yellowcab
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
These pics should sort my rear geometry out... Cheers Danny @ MK Sportscars
Massive thanks to Danny @ MK Sportscar for yet again fantastic customer service & delivery... here are my new goodies to sort my rear end geometry
out...
Yep - seven photos of exactly the same thing, just because they're that nice.
Photos for illustration purposes only, I know I didn't set out the half nuts, and apologies its not in a more 'motorsport
environment' than my office floor lol
|
|
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
Nice photos!
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
you should have done a couple of trypict's as well
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
Is it a standard original Indy?
Want the truth?
Pick-up points are in the wrong place - those won't solve your positive camber in roll issue.
Sorry - they do look nice.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
Also, without adjustable sleaves they wont be very accurately adjustable.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
CNHSS1
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
What sort of money? U2U if youbdont want to put here.
Cheers CNH
"Racing is life, everything else, before or after, is just waiting"---Steve McQueen
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
Also, without adjustable sleaves they wont be very accurately adjustable.
If they are 1/2" UNF (which they would appear to be), the adjustment will be finer than almost any alignment tools can measure and certainly
accurate enough for the purposes of this car.
I would seriously recommend taking it over to Matt at Procomp for the day once you've got them fitted. With all that adjustment it will be easy
to get extremely muddled.
[Edited on 30-1-13 by phelpsa]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 11:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
If they are 1/2" UNF (which they would appear to be), the adjustment will be finer than almost any alignment tools can measure and certainly
accurate enough for the purposes of this car.
Fair point, they are indeed very fine.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 30/1/13 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
They do look very nice indeed but as TimC pointed won't change the geometry only the make static toe and camber settings adjustable.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
What is "non-motorsport" about the office floor? I have 2 cylinder heads on mine - never wise to have these things delivered at home it
leads to difficult questions
|
|
|
yellowcab
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 07:58 AM |
|
|
If someone would care to explain how these won't cure my rear end geometry problems, I'd be greatful.
At the moment, my rear wheels are towing out, and are non adjustable.
Having these rose jointed will now enable me to run the rears parallel with a certain amount of negative camber if need be.
I don't want this thread turning into a 'MK cars' are shit, let's keep it constructive shall we.
What I don't get, that if the pickup points are in the wrong place as you so confidently say Tim, then I presume you have the knowledge to let
me know where they should be?
Such negativity on this forum sometimes, what's the reason behind this?
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 08:16 AM |
|
|
This could get 'interesting' 
Nice workmanship BTW
[Edited on 31/1/13 by Daddylonglegs]
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
yellowcab
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 09:08 AM |
|
|
I just find it particulary disturbing that some folk are very quick to act the big 'I am', with quick whipped and frank 'want the
truth?' rather than a constructive reply as to why the pick up points are apparently incorrect, and how to remedy the problem that he was super
quick to identify.
I don't pretend to know much, infact I'm on here reading, learning and picking things up as I go along.
I'm not looking for an argument, or can of worms as forums love so much, just a simple explanation as to how it has been factually identified
that the pickup points are wrong, or is it just hearsay?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
Static toe is a setting not geometry.
Geometry includes things such as roll centre height, camber gain and bump steer is dictated by the the position of the pivot points, and design
lengths of wishbones.
Historically MK and Locost suspension wasn't really designed from first principles it just roughly followed what was seen to work and it does
work reasonably well up to a point. What is missing is the details of selecting the geometry to suit the car, basically the rear roll centre is
too low and there is not enough (negative) camber gain as the car rolls. You can actually see this in the picture of the car in your avatar, the
rear wheel has a a lot of positive camber which prevents the tyre gripping effectively.
[Edited on 31/1/13 by britishtrident]
[Edited on 31/1/13 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 09:45 AM |
|
|
In some people's opinion the MK doesn't have enough camber correction in roll. This is dictated by the suspension mounting points on the
chassis and the upright, so the adjustable wishbones won't correct it. This can be helped with a decent amount of static negative camber. Bare
in mind that NO suspension system has 100% roll compensation and the MK is better than most strut suspension arrangements.
Your adjustable wishbones will be able to correct the bigger issue of rear toe out.
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Static toe is a setting not geometry.
Geometry includes things such as roll centre height, camber gain and bump steer is dictated by the the position of the pivot points, and design
lengths of wishbones.
Talk about nit picking. This forum is turning into Pistonheads again!
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Well no, actually this forum used to be a lot more like that before it turned into more of a 'what washing machine should I buy/can anyone
recommend a plummer' type affair  I don't mind that tbh BUT I do miss some of the more engineering orientated threads 
I know you've been here long enough to know that phelpsa btw
[Edited on 31/1/13 by D Beddows]
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 12:30 PM |
|
|
The limitations in the MK front and rear suspension on the standard car has been covered a number of times (as well as other cars limitations).
I'm sure a good few years ago someone posted what changes they'd made. As I recall it was something like moving rear pick up points out
10mm and up 3mm (that is a pure guess don't replicate, please use the search and check). The front needed extra bracing as tubes have been
removed to make fitting a variety of engines easier (again check).
The reality is for road use for most people its fine. For competitive track use some people find the limitations.
The reconmendation to go see Matt at Procomp is one I'll also repeat but talk to him first. Depending on your intended use he may refuse to see
you as he won't give you a noticable improvement (ie he won't waste your money).
Personally I love a good technical discussion and do my best to follow and learn. A couple of the posts will seem negative to a new forum member but
to the aged old timers this is a thread thats been written 50 or 100 times, hence its missing some detail.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
In some people's opinion the MK doesn't have enough camber correction in roll. This is dictated by the suspension mounting points on the
chassis and the upright, so the adjustable wishbones won't correct it. This can be helped with a decent amount of static negative camber. Bare
in mind that NO suspension system has 100% roll compensation and the MK is better than most strut suspension arrangements.
Your adjustable wishbones will be able to correct the bigger issue of rear toe out.
Adam's covered most of what I was gonna say in his post above. If you remove the damper and put the rear wheel through it's full movement
of bump and droop with a spirit level attached to the wheel vertically, you'll be able to see the effect that others have already mentioned in
this thread. In reality, the damper restricts the travel and with a decent amount of static negative camber, it's effects in roll can be vastly
improved.
Phil
|
|
|
mikeb
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 01:10 PM |
|
|
The new wishbones looks nice.
Lots of adjustment on those to get the correct static angles you want.
On our race caterham we had to shim the rear end to get the toe and camber adjustments. I'm hoping to do the same on my haynes roadster as
although the caterham was de dion the haynes still has the same ford wheel hubs and the same shims should be useable between the wheel hub and upright
to get the correct static toe in settings.
I wondered if the same option was available for the MK?
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 02:19 PM |
|
|
I shimmed the rear of my Indy to correct the static toe measurements. As built, one side was too far out, the other too far in. I did it with shim
washers between the MK upright and Sierra hub. It gave a noticeable improvement on my "test" round about and actually gave me quite a bit
more confidence in the car overall.
What's not been mentioned is that the Indy would also benefit from more rear suspension travel for UK road use. However you set the ride height
with the MK supplied Protech shocks you will bottom out or top out too often. This does not aid traction, cornering, ride and ultimately confidence.
|
|
|
yellowcab
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 02:42 PM |
|
|
Wonderful, since my reply asking for more in-depth replies - I've now learnt alot of stuff that I didn't know to begin with.
As my car is going to be 75% track / 25% road... I now want to locate the thread that MikeR speaks of, as I'm happy to grind off and re-weld the
mounting points for the rear suspension if it is going to be better in the long run.
For those that follow my project thread in BEC - my car is very much 'off the road' at the moment anyway, so a bit of grinding, welding,
and general jiggery poker certainly doesn't phase me.
When the search function on this forum is back up and running - I shall have a good mooch.
Thanks for all the intricate and technical replies, much more helpful than the blunt 'its never gonna work' answers for someone that is
seeking knowledge off ones peers.
I get the static adjustments, and I'm aware that my new rear arm setup will help dramatically in my problem (which was rears toeing out), I
wasn't aware of the lack of camber adjustment I hopefully can now look at.
I will continue to seek advice, and help through out this - and I'll keep my thread in BEC updated, but I didn't want to spill too many
questions and drivel around the forum, so keeping it to one place for those that are interested is the general way I like to work.
Once again - I thank you all for the information you've given me - it's certainly opened my eyes (in a good way) of what I can do to
improve yet again the handling of my car...
For those that want a giggle, and a light hearted watch - here is my spirited lap in trying to keep my car facing the right way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yVlh1Hb6Nw
[Edited on 31/1/13 by yellowcab]
|
|
|
me!
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
You can search via google, just start with site:locostbuilders.co.uk and then enter your search term. It should help you find the post you're
after.
Good (re)build thread by the way- keep it up!
[Edited on 31/1/13 by me!]
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
Are you cutting down the threads on the rose joints?
I notice they won't screw in very far .... Wouldn't that be a weak point?
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 31/1/13 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yellowcab
I just find it particulary disturbing that some folk are very quick to act the big 'I am', with quick whipped and frank 'want the
truth?' rather than a constructive reply as to why the pick up points are apparently incorrect, and how to remedy the problem that he was super
quick to identify.
I don't pretend to know much, infact I'm on here reading, learning and picking things up as I go along.
I'm not looking for an argument, or can of worms as forums love so much, just a simple explanation as to how it has been factually identified
that the pickup points are wrong, or is it just hearsay?
Oh for goodness sake. You've got me all wrong - as some of the folk who actually know me on here will hopefully testify.
Has my comment generated some responses that help you to get a better track car? It looks like that might be the case. Am I going to contribute
further given your view of me? No chance.
Best of luck with it.
|
|
|
.jpg)
