Brake reaction Bars
1. What issue to they address and how?
2. Do they assist with all Morgans regardless of age or are they more
 effective in some rather than others.?
3. Can they cause any damage to the chassis/frame over time?
4. Can they cause any damage to the chassis/frame in an impact?
5.  Are there any drawbacks in adjusting the camber angle?
6. There are different variations made in mild steel, ss, tube mild, tube ss and different thicknesses, and there is there is the Librands affair with rose joints, tubular aluminium, a different angling and  contact point at the axle assembly. Which, if any, would you prefer and
why?
 

John Sheally II

Lorne,

On brake reaction bars, I say leave the Morgan frame front alone. The design works. It is the best part of the car for what it does. There is no need for brake bars.

That front end has held up nicely from it's inception and design from HFS to the Plus-8 of today. The design has proven itself from the basic original design and increased in strength and size through the decades.

In 36 years of using the Morgan front end as I have had on street and race cars I have never had a problem with it. It has works to do its job well even in harsh altercations of impact in combat if you get the drift. I have marvelled at the design as a work of art and function doing its job through the decades. It is strong, it holds the wheels and car up nicely and true. It is simple and straight forward. It needs only
some minor tweaking to improve it the front friction areas and in and about the rear axle. NO STIFFENING!

The flex is minimal and actually helps the Morgan walk and work with the frame/chassis "AS IT WORKS" transferring weight and traction and bite to the pavement. People always talk about how well a Morgan handles and how quick it corners and how it "WALKS OVER ROUGH ROADS". Wonder why?

The Morgan is NOT a rigid body car, it wasn't designed as such. It is not a monocoque design. It is a FLEXIBLE FLYER, it was made that way and it works that way with it's frame, front, chassis and tub combination. When you go locking it you take these essential Morgan characteristics away.

They did get it right with the frame front. For street use, it is fine and for the racing track conditions, the stronger frame front with the stronger bottom tube and negative camber built in is ok but I personally never used them even on my Super Sports because they were just not needed and take away from the fantastic FEEL OF THE CAR. This FEEL is the foundation of the CHARM of the Morgan Marque and quite unique in comparison to modern "perfect" computer designed suspensions.

Another function of the frame front as designed (and the whole car) is that in the case of a accident the folding of the components absorbs the impact sacrificing the car but protecting the occupants especially with the frame front structure.

I have always been impressed in that the Morgan design works like a modern race car in a crash in protecting the occupants. It is lightweight so it moves with the impact and folds and absorbs the energy
at the same time. When you start altering the design with bars, gussets, brackets and braces etc., etc you take away the energy absorbing safety factors. Instead you have added weight, more potential spears, tears and puncture factors.

The only exception to these is the addition of a roll cage. The cage adds rigidity to a driver protecting shell only and the rest of the car still contributes to the lessening of the impact, ie. collapsing frame front and other structures around the rigid cage.
 
Sincerely, John H. Sheally II

Gerry Willburn

Lorne,

The brake reaction bars (or Upper Cross Axle Braces, as they were once known) address the movement of the top of the suspension pillar and locate it with respect to the chassis.  There is already a brace from the bottom of the pillar back to the chassis to locate that end.

There are two basic sources of movement; (a.) the action of the suspension itself, particularly on washboard surfaces and (b.) rotational reaction from braking stresses.

I must admit that when I first put them on our DHC back in 1959, I had never even heard of brake torque reaction.  I was addressing the movement on uneven surfaces which (in addition to making the steering a bit vague) caused cracking of the front wings just inboard of the wing lamps due to movement of the wing stay attached to the top of the pillar.  These cracks began to appear within weeks after we bought the car.

I asked Chuck Talbott (then Tech Editor of the Morgan Plus 4 Club) and he told me that all of the racers had installed a brace from the top of the pillar to the chassis where the damper blade is attached.  I think this pre-dated the offering from the Works later in 1959.

Those I built then (as well as all of them I have built through the years) were made from aluminum.  I used thin wall electrical conduit tubing.

After cutting approximately to length (a little long), one end is flattened with a hammer on an anvil (or the end of a vice) and drilled to take the oiler bolt at the top of the king-pin.  This is then bent to the angle
required, the other end measured and flattened.  It is bent to shape and trimmed as necessary, then drilled to take the forward damper blade bolt.

It is a very simple installation.  As Bob has pointed out, a couple of them have cracked through the years which indicates that there can be a lot of stress put on them.  I have never seen any indication of damage to the frame through their use, though I must say that I have never been in an accident forceful enough to shear the bolts (I think the bar would go before the bolts).

The first thing I noticed after installation was how much better the steering felt in rough corners.  The cracking of the wing ceased (and was covered up by installation of wing mirrors over the top of the existing cracks and bolted through the wing stay).

I have since installed them on every Morgan that Barbara and I have owned and several others for friends.  I think they are beneficial to all Morgans. I have always installed them "to fit" and never made any attempt to adjust caster through them.  I am the most surprised that they only recently (in the last several years) re-surfaced as a "new" innovation in England.

I have no experience with the type installed by Librands, though intuitively I believe that the top of the pillar provides better control.

Gerry