Husky's 65 Restomod

[Husky65]

Hey Trav can you explain to me a bit more about what the weak point would be.
Attached below is a picture of the stock VE stub. As you can see the caliper only bolts to two holes, which is part of the stub axle.

Now, in this setup, I have essentially attached the caliper to only two holes of the stub, if you were to count the bracket as part of the caliper(once torqued to the caliper with the correct bolts). If the bolts were the right grade, torqued correctly, and the stub axle was strong enough, where is the weak point? Is it the stub axles design?
From a leverage point of view, it will sit just as far out from the stub as the VE Redline setup.

Thanks mate

[trav68]

They have obviously done what i was alluding too.. just going size for size with caliper bolt (and matching qty). Only down side is by drilling out you are reducing edge clearance slightly in cast spindle.. which may or may not be significant.

For a big brake upgrade ( for a car you will track) I like thought of using all holes in spindle ( 3 disc or 4 drum), a beefy bracket out of appropriate material and decent fasteners....attached to suitable spindle ( big bearing).


Trav

[Husky65]

Yeah no dramas. Definitely not looking for a track type braking system, but just want to make sure this thing is fine for the street from an engineering point of view. I have had the UPC kit, for around 2 years now and have done some pretty hard driving on them, including some motorkhana days, and obviously nothing bad so far.
To be honest, and I'll be completely honest, I put the brembos on because I wanted to see if it would work. Not because of the braking capacity. The PBR's were fine for me in those regards.

[trav68]

It comes down to how much meat ( ie material thickness plus strength which also effects stiffness/deflection) the factorye VE point has versus your situation.

You have two points to co sider st the spindle you are using 2 attachments ( bearing in mind Ford engineers used 4 bolts) plus the interface of caliper to bracket. From photos I think that bracket would be more susceptible to deflection but probably less of a consideration given balanced pistons compared with a sliding arrangement

[trav68]

Having a quick think i think this is one failure mode...



If you got an axial load ( ie towards or away from vehicle centreline you could fail the ears too.

[ozbilt]

Having a quick think i think this is one failure mode...



If you got an axial load ( ie towards or away from vehicle centreline you could fail the ears too.

Agree and I would also use a mount bracket that uses all 4 mounting points as Trav is suggesting.

[Husky65]

So I think the reason they only use 2 holes is because of the depth of the caliper mount means they had to mount it to the rear of the stub. If it was forward, the caliper would hit the wheel spokes. Being rear means they can't use all 4 holes. Looking at the Baer kits for eg, they are all radial mount, allowing them to use the front face of the stub and use a bracket using all 4 holes.
I guess the thing is, if I go back to the pbr's, I still have the same issue inherently. I would need a complete new kit. I know of a few of the UPC mustang kits that have been engineered. So I guess the question is what do I do?

[ozbilt]

So I think the reason they only use 2 holes is because of the depth of the caliper mount means they had to mount it to the rear of the stub. If it was forward, the caliper would hit the wheel spokes. Being rear means they can't use all 4 holes. Looking at the Baer kits for eg, they are all radial mount, allowing them to use the front face of the stub and use a bracket using all 4 holes.
I guess the thing is, if I go back to the pbr's, I still have the same issue inherently. I would need a complete new kit. I know of a few of the UPC mustang kits that have been engineered. So I guess the question is what do I do?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. IMO having a leading caliper gives you much more room as a trailing caliper is restricted by the steering arm.

[Husky65]

Sorry I was talking about why the UPC brackets mount on the inboard side of the stub axle. Because it mounts inboard, you can only use 2 holes for the bracket, whether that is the leading or trailing holes, because the rest of the stub upright gets in the way. Because the VE calipers have their mount at the very 'inboard' of the caliper, the easiest way to do it is obviously the way they went.
I think it could be re-done better with a 4 hole bracket, but sounds expensive

[trav68]

You could use a horse shoe (C shape) bracket to pick up atleast 3 (or possibly all 4) drum back plate bolts with fairly stout bracket with some decent thickness - cant remember exactly what back of spindle looks like and were you have/don't have clearance.

At work but quick sketch.

[Husky65]

Hey mate. Definitely can't do it from the back. You have all the uprights and chunks of steel in the middle. I'll show you a pic.
However I'm going to see if I can make a template to have the bracket on the front of the spindle and mount the caliper behind it

[Husky65]

Anyone know of a mob in sydney that could cnc a bracket if I came up with a template in a quick turn around?

[Husky65]

Ok so I came up with a template. I have an a4 sheet with a 100% good to go scale of what I think will work. I used the paper and dirty hands trick to get it right, as I tried to do via measurements and kept getting it wrong.

Can a machinist work with this?

[Husky65]

Also, I can only fit an 8mm plate or the bolt hex head will hit the back of the hub. Is this fine? Too much? 6mm or 7mm would give me more clearance, but is that enough? I have seen a few 1/4 adaptor plates but not sure if that's a no no

[Husky65]

Scratch all that I just realised it won't work. Plan from here is to mill the brackets down to offset the caliper for the 355mm ford rotor. Once that's all done I will assess and look at other options down the track.