Has anyone made their own Caltracs? Just wondering if anyone has some drawings/dimensions they are willing to share. Thanks in advance! Brad
they wouldnt be hard to make.. but honestly, you should just buy them. By the time you take the time build them, buy the steel, buy the hardware ect, you could just buy them. they are only 300 bucks. Plus those guys will help you anytime you need advise.
For $125, you could get a set of genuine Traction Master™ bars. I have these on my 289HP, and I get zero wheel hop. Shelby used them on the 66 GT350.
Those traction master bars are nothing to compare to caltracs. No offense. As for making them, if you have the time go for it. I sure don't for the 150 bucks you will save at best. Funny how ppl feel fine stealing someone elses design, yet there is someone on here that made his brake handle and that's somehow different.
No offense, but what part of "zero" wheel hop did you miss? I don't see how Caltracs, at triple the price, could improve over zero. Plus the fact that Caltracks protrude farther below the car, reducing ground clearance.
Because obviously you don't get the fact there is more to traction than wheel hop. There is no adjustability in those bars. While great on low hp stuff, you start getting up in power you will understand.
Yeah, gee, I'm sure your vague and condescending answer clears up everything. A little specificity here would be welcome, since I've only driven maybe a couple dozen cars with over 400 horsepower. :stirpot: Other readers less educated on matters automotive might wonder just what the heck you mean by the importance of adjustability, or what epiphany I'll experience when I try driving a car "up in power". Seriously, though, I'd be happy to have a pleasant conversation among equals on the subject, with participants willing to share the technical details to support their viewpoints. Maybe over a coupla beers.
Not sure what your trying to prove, but Caltracs have been talked about here many times. They are adjustable. Those bars are not, and its not an apples to apples comparison. Just like trying to compare a 4 link or ladderbar setup to Caltracs. Heck, you may as well just buy the Shelby Underrider bars, I think they are only 80-90 bucks and will accomplish the wheel hop elimination all the same. That is why I said, no offense on my first post. I guess you took offense to me pointing out you cant compare the two. (except for wheel hop elimination)
Naw, no interest here in going all crazy. I have to wonder what the advantage of adjustability is. I mean, once it's in and properly properly set up, what's to adjust? TM's are adjusted when installed. Then you're done. Nice, because then they can't go out of adjustment.
ive read of the shelby underide bars snapping off with hard launches, the cal tracs are way better they dont just stop wheelhop, they keep the pinion angle in line and keeps the spring from wraping up, they put leverage on the springs to plant the tires harder and traction masters dont do that, traction masters can also bind in hard corners. Traction masters on say a drag car that launches hard put major stress on the subframe as they are welded to it (caltracs are not), if your using subframe connectors its not an issue. Traction masters are fine but limited in what they do, now add override traction bars and a panhard rod and its a pretty good setup but cal tracs are more versatile. Your not comparing apples to apples.........
I've read of the Shelby underride bars snapping off with hard launches, Hmmm… I'd have to see them. There are a LOT of fake TM's out there, and they share one characteristic- cheap thin tubing. The real thing is a lot heavier, welded to cast steel ends. The Cal Tracs are way better they dont just stop wheelhop, they keep the pinion angle in line and keeps the spring from wrapping up, This is precisely what the Traction Master bars do, using the same geometry as the Caltrac. It works, too, what I didn't expect is it keeps the pinion angle from flexing with normal up and down axle movement (remember, the diff is heavier on the front, especially a 9") resulting in a smoother ride. I imagine the CTs would share this side effect. They put leverage on the springs to plant the tires harder and traction masters don't do that, How do CTs "plant" the tires harder? What does "plant" mean? Traction Masters can also bind in hard corners. How? I have driven the crap out of my TMs in autocross, I don't see anything they could "bind" with. An eye at each end, and not close to anything else. Traction masters on say a drag car that launches hard put major stress on the subframe as they are welded to it (Caltracs are not), if your using subframe connectors its not an issue. True, if you use only the bracket that comes with the TMs, they have a small "footprint" on the frame. I have driven the TMs hard with a blueprinted and ported 289HP, in both autocross and 1/4 mile, and 200,000 or so street miles with no problems. Note in the photo of the Shelby I posted that there is a 6 or 8 inch section of angle iron added to the pad. With that much reinforcement, something else would give before the TM bracket. There is also a version of the TM intended to attach to the subframe connector. Traction Masters are fine but limited in what they do, now add override traction bars and a panhard rod and its a pretty good setup but Cal Tracs are more versatile. I would definitely go with the over-rides and panhard if the car were being altered for competition. Oddly, though, the over-ride welds to the upper side of the same spot the under-ride welds to. The main advantage I see to the Caltrac is no welding is required. Since I'm a welder, this isn't so important from my point of view. For a shade tree guy, maybe a bigger deal. Of course, you could install the TMs, and pay to have the brackets welded, and still have at least $100 still in your pocket.
Well. I have refuted most of the points HT was kind enough to share, and you have provided none at all. Near as I can see, the CT is a recent copy of the TM design, with the only substantial improvement being a bracket fitting over the front spring eye eliminating the need to weld the bracket. I don't see how the Caltrac prevents rearward movement of the rod, though, the bracket rests on top of the spring, which would allow the spring to wrap when braking. (wouldn't that tend to rattle?) It also requires removing the eye bolt to install, and having replaced a lotta springs here in the northeast, I can tell you removing the eye bolt can be a nightmare. Sometimes the spring must be cut, which is no problem if you are replacing the spring, but a real problem if you just wanted to put CTs on. You want to point out a functional difference we can sink our teeth into? I'm sure others would like to know, there have been 115 views of this thread so far.
k, ill give you one and let you explain it. I can put one half turn into my Caltracs and slow my 60' times by .04-.05 seconds. How would that ever be correctable with your setup on my car? If you put it in with a 1/2 a turn of threads off on install, at the track. I'm not really interested in playing stupid games with stuff. I'm personally done with this thread, I know what works for me. Our Shelby has the under rider bars, and they have limits and do not work anywhere near the same as the Caltracs. You can watch launch videos of my dads Shelby and mine and see clear differences in how they react on the rear axle and how it plants the tires on launch. Additionally, you cant change a damn thing on them unless you want to cut stuff off and start over. I loosen a nut and adjust the bars, and go some more. I'd love to see someone with a stock leafspring setup running 1.2-1.3's with under rider bars.
Why would you have them set wrong in the first place? What you're talking about is the preload on the bracket at the front. This is not an issue with the TMs, because they don't need a preload to keep them in place.
You missed the whole point. Read my edit above, anyways I'm done with this subject. You obviously have the answers and I'm wrong. I'll continue to doing my thing wrong however.
