As the automakers adopted independent front suspension in the ’30s, some of the approaches were less than optimal—for example, the Baker Axleflex system.

In the 1930s, one of the most important engineering advances in the Motor City was independent front suspension. We’ve covered the development at some length here at Mac’s Motor City Garage, for example here: Why Independent Front Suspension? A 1935 Film. And  here: What Was GM Knee Action? These articles can provide some useful background on the issues involved.

But long story short, the standard beam axle suspensions of the time were rugged and reliable, but they introduced serious compromises. Since the parallel front leaf springs were required to carry all the axle’s location, braking, and steering loads, they had to be especially short and stiff, producing a harsh ride and staging a battle with the rear springs when the vehicle was in pitch. In the usual case, the ride was actually better in the front seat than in the rear due to the porpoise effect. It was poor ride quality more than anything that pushed the introduction of independent front suspension.

Baker Axleflex patent schematic 

For the major automakers developing IFS, including General Motors, Chrysler, and Packard (Ford demurred), the technical challenges were difficult enough, but for smaller companies with limited engineering resources, the task was beyond their capabilities. Enter the Baker Axle Company of Cleveland, Ohio with a ready solution: the Baker Axleflex system, patented in 1933 by Erle K. Baker (no. 1979522).. For 1934, just as General Motors was launching Knee Action for its five car lines, Hudson and Nash each introduced the Baker Axleflex system. Both the New York Times and Time magazine, to name two, reported the Axleflex news in a neutral-to-positive way.

1934 Hudson Axleflex front suspension 

As we can clearly see and as the name suggests, Axleflex was essentially a conventional beam axle and parallel leaf springs, but with a parallelogram linkage in the center of the axle to provide articulation. Now the two front wheels could move  independently over road irregularities. What’s more, the system could be easily installed in an existingl beam axle frame and chassis with few if any modifications. You can see how this second feature would be very attractive to the Hudson Motor Car Company, which offered Axleflex on its Hudson and Terraplane models for 1934. And to Nash Motors, which introduced it on its Nash and LaFayette cars as well ($20 extra on the LaFayette).

Axleflex with one wheel in bump 

Spoiler alert: The Axleflex system was not a success, and it was dropped by both Hudson and Nash in short order. It was a swing and a miss, which is known to happen in the Motor City. While the shortcomings were never reported to any great extent, it’s easy to deduce what they were.

First, the eight pivots for the parallelogram linkage are under extreme loads. With some foresight needle bearings were used, but they required constant, careful lubrication. Also, as the linkage travels through its range of motion, the spring leaves are not just deflected vertically in the normal manner but twisted axially (above), far from their original mission. In the patent declaration this is included as a benefit, with the spring acting as a torsion bar to oppose body roll in cornering.

The geometry has some problems, too. The linkage keeps both tires parallel, a good thing, but a bump on one wheel sends the opposite (loaded) wheel into positive camber, and the resulting camber thrust will steer the vehicle off course. There are questions about the steering geometry as well. Unless the steering linkage correctly tracks the peculiar Axleflex motion, adverse bump steer and roll steer will be the result.

1936 Hudson Radial Safety Control 

Nash Motors used the Baker Axleflex system for just a single year in 1934, then reverted to a traditional solid beam axle. Hudson carried on with it through 1935, then came up with an alternative design for ’36 branded as Radial Safety Control, offering what it called Rhythmic Ride (above). Here, a conventional beam axle was used, but with trailing arms aka radius rods to locate the axle and accept the braking and steering loads. This allowed longer, softer front springs with rates more harmonious to the rear. It wasn’t independent suspension, but it effectively solved the ride problem. Hudson used this design until 1940, when the company adopted wishbone-style independent front suspension, by then the industry standard.

1934 Hudson Eight Deluxe Sedan