Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Froot Loops of Safety

Sometimes when idiots like me build cars, they don't get everything right and the cars self destruct. One of the many dangerous ways cars can self destruct is by spitting out a driveshaft. This can happen when a driveshaft or U-joint breaks. 

Sometimes a driveshaft will break because there is too much torque going through the drivetrain. I don't think this engine will make so much torque or the tires will be so sticky that the driveshaft will tear itself in half, but it's possible that the angles aren't just right, or the shortened driveshaft isn't balanced right, or there is a welding issue... any number of things could be wonky. In an attempt to contain the driveshaft should things go haywire, I've installed a driveshaft loop.

NHRA rules require a driveshaft loop on any vehicle that runs the quarter mile quicker than 13.99-seconds while running slicks or quicker than 11.49-seconds on street tires. Since this car isn't built to be a drag racer, it's not likely that either of these situations will happen, but I do want that peace of mind. So like usual, I bought a kit and immediately started slicing and dicing. The rest is pretty self explanatory.







Just the other day I decided it was finally time to reinstall the old Grace-face. She's been without it since May of 2013. That's almost four years exactly. A lot has changed since then. A whole lot. I had barely just started the project. I was still single. I hadn't even met my wife at that point. I hadn't started getting fat yet. There was still a Backyard Steve. Man, I sorta miss Backyard Steve. I'll never forget one time when I came home from work and while chatting with Backyard Steve I noticed two thick scabs on his knee. He could tell that I was staring at his knee so he volunteered an explanation. "Oh yeah, that..." Backyard Steve said "I was doing business with a guy and he tried to cheat me, so I pulled my gun on him. It's a .22 pistol. While I was pulling the gun out I shot myself in the knee." He pointed at the scab above the kneecap "The bullet went in here", he then pointed at the scab below the kneecap "and went out here. It's ok though, I clobbered him with the butt of  my gun. Cracked his skull." Who knows if the story was true, but life was more colorful back then.


May 2013
May 2017
Anyway, Grace has made a lot of progress since those days. I'm not sure if I have, but my wife would at least tell you I wear much nicer shoes than I did in my bachelor days. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Monday, May 15, 2017

Boxes of Torque (part dos)

Did you know that dogs and cheetahs can be best friends? Well they can, and I saw it. It has nothing to do with my car, but its cool.


Today in Boxes of Torque (part dos) I make a passenger side torque box. Having already made and installed the driver's side, the passenger side went much quicker. I copied the patterns I had made for the other side and verified that they would fit. Then like Da Vinci with his paintbrush, I set to creating fine art with my angle grinder.



scribing the bend line makes it possible to bend thick sheet metal without a brake



In this shot you can see the S-bend in the tail of the torque box end cap. This tailis drilled and then plug welded to the inside of the lower rocker panel flange.The gap between the tail and the bottom part of the torque box is then filled bya weld 



One of the main attachment points for the torque box is inside the passenger compartment. A slit has to be cut in the floor sot hat the tab can pass through and be welded. I also added a spacer (which can be seen in the middle of the photo) to take up some space between the weld tab and the inner body structure.



With the exception of the welding burns on my arms that are still healing, the second torque box went in very smoothly. This brings us back to the original question. Did the torque boxes change the natural (or resonant) frequency of the subframe / rocker interface, thereby reducing a disconcerting vibration in the body structure when the engine is around 3800 RPM? The short answer is Yes.

I test drove the Falcon briefly and took it through the RPM range a few times. When I hit the problem RPM range, there was still more vibration than at other RPM ranges, but the amplitude was greatly reduced. While is still more than my ideal situation, but I have to remember that this is a shaky old engine in a shaky old car, and that it will likely improve once sound deadening materials and an interior are installed. My initial feeling is that my DIY Falcon torque boxes are doing the job I hoped they would do.

I had a request or two for the patterns of my torque boxes. I'm posting them below with a couple disclaimers. These worked for me. They may not work for you. My car is a 1962 Falcon 4-door sedan and I can't make any claims about any other configurations. I used 3/16 mild steel sheet to build these boxes. I'm sure there are better ways to stiffen a chassis (before you say subframe connectors, I already have subframe connectors) but this has seemed to work for me. Both patterns shown below will work on driver's and passengers, but the main body will have to be bent different directions to be used on different sides. I haven't included a plan for the main body truss. It's a funky quadrilateral that you are just going to have to figure out yourself because you are a big kid now.

Torque box end cap

Torque box main body

I'll be back soon with another episode but until then, stay cool and charge hard.

REAL MEN OF GENIUS

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Boxes of Torque



If you are weary traveler, searching the corners of the internet trying to find some information on Ford Falcon torque boxes, you are in the right place. Welcome to Ironhydroxide, a place where we tell stories about building an old econobox Falcon into the kind of high performance car it was never intended to be. If you are a regular, you already know this and you are probably just here for the gifs and youtube links.

What is a torque box? This is a question many a classic Ford owner has asked himself and most have not received a satisfactory answer. Today that is about to change.

In the late 1950s, The Big Three realized that they were about to get their butts whooped by the same group of schnitzel-eaters that they had whooped only 15 years earlier. Volkswagen, the brainchild of everyone's favorite fascist had grown powerful and was going for round two in world domination. The Beetle, known to the Germans as the Käfer, was steadily marching across the globe and even into the driveways of red-blooded Americans. Robert McNamara, who went on to become John F Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, recognized this creeping threat to the security of the good people of America Ford Motor Company. In response, he did something drastic and led Ford into battle with what was the smallest car they had built since the 1930s. This car was the Falcon and it was a massive success. It was cheap to build because it was a unibody construction, meaning that they no longer had to manufacture a frame and body.   After the first two years of production Ford had sold one million Falcons. For perspective, Toyota has sold about 400,000 Camrys each year for the past decade or so.

Now that the Americans were on the offensive they could now start to do what Americans do, that is, shove V8s into everything. This was 1963 and America couldn't wait for the Mustang to give them a little V8 car. America needed it now, and the good engineers at Ford obliged by shoving a V8 into the Falcon. These same engineers soon found that the unibody of the Falcon had the structural rigidity of mom's spaghetti and that became a real problem once had to deal with more than 100 horsepower. The solution to this problem was the Torque Box.

So this brings us full circle. What exactly is this miracle of engineering, the torque box? In the diagram below, you can see some of the main load bearing components of a unibody structure. The engine and supsension mount to the front subframe. Forces applied to by the engine or suspension on the body go initially into the front subframe. The red arrows shows the forces that would be applied by driving over a bump. A torque box, shown in pink, creates resistance to the rotation of the front subframe by tying it together with the rocker panel.


Ford unibody torque box diagram
Mustang passenger side torque box
While the torque box found its way into Falcons, Mustangs, Fairlanes, and just about every other unibody Ford, that doesn't mean they all had them. My car was definitely in the "no torque box" camp. (WARNING: ENGINEERING JARGON AHEAD) This means that all the twisting forces  and vibration at the back of the front subframe are being transmitted through the floor and firewall of the car. Long time readers may remember my vibration issues, but long story short, there is a nasty vibration that permeates the structure of the car when the engine is near 3800 RPM. I suspect that the resonant frequency of the interface of the front subframes and floor/firewall is around 63 Hz or some multiple thereof, and the engine at 3800 RPM (63 Hz) is exciting that interface. I theorize that if I can stiffen this interface, it will move the resonant frequency out of the range at which the engine can excite it.
Translation: I think adding torque boxes to Grace may eliminate a stubborn vibration issue in the body structure. 

So naturally I wanted to know how to install Falcon torque boxes. I spent hours using the google machine, trying to learn all I could. Boiled down, I learned this: Nobody knows crap about Falcon torque boxes. A few people know a few things about Mustang torque boxes. The misinformation is deep. Mustangs and Falcons are similar, so Mustang torque boxes should work... right? Wrong. 

I figured the only way I was going to learn what I needed to know was to spend some sweat and dollars, so I started by removing the fenders and ordering a set of torque boxes. 





Not having any clue what might fit in my Falcon, I ordered a set of torque boxes for a 1965-68 convertible mustang. I knew that convertible Falcons had torque boxes, so maybe these would be the same. I soon learned that all unibody Fords in those days had a drastically different rocker panel than hardtop cars, so I ate the massive cost of return shipping on those parts. Lesson learned. Convertible torque boxes DO NOT fit on hardtops.

Mustang convertible driver's side torque box side view
Mustang convertible driver's side torque box top view

The other thing I learned with the torque boxes in hand and fenders off was that the early Falcons had much shorter rocker panels than Mustangs, and that they were not designed to have torque boxes at all. In the picture below, the blue line represents where a torque box would go, and the red line shows how long the rocker panel would need to be to effectively transfer torques and forces from the front frame rail and torque box into the rocker panel.


At this point I was not sure it would work, but I went ahead and ordered torque boxes and rocker panel extensions for a 1965-70 Mustang Coupe or Fastback. When they arrived, I mocked them up and found that these parts were not interchangeable with Falcon.



Because the Falcon is the Mustang's progenitor, you'll often hear that they have interchangeable parts. This is a bunch of crap. There are not enough directly interchangeable parts for this to even be a useful myth. I found myself in the familiar position of building my own performance parts for the Falcon out of cardboard. From here, the pictures do most of the talking.















If you've taken the time to look carefully at my design you may notice a few things. First, this torque box is quite a bit smaller than the Mustang boxes. This is on purpose, the front end of a Falcon is shorter than a Mustang, so Mustang sized torque boxes would interfere with the wheel if they could be installed on a Falcon. To compensate for this and make fabrication easier, I built them out of thicker steel than the Mustang boxes. Second, the rocker panel does not extend over the outside of the torque box. I do have concerns about this. Without that extra length in the rocker panel, stiffness will not be as high as it could be. If I feel the stiffness is lacking, I will find a way to lengthen the rocker panel about 4 inches.

(Disclaimer: this information applies only to round body Falcons from 1960-63. I have no idea if it applies to 64-70 Falcons. I believe minor changes were made to the chassis in 64)

Now that I've done one side, I'm hoping the other side will go quickly. I am anxious to see if my engineering theory was correct, and a stiffer body will eliminate the vibration issues. In the meantime, enjoy some cars I found in my neigborhood while on a Sunday walk. It seems I'm not the only one in town with a Falcon...