MTFCA Forum

No idea on brand on spring is busted and missing 3 caps $80 shipped

That brand & design of front springs/shocks were pointed out as a factor in the fatal crash of Ken Meek. My apologies for bringing this up.

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 12:46 pm

That brand & design of front springs/shocks were pointed out as a factor in the fatal crash of Ken Meek. My apologies for bringing this up.

I do not like sabotaging people's for sale items. However, on these style shock absorbers, it is very important to keep reminding that the fronts of these should not be used on a T intended to be driven on modern roads and in modern traffic.
There are solid engineering reasons WHY these are unsafe on the front axle. I think they look great as wall hangers and discussion pieces (discussions should include the explanation that they should not be used today)
A pair of rear shock absorbers of this type (depending a bit on specific manufacturer?) in good condition should be okay for use today, and I think look fantastic on a brass era T!

So I am on your side Jerry V O!

Good luck with the sale! In spite of recent as well as long past histories.

Can we have at least a brief explanation of the design dangers?

Loftfield wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 7:03 am

Can we have at least a brief explanation of the design dangers?

As I understand ut age and lack of maintainence cause the springs the break. Letting the center part of the shock fall down cause the car to drastically change front end geometry and causing especially the front axle to buckle under. I think on a driver car these are stupid on a display or parade car they are a cool accessory.

Follow up to Jerry's comment on this brand of shock absorber, haven't been able to determine mfg.


These are pics I took of the subject shocks, during a presentation after investigation, as with any accident there were multiple contributing factors identified.

IMO the design of a two-piece front shock/perch is questionable, un-like any other commercial accessory Ford front shock absorber placed on the market.

The shaft of the perch is riveted between the upper yoke of the shock body, and with probable movement or toggle of the pieces, from torsion, over-stress could develop.



In the accident, one perch shaft did part at the top of the axle.

Loftfield wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 7:03 am

Can we have at least a brief explanation of the design dangers?

These are
There isn't a brief explanation but some assumptions. The fact is that the one shock had its perch bolt snapped. No evidence if this caused the wheels to lock or it snapped as a result of the crash. The shock itself shows many issues from shackle wear
Lengthy discussion with facts, speculations & preferences. https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/2 ... 99388.html
--
-- --
--

During one of these discussions, a member of this forum mentioned having an example of this same shock absorber. His example had previously been broken in a similar fashion and was welded back together.

Wayne Sheldon wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 6:48 am

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 12:46 pm

That brand & design of front springs/shocks were pointed out as a factor in the fatal crash of Ken Meek. My apologies for bringing this up.

I do not like sabotaging people's for sale items. However, on these style shock absorbers, it is very important to keep reminding that the fronts of these should not be used on a T intended to be driven on modern roads and in modern traffic.
There are solid engineering reasons WHY these are unsafe on the front axle. I think they look great as wall hangers and discussion pieces (discussions should include the explanation that they should not be used today)
A pair of rear shock absorbers of this type (depending a bit on specific manufacturer?) in good condition should be okay for use today, and I think look fantastic on a brass era T!

So I am on your side Jerry V O!

Good luck with the sale! In spite of recent as well as long past histories.

Wayne,

I don't like it either and truly do feel bad about bringing it up. I was on the tour when Ken lost his life. I did not see the accident, but like all of us, felt extreme grief at the loss of one of our friends. Not ever wanting to revisit that, I felt compelled to mention this. Thank you for understanding. I hope that Karl understands as well.

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 11:55 am

Wayne Sheldon wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 26, 2025 6:48 am

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 12:46 pm

That brand & design of front springs/shocks were pointed out as a factor in the fatal crash of Ken Meek. My apologies for bringing this up.

I do not like sabotaging people's for sale items. However, on these style shock absorbers, it is very important to keep reminding that the fronts of these should not be used on a T intended to be driven on modern roads and in modern traffic.
There are solid engineering reasons WHY these are unsafe on the front axle. I think they look great as wall hangers and discussion pieces (discussions should include the explanation that they should not be used today)
A pair of rear shock absorbers of this type (depending a bit on specific manufacturer?) in good condition should be okay for use today, and I think look fantastic on a brass era T!

So I am on your side Jerry V O!

Good luck with the sale! In spite of recent as well as long past histories.

Wayne,

I don't like it either and truly do feel bad about bringing it up. I was on the tour when Ken lost his life. I did not see the accident, but like all of us, felt extreme grief at the loss of one of our friends. Not ever wanting to revisit that, I felt compelled to mention this. Thank you for understanding. I hope that Karl understands as well.

I very much understand. Safety is why I took them off my 12. Altho I'm building the car to tour distances I'm making safety upgrade while trying to keep as close to stock 12 correct as possible

As I understand when the shock broke the axle twisted causing the car to turn uncontrollably. just for the sake of conversation would a double
wishbone have prevented the disaster? Some of the accessories made for model T's had some questionable unintended consequences. just for
instance how many people where killed before someone figured out that when a Aux. trans came out of gear you had no brakes? I'm thinking the
first 100 or so didn't live to relay that information!
Craig.

Craig Leach wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 27, 2025 3:36 am

just for the sake of conversation would a double wishbone have prevented the disaster?

Craig.

Maybe, maybe not.
An added under axle wishbone would have helped stabilize the front axle somewhat. Would it have been enough? One of the heavier duty ones (like many of the modern versions) probably would have prevented at least the worst of the accident. One of the original era light duty angle iron ones might have folded up only one second slower, and had the same result as being without it.

The real dangers in this type of shock absorber on the front end have several sides. One is simple dynamics of mechanical motion. Push a wheelbarrow usual forward, and the lone front wheel "pushes" into the ground. Back up "pulling" the wheelbarrow, and that same lone wheel pulls up. Ever try to move a way overloaded wheelbarrow? A typical common single wheel wheelbarrow with six to eight hundred pounds carefully balanced on it over rough ground? Much easier to back up pulling it!
But the biggest problem with those style (made in numerous versions by numerous companies) is the stability of the front axle. That long high arch running up and over hanging off the tall springs (most versions have hanger bushings that wear loose) is about fifty times more unstable than the short arch and even worn bushings of the Ford factory design. An under axle wishbone might help, but not enough. One of the big issues is the side to side stability. The crossways spring Ford was famous for has some inherent side to side play. That coupled with these accessory shock absorbers can allow the axle to shift sideways too much. The under axle wishbone may help slightly with side to side shifting, but it will NOT prevent it.

Added into all that and more is that modern roads and higher speeds make mechanical oscillation a much bigger problem that what these cars were designed for.

I would bet that mechanical oscillation "contributed" to the seriousness of his and a few other similar accidents with cars so equipped. It may not have initially caused it, but it likely made the issue and seriousness worse.

All in all, there is too much wrong with that design to risk using them on a car to be driven (even rarely and for short distances) on the front axle. Even with an under axle wishbone.
Used on the rear axle "arguably" might be safer enough? But I would not recommend even there.

They are an interesting bit of history. Kept, shared, and not forgotten, but seen as what they were. A bad idea we need to learn from.

Hi Wayne,
Accessories that have dire consequences is a good reason why Henry disliked so many of the aftermarket things for the T. besides the others.
Sounds like as they say. " a good idea with the best of intentions what could possibly go wrong" Or cheer up things could worse. That is a
terrible prophecy because sure as hell they will.
Craig.

Karl Von Neumann wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:42 am

No idea on brand on spring is busted and missing 3 caps $80 shipped

Karl,

PM & email sent...