Front shocks or no front shocks

[jhicken]

Alright guys, I did a little search and didn't find out much about this issue. Alot of the kids these days are cutting their beams and are not running front shocks. I'm not so much into extreme tucked look with a 6" cut beam, but with the addition of dropped spindles and disc brakes, the track gets pushed out a bit where some wheels can come close to rubbing. I'm planning on running early Rivi's on my '69 and I've heard that CB Performance's calipers may hit the wheels. This can be fixed with a spacer but again I'm gaining track. I've pretty much made up my mind on at least a 2" cut beam but now I gotta decided whether or not i wanna run shocks. I hear the ride can actually be a bit better.

Any thoughts?

-jeffrey

[Rennsurfer]

Jeffrey, I would strongly recommend running front shocks. But that's just my personal opinion. If you're going to be using front disc brakes, then a slightly narrowed beam might be an option, too. Just enough to bring the stock front track width back. This, of course, if you're going to be using C.B. 2½" drop spindles.

I used those, but for drum brakes, and early Flat Four BRM wheels and 135 tires. No rubbing issues on the ball joints or tires on the body at all. Even during heavy cornering and braking. To each their own, but I'd use front shocks. I'd be afraid to damage the car's body without 'em.

(edit) Oh... forgot; the spindles widened my front track width three eighths of an inch on each side. But with your car, like mine, you have wide rear axles so you might be okay with the overall look. I'm very happy with mine. My car was built late in the 1967 model year, so I got the wide rears.

[John Rayburn]

Just don't run the drop spindles. Adjusters in the beam, when adjusted properly, will give you a stock ride.

[low oval]

Jeffery,
I have a 4 in narrowed beam with drop spindles and disc brakes, I have shocks on mine, but I haven't driven it yet, and probably won't until just before the classic so the jury is still out for me.
jim

[LuftsickTero]

Alot of the kids these days are cutting their beams and are not running front shocks.

I browse a lot of theSamba.com too, but if the shocks aren't needed why did Volkswagen fit them to 20+ million cars?

[67worshipper]

when i done my last car i thought about running no shocks so i removed them just to see what it was like before cutting the towers.one testride later and the shocks went straight back on.the ride was appauling but this in england where the roads are the worst in europe.i dont know if the roads in the states are better than ours.there seems to be lots of independent movement of the suspension arms when the shocks are removed.i assume that if your not going to use shocks then the antirollbar will be redundant as well? on anything other than a silky smooth road it wont feel nice.

[alex d]

if you don't feel the need for shocks you are not driving fast enough

[jhicken]

I browse a lot of theSamba.com too, but if the shocks aren't needed why did Volkswagen fit them to 20+ million cars?

Well, originally Beetles [early splits] didn't have shocks, and the argument on why VW fit them later is the same response I got from my father about lowering.

I'd like to get more responses [like the ones above] from those who have run without shocks and their experiences. My knee-jerk response is to keep them, but there are alot of folks out there running beams without them. Jersey roads aren't the best, and maybe the doods with them are living in parts of the country that don't have to deal with frost heave and broken asphalt.

-jeffrey

[Neil Davies]

Jeffrey, I'd fit shocks. Even the earliest Beetles had shocks (to my knowledge) - shorter ones, yes, but still some form of damping.

I know that narrowing a beam alters the spring rate, effectively making the bars stiffer, and the no-shock brigade say that this makes the car less prone to bouncing. My experience is that on a stock width (and height!) beam with no shocks, I drove up and down my street once just to turn the car around -  the nose of the car raised right up on gentle acceleration and slammed the spare wheel tray into the ground when I tried to slow down! Not for me I'm afraid!

[67worshipper]

I browse a lot of theSamba.com too, but if the shocks aren't needed why did Volkswagen fit them to 20+ million cars?

Well, originally Beetles [early splits] didn't have shocks, and the argument on why VW fit them later is the same response I got from my father about lowering.

I'd like to get more responses [like the ones above] from those who have run without shocks and their experiences. My knee-jerk response is to keep them, but there are alot of folks out there running beams without them. Jersey roads aren't the best, and maybe the doods with them are living in parts of the country that don't have to deal with frost heave and broken asphalt.

-jeffrey

could you drive the car J without the shocks to see or are you in the middle of rebuilding?

[jhicken]

Unfortunately no, I'm looking at having the Chop Shop in AZ build the beam for me but they don't offer shock towers. I was considering Jer-Fab who offers beams with or without, but they haven't been to responsive. Air-Kewled also builds them with or without but they are a little more pricey. I was considering CB Performances 2" beam but they use Puma adjusters and I'd prefer Avis.

-jeffrey

[Rennsurfer]

I drove up and down my street once just to turn the car around -  the nose of the car raised right up on gentle acceleration and slammed the spare wheel tray into the ground when I tried to slow down! Not for me I'm afraid!

Exactly! That's what I'd be afraid of. The factory put 'em on there for a good reason.

[jhicken]

I'd expect that in a stock beam but not on an adjusted beam.

-jeffrey

[javabug]

Just don't run the drop spindles. Adjusters in the beam, when adjusted properly, will give you a stock ride.

Ya know what'd be great?  More info on properly adjusting adjusters.  I'm pretty sure mine ain't adjustered properly.

I'm being serious.

[Jim Ratto]

Just don't run the drop spindles. Adjusters in the beam, when adjusted properly, will give you a stock ride.

ditto

I ran drilled oil shocks on my car for a very short period, along with MH slicks, yeah on the street. While fun to launch in front of cowboys in pickups and chicks in convertible Rabbits, it was miserable and scary to drive. Front end felt very un-planted.
SODA ran with no shocks for a while on his fast '65, and he came to same conclusion.

[Nico86]

Even the earliest Beetles had shocks (to my knowledge) - shorter ones, yes, but still some form of damping.

There were no front shocks on KDF only, maybe also on very-very early splits (45/46) but then splits had front shocks. Maybe that was one the first thing they modified on the KDF when they re-started to build it.
I can't see any advantages in running no front shocks. Some do this when they narrow a lot the beam, springs become so hard you don't need shocks anymore, but they use their car very low and so very slow, so it may be ok in this case.
More than making your ride comfortable, shocks make your suspension follow a certain stroke, for your wheels don't go excessively up or down, and they always try to "push" the tire to the ground, for it keeps the maximun contact and grip with the road.

[Zach Gomulka]

Not running front shocks is fucking scary dangerous. Don't do it.

[Bruce]

... springs become so hard you don't need shocks anymore, .

This is the same argument that was put forth in a discussion on TheSamba.  I was on the "only a moron would run without shocks" side.  Some of the guys said when you go more than 4", you don't need them.  My beam is 3.75" (close enough), and someone asked if I had ever driven a car without shocks, so I took up the challenge and took off my shocks.  The front would bounce wildly, and at the first stop sign I came to, the front beam slammed on the ground.  I concluded there was no magical change in suspension characteristics at 4".
Another poster claimed it was safe if you know what you are doing when you set up your suspension, but then offered no details on this mythical setup technique.
Use shocks, I bet if you check your state's laws, it specifically says you must use shocks at each wheel.

[Speed-Randy]

the " no shock" guys are usually the guys running air bags who for some unknown reason think that its cool to suddenly slam their car on the ground and throw sparks everywhere, usually to the delight of every window licker on the short bus. my beam is 2" narrow with adjusters(cause the lowwered spindles aren't as lowered as they claim), cb wide 5 disc brakes, lowered spindles, brms with145's. the tracking tucks right under the lip of fender when driving on bad roads, no rub.

[Speed-Randy]

oh yeah, i definitly run shocks

[Zach Gomulka]

When I first lowered the front of the Sloback, I think one of the upper shock bolts broke off in the shock tower, and since it had been a long day we just said "fuck it" and we slapped it back together, sans shocks. I drove it a few miles home, then the next day drove it straight back to the shop to put the shocks back in. The thing was all over the road every time it hit a bump. It was a white knuckled ride in traffic, not fun.
When I used to race my '67, I would unbolt the front shocks for better weight transfer. The first time I did that, I ran through the lights (about 88mph), threw it in neutral, and gently touched the brakes so I could make the first exit... the car immediately started darting all over the lane. With the seat upholstery sucked up my ass, I got off the brakes and coasted all the way around to the second exit.
No shocks, no fun.

[Jim Ratto]

... springs become so hard you don't need shocks anymore, .

This is the same argument that was put forth in a discussion on TheSamba.  I was on the "only a moron would run without shocks" side.  Some of the guys said when you go more than 4", you don't need them.  My beam is 3.75" (close enough), and someone asked if I had ever driven a car without shocks, so I took up the challenge and took off my shocks.  The front would bounce wildly, and at the first stop sign I came to, the front beam slammed on the ground.  I concluded there was no magical change in suspension characteristics at 4".
Another poster claimed it was safe if you know what you are doing when you set up your suspension, but then offered no details on this mythical setup technique.
Use shocks, I bet if you check your state's laws, it specifically says you must use shocks at each wheel.

I love the cyber pros that offer their anti-advice. "I've run ____  for 3 days now it's fine"
define "run" and define "fine"

[Bruce]

... springs become so hard you don't need shocks anymore, .

This is the same argument that was put forth in a discussion on TheSamba.  I was on the "only a moron would run without shocks" side.  Some of the guys said when you go more than 4", you don't need them.  My beam is 3.75" (close enough), and someone asked if I had ever driven a car without shocks, so I took up the challenge and took off my shocks.  The front would bounce wildly, and at the first stop sign I came to, the front beam slammed on the ground.  I concluded there was no magical change in suspension characteristics at 4".
Another poster claimed it was safe if you know what you are doing when you set up your suspension, but then offered no details on this mythical setup technique.
Use shocks, I bet if you check your state's laws, it specifically says you must use shocks at each wheel.

I love the cyber pros that offer their anti-advice. "I've run ____  for 3 days now it's fine"
define "run" and define "fine"

I bet they also corner about as fast as a wedding cake delivery truck.

[Tony M]

No fun with out front shocks - i have a repair shop - when installing new ball joints the other day on a bug just went around the block with no front shocks -  - way bad.