MikeRJ
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
You can add an extra tube to make sure the brackets are fully supported, like this:
That's what I've done on mine and the shocks clear it ok.
|
|
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:11 PM |
|
|
This one of the parts of my own chassis I am working on at the moment and the more I look at it the more I am convinced the front suspension mounts
are a gigantic bodge carried over from when Westfield converted from Midget to Ford parts.
As I see to do anything about it means a fairly major redesign of the front part of the chassis which has major knock on effects so would in effect
mean starting with clean sheet of paper.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
You can add an extra tube to make sure the brackets are fully supported, like this:
That's what I've done on mine and the shocks clear it ok.
I have been toying with using something similar made from 40x18x1.5, the main reason I haven't tried it so far is that I wasn't sure it
would clear the damper and I thought it might look silly.
|
|
|
skint scotsman
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:55 PM |
|
|
still cant see the difference ????
|
|
|
GaryM
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 10:53 PM |
|
|
I'm working on the front suspension myself at the moment. I decided to have some top wishbones fabricated for me with the additional rearward
offset because
1. I don't like the idea of the brackets hanging so far off the chassis tubes, just doesn't seem right.
2. It doesn't look like the shocks will foul on the 'custom' top wishbone if the top mounts are positioned under the top rail as per
the book.
3. I'd rather have the bother of getting some more 'custom' wishbones fabricated than having a suspension failure.
4. If the top and bottom suspension brackets are positioned carefully the extra rear offset required can be as little as 6-7mm.
[Edited on 17/3/05 by GaryM]
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 11:01 PM |
|
|
I chose to make new top bones and put camber adjusting sleeve in while I was about it, no issues with spring clearance and the brackets look right. In
the old book the drawing calls for the bushes to be 4" and 4.75" either side of the ball joint centre, which is wrong. The dimensions
should be 3 5/8" and 5 1/8" to achieve the 3/4" offset that was intended.
Wimmera
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 11:42 PM |
|
|
As I'm working on the "L" front bit of my chassis now, would I be ok using 25mm round for the top and bottom pieces and setting them
4" apart instead of 3"?
I am using standard bones.
Cheers,
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
i built a jig for mine (pics in my archive) based on the drawing in James' archive! I have also braced the wishbone brackets on the fu tubes as
they were hanging off slightly once all jigged and welded into position.
my fu tubes line up with the e tube, but it wasn't the case originally as i bought the chassis tack welded together and have had to redo more
than if i'd started from scratch  . there are some pics in my archive showing the original positions of the fu tubes by the previous owner of
the chassis with the fu tubes hanging off tube e.
Ned.
[Edited on 18/3/05 by ned]
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
Thinking it over the real problem is the lower wishbone the balljoint should be located 25mm forward, but trying to located it correctly with the
book chassis can't be done.
So what iff a modified lower bone was made to mount the rear pivot directly on FU1/FU2. The lower end of LA/LB would have to be moveed outward.
The top wishbone would be to be "wide track".
Up side, better caster less bump steer with a standard Escort rack, on the
Downside the camber gain is changed (partly offset by increased caster).
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 11:54 AM |
|
|
redesigned wishbones ahs been done before. I tihnk it wa Mark alanson who did a different top wishbone to set the castor..
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
BS, Must be easier just to make a new top bone, surely, have a look at the drawing on page 82 of the first book and read the note in the corner, they
think they have allowed for the castor, but they made the fatal mistake of not working to the centrelines, hence they only got the drawing half
right.
Wimmera
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 12:26 PM |
|
|
As I see it one of problems with the book upper bones is if you start modifying them to increase the castor the weld on one rear leg becomes quite
nasty --- because of the acuteness of the angle most MIG nozzles won't get near it.
MK style uper bones are much better in this respect but making a pair of identical bones without building a really good set of jigs first is
difficult.
The other alternative is build something like the ones shown on the pictures on the Lolocost site --- which takes the form of a track control arm
and brake reaction rod rather better versions of this design were used on a lot of older single seater racing cars, but apart from being a step into
the unkown somehow it is tainted by association with Lolocost.
[Edited on 18/3/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 18/3/05 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
I have been toying with using something similar made from 40x18x1.5, the main reason I haven't tried it so far is that I wasn't sure it
would clear the damper and I thought it might look silly.
I don't think it will be visible with the side panels and nose cone on to be honest.
I'm using a set of ex-Westfield Spax shocks and springs and though it's fairly close, there is clearance over the whole suspension range.
It's better than adding gussets IMO, which add a twisting load to the chassis members.
The one thing I wish I had done was to tilt the FU's backwards at the top. My rear brackets do slightly overhang the FU's which will
probably require gusseting, but the extra tube will condierably increase the FU's stiffness in twisting at that point anyway.
[Edited on 18/3/05 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 06:58 AM |
|
|
B/S, dont think the welding is a valid point, I TIGGED mine and that was about 5 years ago, it's done a lot of miles since then. It amazes me
that some of the suppliers have yet to catch up with this error, they must be a switched on bunch.
Wimmera
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
As I'm working on the "L" front bit of my chassis now, would I be ok using 25mm round for the top and bottom pieces and setting them
4" apart instead of 3"?
I am using standard bones.
Cheers,
Pat...
Of the whole chassis I found it the biggest pain in the neck to get right, I seriously considered using round tube and bottom but decided to try the
book way first on the second attempt I got it spot on after minor adjustments.
As for setting them 4 inch apart the only thing that might be required is the gusseting of F1 and F2 to LD. Gussets are not really a desireable
thing on a spaceframe but sometimes they have thier uses.
[Edited on 19/3/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
