impressive to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yet to see one out 60 foot someone with an actual leaf spring setup. Personally, I think it's dumb :)
Agreed, I too think it's unnessasary overkill, but I was asked to pose the question to this forum for some feedback, but I feel once the Caltrac
system as it's packaged is setup correctly, there is not much that can be done to improve upon it, infact that is basically why they sell the spring in a SPLIT
MONO style instead of a single solid leaf, which would cause binding to a degree, thanks SBNova, it's good to hear from you Bro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Yea i dont like it ...i mean there are splits and calbars in the 4.50's easy and id almost bet the ones on this setup are not running those times.. My normal setup would go 1.30 1.31 every pass all day long on 28's with the old small block like a bracket car.. And when i put new BB in itmid 1.20's shouldnt be a problem

but hey different stroke for different folks
 

·
draggin' ass
Joined
·
13,408 Posts
I can not see how this would work. The rear portion of the leaf does as much as the front does! Without the rear half, nothing is there to adequately limit the rotation of the housing. You would simply be allowing the leaf to serve as a non rigid link while the cal trac bar is rigid. You will end up with a four link with half metal and half playdough. I am sorry but unless someone shows me how it works, I can not believe this will in the real world.
 

·
draggin' ass
Joined
·
13,408 Posts
Got any pictures of it working? I am curious what keeps the housing from rotating as power is applied.
 

·
draggin' ass
Joined
·
13,408 Posts
But they pivot on both ends. I still am at a loss for what keeps the geometry. The front bracket forces the lea spring down, this draws the bar forward thus raising the pinion gear. Nt to mention it does this naturally. What acts as a limiter for this pinion rotation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
it would be nothing less the ladder bar suspension..... I guess I dont see an advantage to it.......just away to get around the rules?
by the time you do the sliders and such, I think mine will 60 just fine....... I guess I will wait and see.

if some one has seen an advantage please fill me in
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
But they pivot on both ends. I still am at a loss for what keeps the geometry. The front bracket forces the lea spring down, this draws the bar forward thus raising the pinion gear. Nt to mention it does this naturally. What acts as a limiter for this pinion rotation?
with the caltrac the pinion is kinda locked down, kinda..... it would be kinda like a softer version of a ladder bar:p..... the wishbone or panhard rod would stop it from flopping around
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Agreed, I too think it's unnessasary overkill, but I was asked to pose the question to this forum for some feedback, but I feel once the Caltrac
system as it's packaged is setup correctly, there is not much that can be done to improve upon it, infact that is basically why they sell the spring in a SPLIT
MONO style instead of a single solid leaf, which would cause binding to a degree, thanks SBNova, it's good to hear from you Bro.
they sell it that way so you can take it apart?
they sell it that way so you have 2 different spring rates......that was the original reason.... the advantage to the split also is the different ride hieghts available ..... the fronts are all the same, and the rear is the rate and hieght..... or at least thats what john explained to me when I bought my splits 8 years ago....

or did I misunderstand the reason you said the were of that design
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
they sell it that way so you can take it apart?
they sell it that way so you have 2 different spring rates......that was the original reason.... the advantage to the split also is the different ride hieghts available ..... the fronts are all the same, and the rear is the rate and hieght..... or at least thats what john explained to me when I bought my splits 8 years ago....

or did I misunderstand the reason you said the were of that design
No you understood quite well, and you have enlightened me to the fact that the rear portion of the springs are how the rate and ride height are determined, this I did not know, but I was asked to pose this question to the masses, but I feel if doing it the way I've mentioned as opposed to how they were designed only amounts to 2 or 3 hundreths, it's not worth the effort over a well setup system the way it was designed by Mr. Calvert!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
No you understood quite well, and you have enlightened me to the fact that the rear portion of the springs are how the rate and ride height are determined, this I did not know, but I was asked to pose this question to the masses, but I feel if doing it the way I've mentioned as opposed to how they were designed only amounts to 2 or 3 hundreths, it's not worth the effort over a well setup system the way it was designed by Mr. Calvert!
sorry if I came across wrong...... the reasons I posted were my understanding of the system ,, from calvert..... I had thought about doing a system like you have described awhile back. but while my car is not the fastest out there , it just seems to work well...... so i left it alone.....
I can say I would like to watch a car like you have described in person....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
We did this some years back and it did work just not consistantly. I also don't see an adevantage to a full spring. We where just trying everything at that time. This was also before we switched to smith racecraft stuff. That helped things lots.

KG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
sorry if I came across wrong...... the reasons I posted were my understanding of the system ,, from calvert..... I had thought about doing a system like you have described awhile back. but while my car is not the fastest out there , it just seems to work well...... so i left it alone.....
I can say I would like to watch a car like you have described in person....
Same here, but not many people run this setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
So.... This might be bringing a worn out skeleton back from the dead..... But if someone were limited to "stock suspension, ran no prep, and knew for a fact that the leafs on the rear were the issue causing the rear to loose travel and not keep bite on the surface...... would this theoretically work better than the leaf spring setup ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
I would think if the leaf spring were
So.... This might be bringing a worn out skeleton back from the dead..... But if someone were limited to "stock suspension, ran no prep, and knew for a fact that the leafs on the rear were the issue causing the rear to loose travel and not keep bite on the surface...... would this theoretically work better than the leaf spring setup ?
I would think if the leaf spring were to "cause the rear to loose travel and not keep bite on the surface”...then you need to look at re-positioning the rear shock mounting; if not buying longer or shorter travel shocks.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top