Rear roadster spring

brokenspoke said:
I dont have a chart........

All I'm asking and it appears true that in 1928 Ford had a different shaped roadster spring and changed it sometime later
Click to expand...
Read one of my previous answers, the different shape is a result of the different number of leaves putting a different pressure on the main. I have three roadster springs in my collection that I have disassembled, as well as approx fifteen phaeton springs, three fordor springs, two tudor springs, two ute springs, plus some others that I don't know the original body style. All have been disassembled, all mains are the same shape. All are from 28-29 vehicles.
 
I suggest people refer to the drawings showing the difference in rear spring ***'y which appear in " The Ford Model "A" "As Henry Built It", page 38 (I have the second addition). It lists the 7 leaf Rear Spring ***'y as A-5560-C used under 40-A and B Roadster; the shape of the main leaf, unless I'm going blind, is certainly a different shape than the other rear spring ***'y.

Ron
 
Ron in Quincy said:
I suggest people refer to the drawings showing the difference in rear spring ***'y which appear in " The Ford Model "A" "As Henry Built It", page 38 (I have the second addition). It lists the 7 leaf Rear Spring ***'y as A-5560-C used under 40-A and B Roadster; the shape of the main leaf, unless I'm going blind, is certainly a different shape than the other rear spring ***'y.

Ron
Click to expand...

Thanks Ron....I went to a friends house and he has a Model a restorer mag form 1967...Inside it has Ford Service Bulletin for July August 1931 listing springs used under Model A's....It clearly shows the spring I had a question about...its a A5560-C spring its a different shape...
 
Last edited:
Ron in Quincy said:
I suggest people refer to the drawings showing the difference in rear spring ***'y which appear in " The Ford Model "A" "As Henry Built It", page 38 (I have the second addition). It lists the 7 leaf Rear Spring ***'y as A-5560-C used under 40-A and B Roadster; the shape of the main leaf, unless I'm going blind, is certainly a different shape than the other rear spring ***'y.

Ron
Click to expand...

As Dave attempted to explain, they only look different AFTER assembly. Each leaf moving from bottom to top has a tighter curve. That means that every time you add/clamp another leaf above, more curvature is forced into the leaves below and the main leaf spring eyes become closer together. Since the Roadster spring has the least AND thinnest (weakest) leaves it has the flattest appearance when assembled.
 
Your missing my question.....I had a old timer tell me that in early 1928 Model A the roadsters had a spring shaped like a Model T spring....sometime during the year Henry Ford changed the design to as its now.....I understand the typical roadster spring, as I have one in my roadster....I was wanting to find a example of early spring if its true what the old timer said ...the diagram of the A 5560-C spring in the magazine is clearly a different shape, just like the T spring.....nothing like the spring in my 1928 roadster....I know Ford did not waste anything.....Its interesting reasearching some of the things Henry Ford did....
 
dave in australia said:
Just because someone old says so, doesn't mean it is so. It has since been proven that the world is not flat.
Click to expand...

I agree..... dam all I was asking is a simple question about a model A that I have....trying to learn something....I dont know why the picture in the book shows a different spring shape......and I agree with you that just because you said so doesent mean it didnt happen....thanks for all your help
 
Last edited:
brokenspoke,

I've looked at that same picture for OVER 40 years, that's why I asked.
My personal take on that pic ( for the roadster rear spring ONLY ), it is
showing the spring...INSTALLED.

Dudley
 
brokenspoke said:
Your missing my question.....I had a old timer tell me that in early 1928 Model A the roadsters had a spring shaped like a Model T spring....sometime during the year Henry Ford changed the design to as its now.....I understand the typical roadster spring, as I have one in my roadster....I was wanting to find a example of early spring if its true what the old timer said ...the diagram of the A 5560-C spring in the magazine is clearly a different shape, just like the T spring.....nothing like the spring in my 1928 roadster....I know Ford did not waste anything.....Its interesting researching some of the things Henry Ford did....
Click to expand...

Sorry, we've drifted a bit. To answer your question the spring wasn't changed other than the clamps. I don't have the specifics as to exactly when in 1927 the Roadster spring as we know it was specified for production but can say with certainty it was in production by December 1927.
 
Well - irrespective of the shape of a 28 versus 29 Roadster rear spring - I have learnt a lot - thank you all.

When I tore down my very tatty Uruguyan 29 Roadster, I found a short leaf of spring metal on TOP of the assemblage (plus a broken leaf in the middle). I did some research, had the broken leaf repaired at a local forge and reassembled with grease and bevelling etc.etc.

I THREW away the short top leaf as it obviously had no function! The new clamps were a poor fit as the nuts rode up high and the cotter pins would not engage the castellated nuts. Hmmm - strange, obviously inferior repro parts.

Now you tell me the 29 Roadster had a short dummy leaf under the assembly - ah DUH!

Richard
 
d.j. moordigian said:
brokenspoke,

I've looked at that same picture for OVER 40 years, that's why I asked.
My personal take on that pic ( for the roadster rear spring ONLY ), it is
showing the spring...INSTALLED.

Dudley
Click to expand...

I just saw the picture the other day.....my 28 roadster rear spring doesent look anything like the one in the picture....I have a friend also who has a 28 and his doesent either....yesterday I saw a 28 roadster at the Early Ford Store where its spring has a different shape like the one in the photo..the owner does not know the total history on the car...how ever it sits lower....at first I thought it was a Model T spring.....but its not....
 
Richard Redmond said:
Well - irrespective of the shape of a 28 versus 29 Roadster rear spring - I have learnt a lot - thank you all.

When I tore down my very tatty Uruguyan 29 Roadster, I found a short leaf of spring metal on TOP of the assemblage (plus a broken leaf in the middle). I did some research, had the broken leaf repaired at a local forge and reassembled with grease and bevelling etc.etc.

I THREW away the short top leaf as it obviously had no function! The new clamps were a poor fit as the nuts rode up high and the cotter pins would not engage the castellated nuts. Hmmm - strange, obviously inferior repro parts.

Now you tell me the 29 Roadster had a short dummy leaf under the assembly - ah DUH!

Richard
Click to expand...

I hope you still have that top leaf. It is needed for 3 reasons:

1. It is a spring leaf and does flex along with the rest of the leaves.

2. It adds to the pack thickness, so the car sets at the correct height and the U bolts and castle nuts fit correctly.

3. It is a special leaf with beveled edges, so the spring pack fits up into the channel of the front crossmember correctly.

Some repro springs don't have the beveled edge on the top leaf and that is NOT good.
 
No Tom - I guess I didn't make myself clear.

The top 'leaf' on initial disassembly was short and square ended and clearly did not act like a leaf spring (my wording wasn't the best in the post above).

I did throw it away. Now I realise that a 'shadetree' mechanic in the distant past fitted a replacement spring to this Roadster, or dismantled and reassembled the original spring, and goofed by putting the packer or dummy on top!

Now I've goofed by throwing it away. But I'll make up a replacement soon.

Richard
 
Oh and another thought.

Tom - in your last line you said the top 'true' leaf spring is bevelled to fit into the channel of the cross-member. I obviously don't remember what mine looked like - are you suggesting that it should have its upper long sides bevelled to fit into the curvature of the channel - as well as any bevel at the tips to prevent gouging the spring leaf below?

Richard
 
Richard Redmond said:
Oh and another thought.

Tom - in your last line you said the top 'true' leaf spring is bevelled to fit into the channel of the cross-member. I obviously don't remember what mine looked like - are you suggesting that it should have its upper long sides bevelled to fit into the curvature of the channel - as well as any bevel at the tips to prevent gouging the spring leaf below?

Richard
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. I took Mark's front spring apart yesterday and we were at Ken Ehrenhofer's last night putting together a good original spring. Mark's was a repro, and had the wrong taper at the ends of each leaf. I can take and post a couple pictures of the top leaf to show the bevel all along both of the long sides, but won't be back to Ken's until tomorrow, as the spring is still over there.
 
I'd be grateful if anyone can provide approximate measurements for the dummy or packing piece at the BOTTOM of the Roadster rear spring.

I'm estimating 3/8" thick, 8" X 2 1/4" spring metal which does need a curve (I was hoping that the centre of the spring would be almost flat, but it still has a significant curvature).

Sorry to hijack this thread.

Richard
 
brokenspoke,

Can you provide US with a photo? It will help I. D. the spring, please.

Richard,

8.25 , curved running length, the thickness of the main( look at the chart, please,
for the correct thickness), and the fit was perfect, like belonged there.

Hope this helps, Dudley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top