------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dimensions of the following components are required from a Mk IV Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98-'03) or in the US, A4 Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98.5-'04):

1. 5-stud front and rear hubs.
2. Outer CV/stub axle and axle.
3. Rear bolt-on stub axle.
4. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm-30mm) front discs.
5. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm) rear discs.
6. Aluminium rear calliper.
7. Tie rod end.
8. Manual steering rack.


Maybe you know someone who works in a VW dealership? If you have any trade catalogues with dimensioned diagrams of any of the items, then I'd welcome that info too.
If you have the parts, but aren't sure how to go about extracting the data, email me and I'll gladly give you instructions on how to accurately take the measurements.
If you can help with dimensions of any of the above parts, please let me know and specify the model and year please.
I'm also happy (in fact I would prefer) to receive actual parts and reverse engineer them myself, so if anyone can source any of the parts and post them to me, I promise faithfully I'll return them within a week.
I've seen most of the parts appearing on eBay, so perhaps some of you who are interested in this project would consider buying even one item each or sharing the cost of one item with others to get this project underway.
Just one of each component is all that's necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I hope I'm not being too presumptuous here, but I thought this warranted a thread of its own. In this thread, BradW made a few suggestions for a new Locost upright, but I believe if it's worth doing at all, then it may be worth doing a little better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BradW
…. in answer to your question "Would Marc, Mark (I sound like a dog with a hair lip) Brad or Chris be interested in such a set-up? ", yes, I think that might be an idea, I've thought a few times about something like that.

A few "requirements" I'd thought of would be
1) Cater for 'standard' book wishbones
2) Use book Transit & Maxi/Cortina ball joints
3) Use Sierra hubs and bearings
4) Removable/replaceable Caliper mounting plate
5) KPI of 7 or 8 degrees
6) Relatively easy to manufacture, using laser cutting/milling/turning/welding type of facilities rather than bending/forming.

I'm sure guys can add more to this list, maybe on here we can come up with a 'Locost' uprights and get away from being tied to Cortina, Sierra or expensive ali uprights.

Cheers

Brad

---

Add prefered wheel size/offset to above list?

Cheers

Fred WB

Rorty Thanks again for volunteering your valuable design input. I think yo are in the process of bringing the Locost design into the present. I suspect basing uprights on Sierras is a time limiting option as even Sierras are getting rare particularly with Pinto engines. If you think your exisitng design for cortina substitute uprihts is good why not stick with it?

One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless you have a better idea!.

Further thoughts on wishbone design would also be interesting as there does seem to be a problem with the lower wishbone bending when treated roughly.

The original 7 used an anti roll bar as part of the top wishbone location is this worth reconsidering 50 years after the original design?

Is it worth thinking about different wishbone lengths to equalise track width when using wider rear axels? Future donors are kikely t be bigger cars than Sierras that are already wider than the escort.

Thats all I can think of for now, I was planning to build my wishbones before Christmas so now I had better wait!

Caber

Hi Rorty
my main sugestion is that your design should not be a welded fabricatin because there are a number of countries like here in OZ that will not allow such uprights to be used on the road .
any way what os wrong with Toyota Lite / hi ace I'm using them and they work fine

quote:

---

Originally posted by caber

One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless you have a better idea!.
Caber

---

I found when reserching an alternative to the Nissan uprights that the cortina ones have a massive scrub radius which most people seem to agree is undesirable and is possibly part of the reason that the don't self centre well. By using a custom hub it was possible to reduce this but without using a very large offset in the wheel still impossible to get right. There could be two reasons for this:
a, There is not enough KPI and
b, the front rack design means that the tie rod end does not allow the brake disc to be moved inwards. This may be the reason most late model production cars use a rear rack design.
I would agree that restricting oneself to book design wishbones is not necessarily a good idea.
Just my thoughts.
Bruce Kelly

Hi

You are quite right Rorty, some of my reasoning was to allow compatibility with existing parts/designs, we would be better with a complete redesign.

From my side (South Africa) I would be perfectly happy producing new wishbones and uprights to meet the new design, we (www.locost.co.za) are already serving a growing market place for both homebuilt and 'kit' chassis, and are committed to promoting the Locost concept.

In answer to your questions, and to try and add some reasons to my "requirements"

If you are prepared to put your experience and knowledge into producing a new design I, for one, will follow through with the manufacturing and sale of items to suit the design.
My reasoning behind the Sierra bearings was that they are easily available items, from both Auto and bearing companies.
The 'book' ball joints again are readily available and seem to fulfil the purpose without problem.
A removable caliper plate would allow use of a wide range of calipers.

I look forward to more input on this and will offer my assistance wherever possible.

Thanks Rorty...

Brad

There is an extra issue with fabrication of uprights, compared to wishbones, in that it's a 3 dimensional part, mirror imaged on the other side so it would be difficult for an amateur builder to jig up to get adequate dimensional accuracy. I think that's why some who are happy to fabricate 'bones would be wary of uprights. The alternative approach (wot I did) was to select a different donor vehicle, the mx5 suited me as bits are reasonable and plentiful (esp. in USA) & it's rear drive IRS already. Mind you it's far from ideal - esp. with rack in same plane as lower wishbone! & a lot of the bits are rather heavy. On reflection I can't think of any other common cars that suit our purpose...
Bob

quote:

---

Originally posted by caber
If you think your exisitng design for cortina substitute uprihts is good why not stick with it?

One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless you have a better idea!.

Further thoughts on wishbone design would also be interesting as there does seem to be a problem with the lower wishbone bending when treated roughly.

The original 7 used an anti roll bar as part of the top wishbone location is this worth reconsidering 50 years after the original design?

Is it worth thinking about different wishbone lengths to equalise track width when using wider rear axels? Future donors are kikely t be bigger cars than Sierras that are already wider than the escort.

Thats all I can think of for now, I was planning to build my wishbones before Christmas so now I had better wait!

Caber

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by niceperson709
Hi Rorty
my main sugestion is that your design should not be a welded fabricatin because there are a number of countries like here in OZ that will not allow such uprights to be used on the road .
any way what os wrong with Toyota Lite / hi ace I'm using them and they work fine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob C
There is an extra issue with fabrication of uprights, compared to wishbones, in that it's a 3 dimensional part, mirror imaged on the other side so it would be difficult for an amateur builder to jig up to get adequate dimensional accuracy. I think that's why some who are happy to fabricate 'bones would be wary of uprights. Bob

---

It wouldn't be difficult to devise a new front end like any good open wheeler track car with pinpoint steering and vastly superior geometry to the current Locost, but it would most likely require many custom made parts.
I don't think that's going to suit many people's aims or budgets. We shouldn't lose focus and design something out of keeping with the Locost theme.
I'm not worried about the geometry; it will end up being dictated by in large by the sum of the parts, but I'll certainly aim to improve every aspect where possible.
While it might be attractive to purchase just one donor car, I think very few people these days actually follow that route. I see Sierra parts combined with bike engines, Escort racks and Polo radiators etc. etc.
Why not choose a "new" rack too while we're at it as the Escort ones are seemingly dying a death.
Perhaps a shopping list would consist of:

1. Wheel (make/model/size/PCD?)
   
2. Tyre (width/aspect ratio?)
   
3. Hub (make/model - future availability?)
   
4. Brake disc (same as hub/aftermarket?)
   
5. Calliper (same donor as hub & disc/aftermarket? Not that important right now)
   
6. Balljoints (how long are the Transit/Cortina and Maxi ones goint to be around for? Should we switch to VW - they're global)
   
7. Rack (is there a nice quick-ish rack that's close to the right size and readily available? Don't forget the track will probably be wider than stock)
   

Hi Rorty,
As you have noticed the Sierra is common donor for the rear end, the wider track still suits the ‘book’ chassis and gives the benefits of the extra width, the diff mountings and bearing carriers make it easy to adopt to suit our chassis.
You maybe should add Track to your shopping list, I think the Sierra defines that.
As to the rest of your list, these are my answers, please guys bear in mind this is coming from South Africa were different things are available or not as the case may be
1. Wheel – Make and model aren’t too specific, following a Sierra rear out here a common choice would be a 15” diameter in a 6” or 6.5” width, with an ET35 offset and a 108 4 stud PCD, luckily after market Alloys here in SA can be had quite reasonably, the 15J6.5 is reasonably common with the Ford pitch and offset, we don’t want different front and rear wheels so these would suit any of the Excort, Cortina, Sierra, Sapphire, & Falcon rear ends.
2. Tyre – a 195/55 15 offers an economical/comfortable/sporty ride, giving a rolling diameter of 576mm.
3. Hub – Availability, especially as after-market options, would probably point to the Cortina/Escort style, although the manufacturing of the stub axles adds a complication to the upright.
4. Brake disc – As you suggest following the standard sizes of the selected hub
5. Calliper – with a removable mounting plate as you say this isn’t too important, but goind with the Low Cost options the ‘standard’ would be the one which comes with the donor hubs.
6. Balljoints – Here I have to admit a business leaning, being difficult to obtain here in South Africa I regularly import QH balljoints in bulk to be able to offer realistic prices, a recent order having an out of stock delay proves that at least QH are still having them manufactured, If someone could suggest a make and model of VW items I will investigate availability and cost here in SA.
7. Rack – Even here in SA MK II Escort racks are readily available at a reasonable cost, also looking at the popularity of the RWD Escorts in competition I think this rack is a good choice, there are many Quick Racks available, Rally Design and QH both do standard and quick racks, the ‘normal’ turned extensions are easy enough to manufacture so we can adjust the uprights providing the chassis mounts line up with the rack pivot points. Of course the other option is to change the Locost from front steer to rear steer, then we could look at Fiesta, Focus, VW and many other FWD options.


As usual answers raise more questions J, but I think we are going in the right direction

A very good idea
A few comments on some of the issues raised.

(1) As Sierra hub/stub axle parts availability is already on the wane, no reason why the equvalent parts from a FWD Ford or VW Golf couldn't be used --- just "gut" the cv joint of the cage and balls.
(2) Ball joint availability what about using Land-Rover or Jaguar parts for the top ball joint.
(3) Self-centering issues with the Cortina setup are a lot to do with the lack of king pin inclination. The king pin inclination and caster should both be increased I don't what the figures should be but I would guess anything up to 7 for the caster with a kpi about 2 or 3 degrees less.

also the hub on a pin , is not as strong as pin through the hub . that contradicts my setup !!

it would be nice whatever you come up with can be made to suit any hubs , and caliper combo . im stuck with 12' kpi with the volvo/strut setup .

eventually i will need to manufacture some new uprights , but would like to keep the big disc/caliper , and pcd of the volvo .

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident
(1) As Sierra hub/stub axle parts availability is already on the wane, no reason why the equvalent parts from a FWD Ford or VW Golf couldn't be used --- just "gut" the cv joint of the cage and balls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident(2) Ball joint availability what about using Land-Rover or Jaguar parts for the top ball joint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident(3) Self-centering issues with the Cortina setup are a lot to do with the lack of king pin inclination. The king pin inclination and caster should both be increased I don't what the figures should be but I would guess anything up to 7 for the caster with a kpi about 2 or 3 degrees less.

---

Sorry, these posts got out of order.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BradW
6. Balljoints – Here I have to admit a business leaning, being difficult to obtain here in South Africa I regularly import QH balljoints in bulk to be able to offer realistic prices, a recent order having an out of stock delay proves that at least QH are still having them manufactured, If someone could suggest a make and model of VW items I will investigate availability and cost here in SA.
7. Of course the other option is to change the Locost from front steer to rear steer, then we could look at Fiesta, Focus, VW and many other FWD options.

---

Oops! I forgot the pic of the VW Golf lower BJ.
Rescued attachment Golf_balljoint-lwr_01sml.gif

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volvorsport
also the hub on a pin , is not as strong as pin through the hub . that contradicts my setup !!

---

Hi,
Land Rover and Jag parts are extremely expensive here (SA), but we are already importing the Transit/Maxi from the UK, so UK prices would probably be the influence on that, also the Land Rover joints I've seen here are an imperial thread which may lead to problems with thread cutting and locknuts, the M18x1.5 of the Transit is closer to a standard thread, although the US may prefer imperial.
Checking my QH catalogue all of the Land Rover Tie Rods/Drag Links use a cone (taper) fitment, most are 11/16 x 16 UNF, although the post 98 Discovery does not have the thread detailed.
All the Jag joints seem to have female threads.

If we use an existing upright are we not just duplicating our current problem for later Locost builders ?, plus the Golf is McPherson isn't it, so will we not be adopting the same problems the Sierra upright has ?.

The common (left/right) upright idea with removable steering arms/caliper brackets sounds the best way

Brad

Best thread for weeks!!

The hub size (face of wheel to face of disc) is really a pain on the cortina as well as on the sierra, is there any narrower alternatives?

Hi Lozec
I think the answer lies in the use of a FWD wheel flange and stub with the bearing mounted in the upright as has been mentioned earlier, I used Peugeot 205 bits to build mine in a fabricated housing, the distance from the wheel mounting face to the outside of the disc is 14mm.

Wimmera

quote:

---

Originally posted by WIMMERA
Hi Lozec
I think the answer lies in the use of a FWD wheel flange and stub with the bearing mounted in the upright as has been mentioned earlier, I used Peugeot 205 bits to build mine in a fabricated housing, the distance from the wheel mounting face to the outside of the disc is 14mm.

Wimmera

---

Rorty, if this comes off you’ll be honored throughout Locostdom as One Who Has Solved The Big Problem. Thank you for your generous offer.

1. Wheel Since I have competition pretensions, I’d certainly like to see it accommodate 13” wheels. 6” wide with room to grow to 8” if I progress to the class that allows it would suite me.
2. Tyre Black. Avons? Anyone with track day experience want to chime in?
3. Hub FWIW, since someone may be willing to sell to the U.S.A., the most common donors here seem to be MX-5 and RX-7 with MX-5s gaining. Could it accommodate MX-5 hubs? Or (stupid question showing lack of knowledge) if ubiquitous FWD donor (Focus, Golf, Corolla?) is used, could hubs come from the rear?
4. Brake disc Same as hub
5. Caliper Same donor as hub & disc
6. Balljoint One with a future, VW fine by me. Minority comment: since I have a pull-rod system in mind, I’d like to see it use lower bj’s top as well as bottom.
7. Rack/ Steering Arm A bolt on rear steering-arm that allows the rod end to be level with the top wishbone to minimize bump steer issues (as suggested by Staniforth) and allow use of VW, etc. racks, please
8. Track I agree that wide-track is the way to go.

Of course, the front and rear suspensions work together, so… you might as well finish up your IRS while you’re at it. It’s so easy to be ambitious with someone else’s time.

Regards,
Mr. Pete

mx5 = best donor was the conclusion I reached a couple of years ago when I started mine. they're now common & reasonable, a modern design (no taper roller bearings) & plenty get stuffed by punters unused to RWD!
Drawbacks to mx5 gear - it's all a bit heavy & the steering arms are in an embarrassing location - (actually on the plane of the bottom 'bone - yeah I know some folk might think that's a good thing; it isn't!)
This stuff was designed around 14" wheels so 13" may not work, but I have managed to fit 10.5" discs in them (the stock wheels) so 13" rims might go on.
Stock mx5 uprights and standard book chassis combine to give perfect roll centre control according to my suspension modelling software. I know lots of folk would say that's not even worth writing down, but it makes me happy ;^)
The other thing that makes it a good donor - they really are common as muck; esp with all the jap imports we got in UK. They last well so they should be seen in scrapyards for years to come. And it's a world car - sold in large numbers in all the main markets.
Bob C
PS to get round the steering arm issue, I moved the TREs from below to above the steering arms. Obviously the other possibility is a major change to the bottom 'bone and chassis front, Anyone looked at that?

That's two notches for MX5 gear so far. It certainly sounds promising, though I have to admit, I've never even looked undernesth one.
Bob, you seem to have done quite a bit with the MX5 stuff, do you have any dimensions or useable photos of an upright (for the stub axle) hub and disc etc. that I could use to make models of? I suppose I could model the stub axle from just the hub and bearings. What's the MX5 rack like?
I think I would still prefer to design the upright from scratch as it offers the most oportunities and fewer compromises.
For those who have fitted bodywork to their chassis; how much room is there between the angled front of the chassis and the nose cone? I'm just wondering if I have any leeway for siting the wishbone mounts, or if I really need to adhere to the Book chassis dimensions.

i think ive posted somewhere the picture of a hub , that was milled from ally and used a sierra hub , been used on darrians for a while now - i was around when it was being developed

now to find that pic .

here it is

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=19196

Rorty

I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components. I am hesitant to suggest it but we may be heading for a mid engined design to use all the available FWD parts that are around now. if not we need to look at a mechanical solution to adapting an FWD set up to drive the rear axel, ideally this would mean a donor that allows the transaxel to be separated from the gearbox fo we might need a torque tube rathr than a prop shaft.

Quite frankly you seem to be a man capable of thinking this one through with some help from others here but basically this will be anew car and might start to look a bit different from the 7 we all know and love. What do you think?

Caber

Rorty - I have quite a few solidworks models of the mx5 bits, though these tend to be functional rather than photorealistic - holes in about right place but outline wrong, you can have any of these. There are a few photos in my archive & on my website plus all the suspension dimensions and some drawings in "edrawings" format.
The drawings do tend to be of my modifications rather than the real thing (eg my front upright has the TRE above steering arm) but I can get dimensions of stock discs no trouble.
U2U me with any specific requests & I'll do what I can.
cheers
Bob

Oh yeah - the rack: the common one is the power steering one, not ideal for a 7. They do a non-power one too (only common in VERY early mk1s) I also believe the bones are shorter on the mx5 than the 7 so the rack middle is long for what we want. I used an escort rack shortened 3" with 4" track rod extensions on each side.
The mx5 track rod ends are bent back to cope with the crazy angle machined on to the steering arms.
cheers
Bob

quote:

---

Originally posted by caber
...
I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components.
...

Caber

---

Hi Lozec Have pics but no idea how to post them here,(computer illiterate) if you wish to give me your address will forward them, bear in mind that they were made to reduce scrub radius without reverting to huge amounts of KPI which is a different criteria to this thread.

Wimmera

quote:

---

Originally posted by WIMMERA
Hi Lozec Have pics but no idea how to post them here,(computer illiterate) if you wish to give me your address will forward them, bear in mind that they were made to reduce scrub radius without reverting to huge amounts of KPI which is a different criteria to this thread.

Wimmera

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caber
Rorty

I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components. I am hesitant to suggest it but we may be heading for a mid engined design to use all the available FWD parts that are around now. if not we need to look at a mechanical solution to adapting an FWD set up to drive the rear axel, ideally this would mean a donor that allows the transaxel to be separated from the gearbox fo we might need a torque tube rathr than a prop shaft.

Quite frankly you seem to be a man capable of thinking this one through with some help from others here but basically this will be anew car and might start to look a bit different from the 7 we all know and love. What do you think?

Caber

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob C
Oh yeah - the rack: the common one is the power steering one, not ideal for a 7. They do a non-power one too (only common in VERY early mk1s) I also believe the bones are shorter on the mx5 than the 7 so the rack middle is long for what we want. I used an escort rack shortened 3" with 4" track rod extensions on each side.
The mx5 track rod ends are bent back to cope with the crazy angle machined on to the steering arms.
cheers
Bob

---

I've just had a thought; as I'm pretty much resolved to doing an upright from scratch, what about using the rear hubs and disc from basically any rear disc-braked set-up? As long as the disc isn't much smaller in size to a Cortina disc, it should be OK. And of course, any calliper could be used.
Here I go again with Golf stuff, but IINM the mid 80s (and possibly later too) 1.3 and 1.5 Golf's rear disc is the same fitment as the front (both 10mm thick) and some larger and ventilated front discs from later models fit the front hubs. Soooo, if that's true, then it should be possible to create a new upright and stub axle and fit the Golf rear hubs with whichever front discs people want. Again, callipers can be varied, but perhaps Golf (to match the discs) or Wilwood or whichever.
I read on another thread where Quintin Hazell are stil producing new Escort racks and seemingly there are a few quick rack kits available for them too.
If they are going to remain a current item, then they would be quite a good option. As most people seem to lob about 3-4" out of the Escort rack it would make sense for me to make the Escort rack fit in its standard length. This would bring the front and rear track widths closer to equal too. I'd have to compare a few drawings to make the best of it all.

Hi,
Yes the MX5 is a World car, but here in South Africa it's not that common, finding one in a scrap yard would be very rare.

Rorty, the Golf idea is good, there are thousands of them here, in fact the Citi Golf is manufactured here, basically it's a Mk I (or II I'm not too good on my Golfs) Golf that never died.

One thing talking about rear hubs though, on the Golf aren't the wheel bearings built into the brake drum or something?

Using the Sierra track the Escort rack fits in nicely on the 'inboard' side, and rack extensions to the steering arms are an easy solution.

I deal with QH and they can supply both standard and Quick racks new. Even here in SA we can also get cheap 'Chinese' Escort steering racks brand new.

As to a FWD to mid engine car, yep that is something that keeps going through my mind, but I agree with Rorty the 7-style Locost will continue, I'll look forward to next Christmas Rorty :-)

Brad

quote:

---

Originally posted by BradW
As to a FWD to mid engine car, yep that is something that keeps going through my mind, but I agree with Rorty the 7-style Locost will continue

---

Gecko model with silver sides

I see several trains of though colliding here.....

See here

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=30627

and here

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=33978

Go for it Rorty on the uprights, I'm starting to be very glad I haven't finalized my front end yet

Cheers

Fred WB



[Edited on 9/11/05 by Fred W B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BradW
One thing talking about rear hubs though, on the Golf aren't the wheel bearings built into the brake drum or something?

Using the Sierra track the Escort rack fits in nicely on the 'inboard' side, and rack extensions to the steering arms are an easy solution.
Brad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
I see several trains of though colliding here.....

---

Brad, we're both right. The later Golfs have separate hubs and 256mm vented discs, which look like they may very well fit the bill. I'll continue to research the hubs. I know the bearings are a single, twin row radial ball bearing, as I have one sitting around the office here somewhere. I've used them for a number of projects because they're a nice pre-loaded and press fit and circlip fitment.

quote:

---

Rorty wrote:
No fears. A middy Locost replacement is the last thing on my mind at the minute. Hopefully someone else will do the honours.

---

Front suspension mock up

Not sure how accurate this is of course as it's from another site.

shortened sierra rack ? the high ratio ones are available from rally design .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
I thought the Escort rack was too long and produced loads of bumpsteer? If the geometry is wrong, simply fitting tie rod extensions to join the dots is a shonky practice in my books.
Does anyone have reliable dimensions of the Escort rack? I'd like to examine the rack in conjunction with Locost front geometry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
Rorty, I have both a Escort rack and golf (unvented disc) rear hub/brake assemblies in my car/garage - what exactly do you need to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyd
Not sure how accurate this is of course as it's from another site.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BradW
However if we are using the Sierra track shouldn't we widen the front chassis, and hence wishbone mounts, then maybe the Escort will do, although widening the track then brings into play other things like Ackerman angle etc

Has anyone checked the dimensions of the McSorley +4, maybe that might help.

Although we have now moved into a whole new chassis rather than just new uprights.

Where will this end :-)

Brad

---

Rorty - I'll dig the VW parts out on the weekend, I'm not sure if they are the seperate type.

I had a look at my notes last night, I measured the escort rack I have as 602 mm across end joint centres.

Cheers

Fred WB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
Rorty - I'll dig the VW parts out on the weekend, I'm not sure if they are the seperate type.

I had a look at my notes last night, I measured the escort rack I have as 602 mm across end joint centres.

Cheers

Fred WB

---

Okay, I don't know about my skill with a tape measure, but it turns out my paperwork filling leaves something to be desired. The 602 mm dimension I stated is actually that of a mini rack I was working with.

I've just taken the boots of my escort rack and checked it again. Although its difficult to be exact without cutting up the end joints, I would now agree with the 609 mm dimension.

Weird that the mini and escort should be so similar, but then the original racks were probably made by the same firm

And on the golf hubs, turns out I have the pattern with the disc and hub in one piece, so I really not being much help tonight.

Cheers

Fred WB

Maybe the long rack ending up near the top wishbone wouldn't be such a bad thing (for bumpsteer, anyway.)

Question for those with CECs: is there room for a rack behind the upper wishbone?

Hear, hear! regrading a fix to the pokey-outy trapezoid corners and wishbone attach point confusion!

I couldn't find anything in my files on attaching the nose. Somebody must have pics.

Thinking food from Alan Staniforth's Competition Car Suspension. Porsche 956-962 (Ickx/Maas fwiw.) Spacer block alters camber w/out changing Ackermann or tracking. Tyres a bit wider, though...

Oh, and one vote for Ackermann and one for the front track being same as or wider than the rear. Admittedly they are I-only-know-what-I-read-in-Smith-and-Staniforth votes.


Regards,
Mr. Pete

I'll try again with the attachment.
Rescued attachment 956-962 upright.jpg

Just a thought -- what does Caterham use now? Do they make their own components? I seem to recall that Lotus originally used Triumph pieces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty

1. Wheel (make/model/size/PCD?)
   
2. Tyre (width/aspect ratio?)
   
3. Hub (make/model - future availability?)
   
4. Brake disc (same as hub/aftermarket?)
   
5. Calliper (same donor as hub & disc/aftermarket? Not that important right now)
   
6. Balljoints (how long are the Transit/Cortina and Maxi ones goint to be around for? Should we switch to VW - they're global)
   
7. Rack (is there a nice quick-ish rack that's close to the right size and readily available? Don't forget the track will probably be wider than stock)
   

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
That's a pity, but I'm not surprised. I think we'll just have to raid a number of different parts bins to sort this out.

---

Keeping in the spirit of Locost, it means using an existing upright. I propose people pooling suggestions for their choice. As we are a world-wide group, it would be VERY helpful if the donor car is used in all countries. An overly optimistic goal perhaps, but the only one that really retains its Locost roots.

That said, if we collectively can come up with a good generic upright design, of which not exists now, casting them is an idea, though shipping cost becomes an issue... it's always something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by smdl
Just a thought -- what does Caterham use now? Do they make their own components? I seem to recall that Lotus originally used Triumph pieces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
That's a pity, but I'm not surprised. I think we'll just have to raid a number of different parts bins to sort this out.

---

I'm pretty sure the tapers on the Miata/MX5 steering arms are the same as many others, particularily Toyota and VW.

The Toyota Tercel and mid 80's VW Golf/Jetta unpowered racks are available just about anywhere and their lengths appear suitable for a rear steer locost ... at least in mine.

-Steve

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
Keeping in the spirit of Locost, it means using an existing upright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
...if we collectively can come up with a good generic upright design, of which not exists now, casting them is an idea, though shipping cost becomes an issue... it's always something.

---

I'm getting to the point of deciding what uprights to use.

I would like something relatively modern (so I get vented front discs), cheap and plentiful.

Has anybody looked at Honda Civics (the early 80s wedge shaped ones pre-Rover)? They're rear wheel drive and shouldn't be too rare. What are Sierra and Granada uprights like? What about Omegas?

I've just had a look at the Silva site, for the Mojo, it uses Siera front uprights.

Could you take your Siera uprights and swap them side to side so they're rear steer (turn the brake calipers upside down too)?

Not without the Akermann being totally screwed. Why not use Alfa uprights if you want rear steer.

I think people picked up my previous post the wrong way. I was not proposing a mid engine as the ideal solution I was wondering what mechanicla FWD bits could be re engineered in locost fashion to separate gearbox and rotate 90° then how the transaxle could be addapted to fit the rear.This may mean moving the gearbox to the back like the Porsche 944 and I believe some volvos and of course Rorty figuring out the chassis for us .

I am wilth Rorty that VW bits are a good choice for availability as they now turn up in all sorts of other things like Seats and Skodas and eved Audis if you want to by the same bit for 4 times the price

So far the best car I ever owned was a Mk1 Golf GTI that unfortunately was run over by a bus and written off at a time that Ididn't have the wherewithall to buy the salvage and fix it, though I believe the car may still exist according to the DVLA website. The idea of one on those engines isn a locost is really eciting!

Caber

quote:

---

Originally posted by caber
I was wondering what mechanicla FWD bits could be re engineered in locost fashion to separate gearbox and rotate 90° then how the transaxle could be addapted to fit the rear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kowalski
I'm getting to the point of deciding what uprights to use.

I would like something relatively modern (so I get vented front discs), cheap and plentiful.

Has anybody looked at Honda Civics (the early 80s wedge shaped ones pre-Rover)? They're rear wheel drive and shouldn't be too rare. What are Sierra and Granada uprights like? What about Omegas?

---

As global makes go VW parts make the most sense particularly as most parts are available from aftermarket suppliers rather than VAG.

3 series BMW parts are another option loads around -- good cheap spares support.

Toyota, Honda, Mazda parts aren't as avialable from cheaper no-OEM sources.

PGA group don't sell world wide, GM and Ford models vary too much from market to market.

Fiat group sell in many markets but the quality isn't near VW standards.

Nissan-Renault ?

This is all great input and very useful.
I'm pretty much settled on VW parts for hubs and discs because of the wide choice and availability.
What about the VW wheel PCD? It's not really an option to have two different wheels on the one car, so do we re-drill the front hubs or the rear hubs?
What if I redesigned the De Dion rear end around VW hubs and brakes too? Their nice little alloy handbrake calliper seems to pop up everywhere these days. In that case, the car would be running basically FWD wheels with FWD off-set. I'll have to look up the VW FWD off-set(s?) to see what's involved. My point is, this will obviously have an effect (restraint?) on final geometry.

I agree; mass-produced RWD is dead, but for the time being, I think it's worth persevering with the RWD Se7en style Locost.
As I hinted earlier, I may have a look at a FWD midi next Christmas. There are already people building/designing FWD midi Locosts and AFAIK, at least one will be produced as a kit/turnkey car.
The Gecko is still at the design stage and when finished, Dominic may not want to share his design anyway.
I'm not trying to offset anyone else' work or contribution, I would just like to explore a FWD midi myself.
Of course, by next Christmas I may have other plans.

Some VW parts are a bit expensive around here, as an alternate option the Focus has a bolt on rear stub axle. Although most are drum braked, you could cut off the drum bit and be left with a nice hub, with a nice sealed bearing Then you could fit a front rotor onto that and keep a Ford wheel bolt patern.


[Edited on 13/11/05 by madman280]

[Edited on 13/11/05 by madman280]

Rorty please first complete the drawings of the rear IRS uprights before you start a new design.
The Mk I Golf has a flat at the top of the upright that the Mcpherson bolts to. The next generations have a similar as the Siera upright collar that the McPherson bolt into.
Which one are you looking at using?

quote:

---

Originally posted by madman280
Some VW parts are a bit expensive around here, as an alternate option the Focus has a bolt on rear stub axle. Although most are drum braked, you could cut off the drum bit and be left with a nice hub, with a nice sealed bearing Then you could fit a front rotor onto that and keep a Ford wheel bolt patern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kango
Rorty please first complete the drawings of the rear IRS uprights before you start a new design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kango
The Mk I Golf has a flat at the top of the upright that the Mcpherson bolts to. The next generations have a similar as the Siera upright collar that the McPherson bolt into.
Which one are you looking at using?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
In that case, the car would be running basically FWD wheels with FWD off-set. I'll have to look up the VW FWD off-set(s?) to see what's involved. My point is, this will obviously have an effect (restraint?) on final geometry.

---

As far as I can see, the Golf parts are the best solution and will lend themselves to both ends of the car.
If I get this front end sorted, then I'll revise my De Dion and IRS set-ups to include Golf rear stubs, hubs, discs and lightweight callipers.
This means VW pattern wheels (5-100 PCD and 32-38mm off-sets) can be used all round and there are plenty of OEM and aftermarket styles to choose from.
Even though the Golf and Jetta go back as far as the seventies, I think it's prudent to aim for relatively recent 5-stud stuff which will include the New Beetle and high-performance stuff from the VR6, so I've short-listed the following components:

1. 1. Front CV/axle complete.
   
2. 2. Front hub.
   
3. 3. Front disc.
   
4. 4. Rear stub axle.
   
5. 5. Rear hub/bearing unit.
   
6. 6. Rear disc.
   
7. 7. Rear calliper.
   

Rescued attachment hub-front_Golf-Jetta_2.0L_TDI_01.jpg

Front wheel bearing:
Rescued attachment wheelbearing-front_Golf-Jetta_99.5-05_01.jpg

Rear stub axle with calliper mount:
Rescued attachment stub_axle-rear_disc-88-99-Golf-Jetta_01.jpg

Rear hub:
Rescued attachment hub-rear_Golf-Jetta_99.5-05_01.jpg

Front disc brakes....
...and rear disc:[pg=]

Rorty,

From what year/models are the items on the excelent pictures?

Is there any reason why not using the front hub in all four corners?

[Edited on 14/11/05 by Lozec]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lozec
Rorty,
From what year/models are the items on the excellent pictures?

Is there any reason why not using the front hub in all four corners?

---

This may be obvious but I'll just point it out:-

I assume that you are using the front hubs at the rear and the rear hubs at the front? Remember that the VW hubs are fwd, we need rwd, so they need swaping front to rear. Unless I've missed something.

There isn't any reason why we can't use fwd hubs all round, just blank off, or machine out the unused drive splines at the front. By using the steering arms as track rods at the rear only two hubs would be needed, front and rear. If the steering arms could be made reversible and bolt-on then only one hub would be required all round with the steering arms reversed left-to-right and used as track control link mounts at the rear.

What geometry are you aiming for?
I assume that we all want a step improvement over the Cortina/Sierra stuff!

Something like-
ET / offset of 38mm
scrub radius less than 10mm
7.5 degrees of kpi
50% or more Ackerman

A lot of pontential pit falls in using a front upright at the rear the steering arm track end location is going to cause problems when it comes to bump steer --- OK for the more experienced among us who have an idea on how to find the right postion for the inner joint but it would cause problems for a lot of Locost builders particularly if they want to modify the design a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident
A lot of pontential pit falls in using a front upright at the rear the steering arm track end location is going to cause problems when it comes to bump steer --- OK for the more experienced among us who have an idea on how to find the right postion for the inner joint but it would cause problems for a lot of Locost builders particularly if they want to modify the design a bit.

---

quote:

---

If the steering arms could be made reversible and bolt-on then only one hub would be required all round with the steering arms reversed left-to-right and used as track control link mounts at the rear.

---

I have to agree the VW parts look to be nearly perfect. I had a look around an auto recyler this past weekend. Heaps of cars, lots of nice alloy wheels. The bolt on rear stub axle is perfect for use in a fabricated front upright, it even has the caliper bracket already. The VW front would be good if you can work out mating the CV shafts to a good common diff.
Will be watching this thread with great interest.
On the subject of steering racks, I seem to recall there were a number of nice manual ones fitted to those same models? If it becomes a problem that they are for LHD instead of RHD or which ever, I would be just a matter of finding someone in a different country to switch racks with. Someone from England, Australia or New Zealand could swap with someone from the Canada, USA or France.

[Edited on 14/11/05 by madman280]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peteff

quote:

---

If the steering arms could be made reversible and bolt-on then only one hub would be required all round with the steering arms reversed left-to-right and used as track control link mounts at the rear.

---

Then you would need two Golfs to make one set which is what Rorty is trying to avoid I would imagine. Making rear steer front uprights so you can use the Golf rack would simplify the job of sourcing parts even more as finding and modifying racks is not everyones idea of fun.

---

Having spent days cleaning rust and crap off a set of Cortina uprights and hubs, then reading about bending wishbones, I now find my lovingly refurbed bits are crap as well!

So I cannot tell you how much I am looking forward to Someone making Rorty's re-designed front end.

It's nice to know the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train coming in the other direction.

I've seen no mention of the Toyota MR's yet. They have all the right bits, in the right places. World car and all that. Scrapyard prices aren't stupid either.

Just need a tube chassis to bolt it all into.

Problems solved.

Ah well, back to my knitting.

Syd.......

Shhhhhhhhhhh

I don't want all the Meerkat donors using up......

Scrapyards round here want loadsamoney for MR2 bits, that's if you can find one that has any in.

IDIOT is one way I could describe myself! I got carried away with the convenience of the Golf parts and overlooked the fact that the rear hubs aren't driven!
OK, so that is a major flaw in my "kit car" approach. It changes the picture somewhat, but isn't a problem as such.
I had thought of using the Golf rear stuff on the rear of the Locost and the front Golf stuff on the front of the Locost. But obviously, I now need to think of swapping ends.
That should still be OK. The rear hubs and discs (there are both 10mm solid discs and 20mm ventilated rear discs to choose from) can be mounted on new stub axles in new front uprights. If not, then it's not a huge problem to have to turn up two new stub axles to weld into the front uprights.
If the front and rear Golf calipers share the same mounting points, then it would be possible to bolt the Golf rear stub (with its inbuilt caliper bracket) to a new front upright.
The Golf front discs, hubs, CVs and axles are all perfect for the rear of the Locost. All I need to do is remodel the rear De Dion and IRS set-ups to accommodate the components. The Golf rear calipers can be used also, I just need to alter the rear caliper brackets to suit.
So, in the grand scheme of things, not much has changed; a single Golf could still surrender all the components required for this conversion.
I'll amend the shopping list in the post above, but I would still require assistance from other members in attaining dimensions or components to make this all work.
Apologies for any previous confusion.

[Edited on 14/11/05 by Rorty]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
I've seen no mention of the Toyota MR's yet. They have all the right bits, in the right places. World car and all that. Scrapyard prices aren't stupid either.

Just need a tube chassis to bolt it all into.

Problems solved.

Ah well, back to my knitting.

---

I must live in the only part of the world where they can't give the stuff away!!

[Edited on 14/11/05 by Syd Bridge]

Upon reflection, I think it would be best to make new front stub axles because I would still prefer to do a removable front caliper bracket so people could choose which caliper they want, rather than being stuck with the Golf front caliper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
I must live in the only part of the world where they can't give the stuff away!!

[Edited on 14/11/05 by Syd Bridge]

---

two words. Geo Metro.

two more. Suzuki Swift

Same car. Very light and crappy. Similar upright design to the MR2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by madman280
The VW front would be good if you can work out mating the CV shafts to a good common diff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgraber
two words. Geo Metro.

two more. Suzuki Swift

Same car. Very light and crappy. Similar upright design to the MR2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
Upon reflection, I think it would be best to make new front stub axles because I would still prefer to do a removable front caliper bracket so people could choose which caliper they want, rather than being stuck with the Golf front caliper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGK7
What about setting it up so that using the original would be an option also?? This would allow those who are happy with the vw bits to keep things a stock as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGK7
Also don't want to add to you work load but what about looking at taking the suspension inboard on the new design??

---

If using the VW front hub in front of the locost you dont have to make the stub axle but only cutting a piece of tubing to hold the bearing in (and turn two inner circlip groves) Wouldn't that be great!?

And the "streghtening parts" on the inside would attach to the same tubing and spread the load, or?

Pro's and con's?

[Edited on 15/11/05 by Lozec]

When the world gets a Locost type car for universal parts, they'll come from a Toyota of some flavour. Or maybe a Honda. Mock as you may. It may be a few years down the track, but Toyota or Honda it will be. That's where you should be looking.


And how much are the drawings from 'Rorty Design' going to cost? Or will they be put in the public domain alongside Mr. McSorley's fine and admirable work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
And how much are the drawings from 'Rorty Design' going to cost? Or will they be put in the public domain alongside Mr. McSorley's fine and admirable work?

---

As syd says, Toyota is the most prolific world brand, and as such would be the most universal for parts availability worldwide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
...

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGK7
Also don't want to add to you work load but what about looking at taking the suspension inboard on the new design??

---

Why? Bling factor or have you a genuine reason?
I think to keep it universal for CECs and BECs, it would be best to leave the front of the chassis as vacant as possible.
Of course, once the wishbones are established, it's no big deal to attach a pull/push rod to the lower one and work out the cantilever for yourself.
I don't really want to get into all that unless there are strong arguments for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
When the world gets a Locost type car for universal parts, they'll come from a Toyota of some flavour. Or maybe a Honda. Mock as you may. It may be a few years down the track, but Toyota or Honda it will be. That's where you should be looking.


And how much are the drawings from 'Rorty Design' going to cost? Or will they be put in the public domain alongside Mr. McSorley's fine and admirable work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
As syd says, Toyota is the most prolific world brand, and as such would be the most universal for parts availability worldwide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty
...

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGK7
Also don't want to add to you work load but what about looking at taking the suspension inboard on the new design??

---

Why? Bling factor or have you a genuine reason?
I think to keep it universal for CECs and BECs, it would be best to leave the front of the chassis as vacant as possible.
Of course, once the wishbones are established, it's no big deal to attach a pull/push rod to the lower one and work out the cantilever for yourself.
I don't really want to get into all that unless there are strong arguments for it.

---

Arguments I can think of:
1. Lower unsprung weight
2. Easier SVA since there is less sharp stuff to be covered up.
3. Less stuck out into the wind so less wind resistance (probably only useful for racers).
4. Bling fans can use uglier second hand shocks

Sylva/RAW use it on their CEC Strikers so it can be made to fit.

But since you are designing the thing it's your choice Isn't it just the top wishbone/mount that needs to be changed? If so it should be easy enough for people to do themselves if someone works out the correct geometry. Shock mount from bottom wishbone would need to be deleted I suppose. Hmm maybe a pushrod would be easier.

---

Rorty, no need for the petty name calling again. What you have put on here as public property is applaudable. I haven't got the time. And neither am I trying to hijack the thread.

It's just that, after the result of the 'Cortina Uprights' thing, I can't help but see the dollar signs in your eyes at the end of this one.

If you are sincere, then publish the Cortina dwgs as open property as well. Not for my sake, but the many who they may benefit.

What this group in this discussion is trying to achieve is the next generation Locost. You've settled on VW for parts at this point.

But maybe, just maybe, one of the Jap makers is a better option. Maybe not, but all the obvious options need to be fully explored before setting off in one direction. Maybe there will be two, or more, options. Who can tell?

Just try to keep an open mind.

Front upright assemblies at the front, with the cv bits machined off have been seen to work. So why not go this way? It's fairly obvious. The first Frogeye cars built in Ryde used Mini/Metro front assy's, and the cv slots were cut off/ground clean by hand. The later ones were machined. But they worked, and continue to. It's just a matter of finding something with workable geometry.

Why you get upset I don't know. But my job is to ask questions, and sometimes say things that people don't want to hear, but the end result benefits everyone.

As I said, keep an open mind, and don't jump to hostile conclusions too readily.

If your intentions are to publish the end result of this, and I hope they are, then I can only but humbly apologise for the wrong thoughts concerning the 'dollar signs'.

Please, prove those thoughts wrong, so that all of the input to this is for the public good, and not monetary gain.

Syd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Maybe not, but all the obvious options need to be fully explored before setting off in one direction. Maybe there will be two, or more, options. Who can tell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Just try to keep an open mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Front upright assemblies at the front, with the cv bits machined off have been seen to work. So why not go this way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Please, prove those thoughts wrong, so that all of the input to this is for the public good, and not monetary gain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyd
[

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Front upright assemblies at the front, with the cv bits machined off have been seen to work. So why not go this way?

---

Because it involves machining. Most of us can't or don't want the hassle of that route.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lozec
I dont agree about the fear for machining.

---

Andyd, you missed the following bit, from my post above.

['The first Frogeye cars built in Ryde used Mini/Metro front assy's, and the cv slots were cut off/ground clean by hand.']

These were altered with a hand grinder, with a cutoff wheel in it. Then were finally dressed up with a grinding wheel in it. NO MACHINING AT ALL. And they finished up looking very neat.

So far, the cars considered have been present and past models. If the new design is to have longevity, then present and future models might want to be considered.

The VW is going to survive, but for every VW there will be 10 of each of the others. So, what will be in abundance in the scrapyards?

Ford/Mazda has got to be a dominant figure. In 5 years time all UK small Fords will be Mazdas, with some cosmetic changes, but mechanically a Mazda. Have been in Aus for 20 years and more. The same will apply to the USA, and the rest of the world. So, to omit the Ford/Mazda may be a mistake.

Similarly, Toyota will be truly harmonised worldwide.

Honda's are harmonised worldwide now, but are less prolific. So, maybe the Honda is a bad choice after all. And Honda do have their own way of doing things.

As far as the thread goes, I wasn't aware that anyone owned any of the threads on here personally. It's an open forum. What I'm endeavouring to promote is a broader thinking.

A design based on the current discussion will be in the same situation as present Locosts in 5-7 years. A design based on present and future will still be current in 20 years. I'm sure Rorty would want to be remembered for 20 years, and not 5.

Syd.

In the end it dosen't really matter what parts are used as long as cheaply and widely available. VW look like the best long term bet in contrast to Honda they don't re-invent themselves completely every two years but let the models gradually evolve.

Fwd uprights will work perfectly well on the front of a rwd car after all MGTF used Metro parts to great effect, but the bolt on stub axle is an attractive simple and very valid solution.

Ford are very slowly losing mastery of European markets, they have already lost the strangle hold on the van market that the Escort and Transit held for decades, these days it is quite rare to see a new Transit on UK roads.



[Edited on 15/11/05 by britishtrident]

There are two big advantages to the VW parts. Firstly, they're cheap, well made and reasonably easy to get a hold of. Secondly and far more importantly, platform sharing has meant that when you go looking for an upright, you don't look for a Golf upright, you can have Golf, Audi A3, Audi TT, Seat Leon, Skoda Octavia etc etc. Honda, Toyota etc don't sell the volume and they don't have the commonality.

I think that whatever is decided upon, it has to need the least amount of precision engineering possible if any at all.

Full custom uprights are going to beyond most people, they would give a better end result granted, but they're either going to be to difficult for the average builder (i.e. me) or too expensive.

[Edited on 15/11/05 by Kowalski]

i hate to interject contention, but inboard shocks dont reduce unsprung mass. They add the weight of the rods and the rockers, and the shocker is still there and still moving. All the other points are still good though, and i would also use inboard myself. I just like to correct misinformation to avoid it being repeated and becoming widely believed

Ehm, no, you're not quite right. The shock is not moving up and down with the wishbone with (regular) inboard pushrod suspension; only the shaft is moving. Hence, a reduction of unsprung weight (minus the pushrod of course).

However, there are also pushrod suspension systems which still move the shocks (such as the design below which I made three years ago). But that doesn't make a lot of sense (well, you could get a better shockrate, and the aerodynamics would be helped)

Marcel

i was going to mention that the shock is effectively upside down in some inboard setups (as in, the opposite end moves compared to normal outboard setups)

As you say, the shaft is still lighter than the resevoir end, but you do still have half a spring to move.

[Edited on 15/11/05 by JoelP]

OK, time for an update.
This notion is nothing to do with either me or a manufacturer making any financial gain. That's not to say a manufacturer can't pick up the information and run with it themselves. If it comes off, it will be public property. I have no aspirations to derive fame or fortune from it.
I am totally open to all suggestions regarding parts sources, configuration, geometry etc. I have some ideas, but I do keep an open mind.

Sure, in years to come any design will be dated, but I don't have a crystal ball and the present design is becoming harder to implement due to donor parts drying up.
There's no point in considering just released or projected models in an attempt to make the design more time resistant, because we don't know if they'll be truly global and how successful the new releases will even be.
Also, I suspect this project may fall flat on its face anyway if I'm unable to accumulate the necessary dimensions or parts to reverse engineer. What hope would I have with cars that aren't even in scrap yards yet? I'm prepared to put some of my spare time into this, but I'm not going to purchase new parts over the counter to gather data.

As I see it, VW currently offer the best all-round package:

1. One car can give up the necessary front and rear hubs, discs and calipers.
   
2. The 100mm CVs will mate straight up to not only the Sierra diff, but also to any others using the now common 100 x 32 CV format.
   
3. The parts are common to a number of VAG platforms.
   

VW hubs as used on a Seven type car front suspension!

http://www.jameskett.dsl.pipex.com/donor.htm

I'm sure we can improve on it though

I'll also repeat what I suggested earlier-

One hub all round with the steering used as track control at the rear. This is simplest and allows for maximum design flexibility. Only one main design is required. Lots of options are designed in when one hub is used; four wheel steer is easy, 4wd is easy, fwd is easy, rwd is easy.

The only option not catered for would be a fixed hub for a deon axle.

I can't see anyboby buying an entire car just for the hubs so the single donor concept is a red herring. As far as I can see the only real reason that we are considering the use of swapped front and rear hubs is to run with the single donor idea.

As for geometry I'd suggest something like-

7.5 degrees kpi
38 mm offset / ET
minimal scrub radius, 10mm?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty

quote:

---

Originally posted by madman280
The VW front would be good if you can work out mating the CV shafts to a good common diff.

---

Some Golfs use a 94mm OD inner CV joint, but interestingly, most later Golfs use a 100mm OD x 32mm wide CV which coincidently is the same size as the Sierra CV!
So, at least mating the CVs won't be a problem.
I have quite an extensive list of available Golf axle lengths, so it shouldn't be too dificult to incorporate a standard length Golf axle into the De Dion and IRS set-ups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cymtriks
VW hubs as used on a Seven type car front suspension!

http://www.jameskett.dsl.pipex.com/donor.htm

I'm sure we can improve on it though

I'll also repeat what I suggested earlier-

One hub all round with the steering used as track control at the rear. This is simplest and allows for maximum design flexibility. Only one main design is required. Lots of options are designed in when one hub is used; four wheel steer is easy, 4wd is easy, fwd is easy, rwd is easy.

The only option not catered for would be a fixed hub for a deon axle.

I can't see anyboby buying an entire car just for the hubs so the single donor concept is a red herring. As far as I can see the only real reason that we are considering the use of swapped front and rear hubs is to run with the single donor idea.

As for geometry I'd suggest something like-

7.5 degrees kpi
38 mm offset / ET
minimal scrub radius, 10mm?

---

1. On the front, it would be similar to the Sierra/Locost "upright" along with all its constraints.
   
2. Using a VW front upright at the rear introduces the exact same problems.
   
3. Due to the casting, using a VW front upright at either end would restrict the caliper choice to just the VW front caliper.
   

1. To optimise the geometry.
   
2. To make provision for a variety of calipers.
   
3. To reduce cost by making the uprights from cheap sheet steel (and a short length of pipe!).
   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlynx
Could you post that list of axels because I am looking for a way to shorten my sierra axel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlynx
If it is of any interest I do remember that my rear calipers on my Bora -99 is made by Lucas.
It maybe worth looking up if there is other brands of cars that also has calipers from Lucas and are interchangeable.

---

I just checked and this 1J type rear caliper, as fitted to the Golf IV, is also used on a total of 36 VW models, but isn't compatible with any other car brands.
Still, that gives quite a scope for caliper hunting.

looks very similar to the 1G, and 1H type - very prone to the handbrake arm seizing up, genuine replacements about £160 each!

I think they were even used on the 19's, but only on the GTis

I think they are the calipers that rally design are doing for £60 apiece brand new no exchange, so certainly cheap enough!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlynx

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorty

quote:

---

Originally posted by madman280
The VW front would be good if you can work out mating the CV shafts to a good common diff.

---

Some Golfs use a 94mm OD inner CV joint, but interestingly, most later Golfs use a 100mm OD x 32mm wide CV which coincidently is the same size as the Sierra CV!
So, at least mating the CVs won't be a problem.
I have quite an extensive list of available Golf axle lengths, so it shouldn't be too dificult to incorporate a standard length Golf axle into the De Dion and IRS set-ups.

---

Could you post that list of axels because I am looking for a way to shorten my sierra axel?
If it is of any interest I do remeber that my rear calipers on my Bora -99 is made by Lucas.
It maybe worth looking up if there is other brands of cars that also has calipers from Lucas and are interchangeable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Allanson
looks very similar to the 1G, and 1H type - very prone to the handbrake arm seizing up, genuine replacements about £160 each!

I think they were even used on the 19's, but only on the GTis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
I think they are the calipers that rally design are doing for £60 apiece brand new no exchange, so certainly cheap enough!

---

There are only a few spline counts used for CV axles, so they will be used by quite a number of manufacturers.
Some of the more common ones are: 24/27mm, 33/27mm (Golf) and 28/31mm.
AFAIK know the Sierra uses a 25 spline count.

Great discussion!

The book design is already larger than the original Lotus/Caterham chassis, and I would prefer not to make the car any wider than absolutely necessary. With the different axle lengths apparently available, is it really necessary to go with the wider (Sierra) track as suggested earlier in the thread? I would prefer to have the track maintained at original book width. Thoughts?

Shaun

The track will probably end up as wide as the VW front axles permit (what ever that may be).

A bit late in the game, but what a great thread Rorty has started here!

1. VW has to be the way to go. Though as an intermediate step I would favour using the front hub and bearing arrangement in a new fabricated upright by maching off the flange of the drive spindle - similar to the formula car practice. floating bearing design or whatever they call it,
2. IIRC didn't many FFords and S2000's including van diemen Tiga et al use the VW bearing set-up for their front uprights. e.g. 75mm OD x 42 mm ID x 37 mm wide - or the other size 64 mm OD x 34 mm ID x 37 mm wide. Don't know what VW models they come from though.
3. The intermediate step refers to the possibility retaining the use of the Sierra rear hub set-up but trasnfer to the VW driveshafts as Rorty has noted that the Lobro dimensions are the same on later Golfs. When time permiyts it could be possible to fabricate the rear uprights alon the same lines as the fronts foucusing on light weight - just a thought!!
4. One issue on this side of the pond is that the range of reasonable cost lightweight wheels from Rota for example which weigh in at 5 Kg, is largely for the 4 x 100 mm wheel PCD. Ford 108's are really limited and I don't know the VW is, Sooo, can the VW front hubs be readily redrilled to suit 108, if Ford rears are used or can sierra and VW (if necessary) be redrilled to 100 mm. This gives access to many great wheel deals.

What ever, go for it Rorty - good stuff!!!
Alf

1. machining the caliper mount off the rear stub axle flange requires more....machining. Still an option I'm keeping near the top.
2. Yes, the Golf unitary front wheel bearings have been used in dozens of on and off-road cars. There are quite a number of different configurations of them.
3. I'm just giving this one crack. But yes, that's another stick in the fire.
4. If we go with the VW parts, which looks more and more likely, it will be the MK IV ('98) onward stuff which is 5 on 100mm. Interestingly, Bildon sell dual 4 and 5 on 100 hubs, though I'd imagine it would be cheaper to re-drill your own if you want the 4 on 100 pattern.

Just to point out that I dislike the practice of making a car to suit available driveshaft widths. (not to say anybody is suggesting that!)

That is like building a house to fit your curtain rails.

Brand new machined from billet sierra spline lightweight bespoke driveshafts made to any length are £70 a piece, worth bearing in mind before making a whole car wider to save £140!

[Edited on 16/11/05 by NS Dev]

[Edited on 16/11/05 by NS Dev]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SilverFox

2. IIRC didn't many FFords and S2000's including van diemen Tiga et al use the VW bearing set-up for their front uprights. e.g. 75mm OD x 42 mm ID x 37 mm wide - or the other size 64 mm OD x 34 mm ID x 37 mm wide. Don't know what VW models they come from though.

---

re the modified VW upright Cymtrics posted - it's dead ugly! Another argument for fully fabricated uprights with some machined bits welded in.

re inboard shocks - I would think that inboard shocks end up with much shorter travel for wheel movement compared to conventially mounted shock. I would also think that affordable shocks as used on locosts need as much travel as possible, in order to give them a better chance of controlling the wheel movement.

Cheers

Fred WB

[Edited on 16/11/05 by Fred W B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NS Dev
Just to point out that I dislike the practice of making a car to suit available driveshaft widths. (not to say anybody is suggesting that!)

That is like building a house to fit your curtain rails.

Brand new machined from billet sierra spline lightweight bespoke driveshafts made to any length are £70 a piece, worth bearing in mind before making a whole car wider to save £140!

[Edited on 16/11/05 by NS Dev]

[Edited on 16/11/05 by NS Dev]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
re the modified VW upright Cymtrics posted - it's dead ugly! Another argument for fully fabricated uprights with some machined bits welded in.

re inboard shocks - I would think that inboard shocks end up with much shorter travel for wheel movement compared to conventially mounted shock. I would also think that affordable shocks as used on locosts need as much travel as possible, in order to give them a better chance of controlling the wheel movement.

Cheers

Fred WB

[Edited on 16/11/05 by Fred W B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
re the modified VW upright Cymtrics posted - it's dead ugly! Another argument for fully fabricated uprights with some machined bits welded in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W Bre inboard shocks - I would think that inboard shocks end up with much shorter travel for wheel movement compared to conventially mounted shock. I would also think that affordable shocks as used on locosts need as much travel as possible, in order to give them a better chance of controlling the wheel movement.

---

A workable front solution may be to use the Rorty Cortina front upright, bolt on the VW rear setup, and use either the Cortina caliper(which is still in use in industrial applications), or a caliper to fit the VW holes. Some spacers/adapters may be needed.

Most would have access to someone with an oxy who could cut the plate and bend it. Then dress it up with a hand grinder.

Alternatively, if someone wanted to have a large batch cut, then selling them would not be a problem if this ends up being universally accepted.

This seems to use all the bits that are being proposed, with the least amount of skilled machining.

Now, this will probably be universally unacceptable, so go ahead and rip it to bits.


Syd.

Very agree also that inboard shockers aren't the way to go in addition to the other comments I would say not enough designs that use them consider the loading implications for the chassis structure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
A workable front solution may be to use the Rorty Cortina front upright, bolt on the VW rear setup, and use either the Cortina caliper(which is still in use in industrial applications), or a caliper to fit the VW holes. Some spacers/adapters may be needed.
snip

Syd.

---

Hi,
I've been away for a couple of days and you guys have been busy posting :-)

Having been involved with this thread from the start I'm confident Rorty is going in the right direction, I'm eagerly awaiting the outcome.

For my 'bit'

I think the VW route which Rorty has outlined sounds good.

A different front and rear fabricated upright which requires minimal machining, and where possible relies on 'jigsaw' type parts to help with an accurate assembly.

The VW ball joints are cheap and easily available, but we do need to include some method of camber adjustment, which the Transit top joints offer.

I think replaceable caliper mounts are essential, but if the Rally Design rears are in fact Golf ‘design’ then they should definitely be the ‘standard’ rears

For a Locost I think inboard shocks are unnecessary.

Whilst it would be nice to allow compatibility with existing Locost designs, one of our initial criteria was to improve geometry which makes compatibility difficult.

I’m not sure what else I can add to help but I’ll ‘jump in’ if I think of anything.

Congrats again to Rorty for taking this on, maybe a summary of his current ‘position’ may be in order.

Cheers

Brad

I don't see the point in using an old caliper that's just as dificult to obtain as the uprights they bolt to and which are the reason this movement began..
In my opinion, the folded plate upright is a really good design even if I say so myself. However, it's got its drawbacks for the average home builder, so I will be working on a keyed upright design. I will probably make drawings available to commercial enterprises so they can knock out plate uprights to the new geometry. My Cortina plate upright is no better (geometry wise) than the OEM Cortina upright and will not be compatible with the new front end design.

quote:

---

Originally posted by britishtrident
Very agree also that inboard shockers aren't the way to go in addition to the other comments I would say not enough designs that use them consider the loading implications for the chassis structure.

---

1. A front-engine Locost replacement (possibly with inboard front suspension)
   
2. A mid-engine chassis utilising the new front end design, De Dion rear end (with Golf hubs and brakes) and mid-mounted Golf/VR6 engine.
   

it just occurred to me that the subaru rear end i have in the shed which i plan to set up in a DeDion axle also shares the 5 x 100 PCD and is well suited to my 100+ chassis.
Perhaps this offers another option for rear end donors coupled with the new Rorty front end. Whilst i know the intent is a single donor the subaru parts are widely available in Aus with many diff ratio also.

I plan on turning the rear upright down to a bearing carrier and using the backing plate fixings to bolt it to the axle?? Any thoughts?

[Edited on 16/11/05 by AGK7]

[Edited on 16/11/05 by AGK7]

Just for Brad.

Thanks to everyone for their input and suggestions, they've all been interesting, most of them valid and extremely useful in lighting my way.
What started out as a proposal to redesign the front suspension of the Locost to bring it into the 21st century has developed into a partial redesign of the rear suspension too. It makes sense to bring the rear end in line with the front and that it can be done by utilising components from the same donor that's giving up its parts for the front end is all the sweeter.
In reality, all that's required to align both the De Dion and IRS with the front end is a new rear hub bearing housing, so that's a minor task to nut out.
Although some viable options were submitted for the new front end such as the MR2 (Miata) there were issues with availability, cost and amount of machining required to make them work in a mass global sense. I believe the way forward is now unanimous and pretty clear;

1. The (Mk IV and Mk V (1998-)) VW Golf offers the most comprehensive kit of parts to suit both the front and rear ends.
   
2. Golf components are plentiful, globally available and look like being with us for some time to come.
   
3. Minimal machining is required to make the Golf components work.
   

1. Bi-directional, fabricated, keyed upright (with possibly uni-directional, folded plate uprights for interested industry).
   
2. Final geometry to be confirmed (once I have modelled all the hard components), but aiming for <8° KPI, 38 ET (standard Golf!), 10mm-15mm scrub radius, +ve 6.5° castor, –ve1.5° static camber and modified Ackermann.
   
3. Machined stub axle.
   
4. Golf 5 on 100mm rear hub.
   
5. Choice of solid (9mm), or ventilated (20mm) Golf rear disc.
   
6. Interchangeable calliper brackets.
   
7. Selection of calliper brackets for popular callipers.
   
8. Golf bolt-on lower balljoint.
   
9. Upper balljoint to be confirmed (probably VW TRE from commercial vehicle).
   
10. Camber adjuster for upper balljoint.
    
11. Golf tie rod end.
    
12. New lower and upper wishbones.
    
13. New wishbone brackets and probably minor modifications to Book chassis.
    
14. Golf steering rack (hopefully. I'll know when I can get relevant data).
    
15. New rack mounts.
    
16. Golf wheel rims.
    
17. 205/50-15 tyres.
    
    Rear end
    
    
    
    1. Fabricated and machined hub bearing housing (to suit my (to be re-worked) existing De Dion and IRS set-ups).
       
    2. Golf front outer CV/stub axle, axle and inner CV.
       
    3. Golf 5 on 100mm front hub.
       
    4. Choice of solid (9mm), or ventilated (20mm-30mm!) Golf front disc.
       
    5. Calliper bracket.
       
    6. Golf rear calliper with in-built hand brake (The 1J rear calliper is also fitted to the Audi A3 & TT (2 and 4 wheel drive derivatives) and Neu Beetle. Virtually identical callipers are also found on some Seat and Skoda models too).
       
    7. Hand brake cable from either a Bora, Cabrio, Golf, Jetta or Scirroco (there are plenty of lengths/configurations to choose from).
       
    8. Golf wheel rims.
       
    9. 205/50-15 tyres.
       
       
       If I have overlooked something, please shout now.
       
       
       Over to you now.
       
       Apart from the wheel rim, lower balljoint, front wheel bearing and I have none of the data or any of the Golf components listed above, and I need accurate dimensions of all the parts to be able to model the new suspension and make it all work.
       I am unable to visit wreckers' yards or otherwise source the major parts, so, if you, or your brother-in-law, or your neighbour have a Mk IV and Mk V (1998-) Golf, then please can you let me have the data I require.
       If you have access to fiche or other trade references, you may be able to glean some data there. Or maybe you know someone who works in a VW dealership? If you have any trade catalogues with dimensioned diagrams for items like the TRE, then I'd welcome that info too.
       If you have the parts, but aren't sure how to go about extracting the data, email me and I'll give you instructions on how to accurately take the measurements.
       I'm also happy (in fact I would prefer) to receive actual parts and reverse engineer them myself, so if anyone can source any of the parts and post them to me, I promise I'll return them within a few days.
       
       [Edited on 17/11/05 by Rorty]

       ---

       Mark Allanson - 16/11/05 at 11:27 PM

       Don't forget that the 1J also includes the Seat, Skoda, Audi A3 & TT, Beetle derivatives, 2 and 4 wheel drive.

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 12:05 AM

       Sorry, I don't know what happened to the formatting in my last post.
       
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by AGK7
       it just occurred to me that the subaru rear end i have in the shed which i plan to set up in a DeDion axle also shares the 5 x 100 PCD and is well suited to my 100+ chassis.
       Perhaps this offers another option for rear end donors coupled with the new Rorty front end. Whilst i know the intent is a single donor the subaru parts are widely available in Aus with many diff ratio also.
       
       I plan on turning the rear upright down to a bearing carrier and using the backing plate fixings to bolt it to the axle?? Any thoughts?

       ---

       
       Which model of Subaru are you talking about? It's certainly another option. Be advised the wheels may well match the Golf's 5 x 100 PCD, but the off-sets are way off on the Subarus (vary between 40 and 50 ET).
       Here are some other 5 on 100mm, Ø 57mm c/bore wheel choices that could work with the new set-up:
       Audi A3, 30-40 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore).
       Buick Skylark 89>, 35-40 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Chevrolet Corsica 89>, Beretta 89> and Cavalier 89>, 35-40 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Chrysler Neon, 35-40 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Dodge Stratus 95>, Shadow 94> and Daytona 94>, 35-40 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Rover 75, 35 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Seat Toledo GTi 16v 95>. 30-35 ET – use the 35ET variety.
       Skoda Octavia, 35-38 ET, Ø 57mm c/bore.
       Toyota Avensis, Camry >90, Carina, Celica and Corona, 35-38 ET and Ø 54 c/bore which could be machined out to Ø 57mm.
       Volkswagen Neu Beetle, Bora, Corrado VR6, Golf Mk III GTi & VR6, Golf Mk IV, Passat VR6, Vento VR6 and Golf Mk V, 32-38 ET.
       In the cases where there are a selection of ETs, use the ET variants as close to 38 ET as possible. Small differences either side of 38 ET won't make a huge difference.
       
       The Citroen Evasion misses the mark a bit with 5 x 98 PCD, and Ø 58mm c/bore. What's that about!
       The Volvo 340, 360, 440, 460 and 480 are all 4 x 100, 32-38 ET and Ø 52mm c/bore, so would need the bores machined out and the hubs re-drilled too.

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 12:20 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Mark Allanson
       Don't forget that the 1J also includes the Seat, Skoda, Audi A3 & TT, Beetle derivatives, 2 and 4 wheel drive.

       ---

       
       Thanks Mark. Actually the 1J is confined to the Volkswagen range, but virtually identical callipers are indeed fitted to the other makes you mention.
       I think most people would be sourcing their rear callipers at the same time as the rear hubs, but I'll add the alternatives to my list above in case anyone misses them in your post.

       ---

       Mark Allanson - 17/11/05 at 12:27 AM

       The 1J part number is restricted to the VW range, but the actual metal is universal.
       
       If you look at the Golf Chassis number, e.g. WVWZZZ1JZTW??????, you can see the 1J part included on digit 7 & 9, the subsequent part numbers carry this on in the 1J? ??? ??? format.
       
       All the other derivitives use the same rule, but the subsequent parts do carry the 1J? part number.

       ---

       AGK7 - 17/11/05 at 12:42 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       .
       Which model of Subaru are you talking about? It's certainly another option. Be advised the wheels may well match the Golf's 5 x 100 PCD, but the off-sets are way off on the Subarus (vary between 40 and 50 ET).
       

       ---

       
       
       Rorty,
       The rear end i have is out of a 93' Liberty RS Turbo (45mm Offset i think??). As mentioned i plan on turning the rear uprights down to A lighten and B make them more easiely bolted to a fabricated DeDion axle. If i was to utilise the VW 38 ET then i don't think this would worry the rear too much?? (Much learning going on for me so i may be way off the mark) This would allow me to use the standard subi diff and half shafts which seem to work well and a the much anticipated Rorty front end. My eng wants a single brake donor front and rear so i would need to look at mounting the vw units to the subi rear end??
       From what i gather the VW rear calliper includes the handbrake mech in it?? Is that correct?
       Thanks again for a most valuable thread!!

       ---

       Volvorsport - 17/11/05 at 01:39 AM

       re: inboard shocks .
       
       i went to inboard shocks simply because with wide track front , the length of the damper was simply going to be too long.
       
       plus i already had some short dampers !

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 01:53 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by AGK7
       Rorty,
       The rear end i have is out of a 93' Liberty RS Turbo (45mm Offset i think??). As mentioned i plan on turning the rear uprights down to A lighten and B make them more easiely bolted to a fabricated DeDion axle. If i was to utilise the VW 38 ET then i don't think this would worry the rear too much?? (Much learning going on for me so i may be way off the mark) This would allow me to use the standard subi diff and half shafts which seem to work well and a the much anticipated Rorty front end. My eng wants a single brake donor front and rear so i would need to look at mounting the vw units to the subi rearend??
       From what i gather the VW rear calliper includes the handbrake mech in it?? Is that correct?
       Thanks again for a most valuable thread!!

       ---

       
       
       That sounds like it will all work out nicely.
       I would use the Sub diff and axles, and make a new hub bearing housing to bolt to the De Dion axle. You'd spend an age trimming all the crap off the existing housing and for what – to end up with a little tube? I'm not familiar with your Sub's rear hubs, but I'd imagine all that's required is to weld a flange onto a suitable length of pipe (or make the whole thing from bar stock) and then face the flange in the lathe and bore the housing to suit the bearings, including any shoulders or circlip grooves etc.
       I would make the De Dion plate up to accept the VW rear calliper (which does indeed have the handbrake built into it) and away you go.
       Don't get me started about ADRs or the approved bloody engineers!

       ---

       AGK7 - 17/11/05 at 02:46 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       That sounds like it will all work out nicely.
       I would use the Sub diff and axles, and make a new hub bearing housing to bolt to the De Dion axle. You'd spend an age trimming all the crap off the existing housing and for what – to end up with a little tube? I'm not familiar with your Sub's rear hubs, but I'd imagine all that's required is to weld a flange onto a suitable length of pipe (or make the whole thing from bar stock) and then face the flange in the lathe and bore the housing to suit the bearings, including any shoulders or circlip grooves etc.
       I would make the De Dion plate up to accept the VW rear calliper (which does indeed have the handbrake built into it) and away you go.
       Don't get me started about ADRs or the approved bloody engineers!

       ---

       
       
       Looks like it might be time for me to try and source some VW bits. As for the ADR's not much we can do but it does get pretty frustrating at times
       Where are you based UK or Aus ?? I might be able to help with some parts
       PS did you here our bloody soccer players after 31 years finally made it back into the world cup

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 03:24 AM

       I'm stuck in Melbourne at the minute.
       Any help you can offer with the Golf parts would be great.
       I know, I turned the TV on at 6am and there was nothing but green and gold on Sunrise.

       ---

       Nisseven - 17/11/05 at 10:57 AM

       Shame about your Rugby team and the netball team. You'll always win the Aussie Rules though.
       Seriously great work and thoughts coming through. Keep it up.
       Bruce Kelly.

       ---

       davidfe - 17/11/05 at 04:32 PM

       I did not see it mentioned regarding the need for LHD and RHD for use anywhere.
       
       David Edwards

       ---

       Sven - 17/11/05 at 06:43 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       OK Steve, put your money where your mouth is; lets have the dimensions of a Golf rack then.

       ---

       
       
       22" balljoint to balljoint. I just measured it yesterday as I'm trying to get it to fit in my Locost. FWIW, the rack is from a mid 80's Golf.
       
       Sadly, it seems to long, really ... doesn't align correctly with the control arm pivots.
       
       -Steve
       
       [Edited on 11/17/2005 by Sven]

       ---

       cymtriks - 17/11/05 at 08:36 PM

       I think there might have been a misunderstanding over my last post!
       
       I was not implying that the modified VW hub fitted to a seven type car on the link I posted was the way to go. That's why I said we could probably do better.
       
       I was just showing you all that someone somewhere was already using the very bits that we had identified.
       
       Regarding geometry
       I reckon a scrub radius of 10mm - 3/8 inch or less.
       
       Consider-
       Lotus Elise scrub is 10.5mm
       Mazda Miata/MX5 scrub is zero.
       
       I still reckon that the single donor argument is a red herring! Who gets all their parts from one car? Who is going to buy an entire car for just the hubs?
       
       Using the same hub all round is simpler for us in practice and makes the concept more attractive for small scale manufacture as it immediately doubles the production run.
       
       It also alllows a great deal of future flexibility in design. 4wd, either for performance or for buggy type cars is possible. fwd for any future mini marcos or Onyx type cars would be possible. Inboard disc brakes are another possibility at the front though I accept that you never see this arrangement these days. And of course simple rwd is also possible.

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 08:40 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by davidfe
       I did not see it mentioned regarding the need for LHD and RHD for use anywhere.
       
       David Edwards

       ---

       
       You'll definitely need one or the other.
       It was mentioned somewhere along the way. I'm hoping a standard VW rack will fit the picture. If not, it would make sense to shorten a VW one rather than modifying an Escort, Cortina, or Sierra rack.

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 08:48 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Sven
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       OK Steve, put your money where your mouth is; lets have the dimensions of a Golf rack then.

       ---

       
       
       22" balljoint to balljoint. I just measured it yesterday as I'm trying to get it to fit in my Locost. FWIW, the rack is from a mid 80's Golf.
       
       Sadly, it seems to long, really ... doesn't align correctly with the control arm pivots.
       

       ---

       
       What a top bloke! As the VW is a metric car, I presume you meant to say 560mm? or is it actually 558.8mm?
       Anyway, thanks for that. Hopefully I'll be able to work that into the design without the need to cut and shut it.

       ---

       Rorty - 17/11/05 at 09:10 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriks
       I still reckon that the single donor argument is a red herring! Who gets all their parts from one car? Who is going to buy an entire car for just the hubs?

       ---

       
       
       I seriously doubt if anyone would consider buying a Golf just for the hubs and discs, but faced with a wrecker's yard that has just the one Golf, it's going to be much more convenient for the scrounger to get all his needs from the sole car than having to trawl through other yards looking for another car.
       
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriksUsing the same hub all round is simpler for us in practice and makes the concept more attractive for small scale manufacture as it immediately doubles the production run.
       
       It also alllows a great deal of future flexibility in design. 4wd, either for performance or for buggy type cars is possible. fwd for any future mini marcos or Onyx type cars would be possible. Inboard disc brakes are another possibility at the front though I accept that you never see this arrangement these days. And of course simple rwd is also possible.

       ---

       
       
       I do agree, it would be nice to run an identical hub (and possibly upright) at each corner, differing only by the addition of separate steering arms and calliper mounts.
       It's actually not that big a job to do two front uprights; one with a fixed stub axle that would accept the VW rear hub and disc and another that would accept the new rear bearing housing and a floating axle.
       Both versions would require making a front stub axle (although another pair of floating CV/stubs could be modified to run in the bearing housing type upright).
       Yup, I'll work on both types then.

       ---

       AGK7 - 18/11/05 at 01:42 AM

       Rorty et al
       
       Speaking to one of the Sydney based VW wreckers yesterday and he seemed very sure that the front and rear calliper mounts are different. I suppose this means a custom bracket will be needed. They wanted about $500AUS for full set of rears (stub, hub, disk & calliper) These were off a MK3 i think as he hadn't wreck a mk4 as yet.
       
       [Edited on 18/11/05 by AGK7]

       ---

       Rorty - 18/11/05 at 02:23 AM

       Thanks for the feedback Andrew. Yes, I'm now pretty sure the calliper mounts are different. It might not be a big deal to make up an adaptor though, as the front callipers already use adaptors. See the pic below.
       The Mk III wheels and hubs are 5x100, so the rest of the parts required may well be compatible with Mk IV and MK IV models too.
       It would be perfect if they were.
       We really need a VW insider to confirm interchangeability of parts across the different models from '91 to present, but for the time being, I'll proceed with Mk IV and later stuff.
       Rescued attachment R32_calliper_bracket_01.jpg

       ---

       Syd Bridge - 18/11/05 at 04:23 PM

       Is that picture just above a Golf? If it is, then the lower BJ is very different to the one shown on the first page or so of this discussion.
       
       BJ above has a nut, and probably taper; BJ at start has straight sides and uses a captive pinch bolt.
       
       I know zip about VW's, but those two are very different to each other.

       ---

       Rorty - 18/11/05 at 11:01 PM

       Mk V models have a taper stud balljoint, as in the picture above.
       Earlier models used a spigot type balljoint and to complicate matters further, there are two different diameters of spigot used.
       
       [Edited on 19/11/05 by Rorty]
       Rescued attachment balljoint_spigot_01.jpg

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 12:25 AM

       The spigot diameter of the pre December '85 balljoint is 15mm. From 12/85 to 7/87 the diameter increased to 17mm and then from 8/87 to 8/97 the diameter was upped to 19mm diameter.
       Thereafter VW changed the lower balljoints to the taper stud variety, thoufg AFAICD, the 3-bolt pattern remained unchanged.
       
       Rescued attachment balljoint-fr-lwr_Golf-Jetta_8.97-_01.jpg

       ---

       davidfe - 19/11/05 at 02:07 AM

       Rorty,
       
       Thanks for all the research. It just confirms that the larger ball joint diameter from the most recent design, should provide a greater margin of safety. This is especially true as HP increases and the related stresses on suspension components.
       
       David Edwards

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 04:07 AM

       Thanks for your help too David.
       For anyone considering converting to VW running gear but is unsure of what OEM wheels they can look forwards to, here's a fairly comprehensive database of OEM VW wheels.

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 04:51 AM

       All OEM Audi and VW wheel bolts have a ball face.
       Most aftermarket wheels have conical seats which are incompatible with ball face bolts and wheel nuts, so it would be worth checking them before purchasing if using OEM wheel bolts.
       Some BBS wheels do have ball seats.
       All 4-stud VWs use M12x1.5mm wheel bolts and All 5-stud VWs use M14x1.5 bolts.
       A much easier alternative is to throw the VW wheel bolts over the nearest hedge and install some wheel studs.
       Aftermarket screw-in studs are available in M14 x 1.5 and should be stuck in place with one of Loctite's high temperature thread lockers.
       Personally, I would be inclined to fit proper headed and splined M14 x 1.5 wheel studs, which, again, can be bought from wheel shops or swiped from an unsuspecting VW Type 2 (Bus, Camper, Vanagon, Synchro) or any other VW commercial down at your local wrecker's yard.
       After that, you can choose which type of nuts/wheels to fit and they'll be much easier to haul on and off the hub too.
       Rescued attachment wheel_bolts_02.jpg

       ---

       Sven - 19/11/05 at 06:28 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       What a top bloke! As the VW is a metric car, I presume you meant to say 560mm? or is it actually 558.8mm?

       ---

       
       
       Aw shucks ... I decided to pull the rack apart tonight to see what I could see and what I did see was that to shorten the rack's rack (whatever that toothed bar thingummy is called) 2-3 inches (50.8-72.6mm) would be quite simple if one had a lathe that could handle it ... and I know a fella that does ...
       
       I would cut off a chunk to suit the required length then drill into the ends of the rack up to a 37/64" drill and tap to 5/8-18 threads so I could install a spherical bearing and jam nut.
       
       Have to look into this a little more to see how this method would effect my turning circle but, a quick glance, makes me think it wouldn't be too much of an issue.
       
       -Steve

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 08:06 AM

       As far as I can tell at the moment, the standard rack will work OK without modification.

       ---

       daffy - 19/11/05 at 02:48 PM

       Personally i wouldn't mind seeing as many bits of the MX-5 being used. Especially the LSD! :-)
       
       As regards interchangeability of parts between VW models post-'91, I can help with that. Make me an exact list of which parts you want to know about and i'll let you know.
       
       Just so that i feel that i contribute something to the site instead of just leeching.
       
       
       
       [Edited on 19/11/05 by daffy]

       ---

       cymtriks - 19/11/05 at 05:21 PM

       Here are some examples of alloy hubs already on the market. They are from Raceleda and Lusso Motors.
       
       http://www.raceleda.co.uk/products.htm
       
       http://www.lusomotors.com/product.html
       
       Both of these suppliers copy the original Ford layout which, based on a back of an envelope calculation for the Raceleda Escort uprights, gives a very high scrub of around 45mm for a wheel with a standard ET / offset of 38mm
       
       This seems very high. Staniforth in his book "Race and rally car source book" advised 0mm scrub. Mazda also chose 0mm for the Miata/MX5. Lotus used 10.5mm for the Elise. Oddly a very high sounding value is quoted for the Ultima on Jay Esters very interesting website but it's also one of the first things he decides to change. Check this site out.
       
       http://www.ultimav12.ca/
       
       Interestingly the Lusso Motors upright use a fwd hub so it can be used at the front or rear of the car.

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 10:02 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by daffy
       Personally i wouldn't mind seeing as many bits of the MX-5 being used. Especially the LSD! :-)

       ---

       
       Well, I suppose the diff could well be incorporated or at least modelled as an alternative to the Sierra. We may as well make it as easy for people as possible, though I draw the line at re-doing the windscreen frame.
       
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by daffy
       As regards interchangeability of parts between VW models post-'91, I can help with that. Make me an exact list of which parts you want to know about and i'll let you know.

       ---

       
       
       That would be terrific!
       I added a list of all the required parts to the very first post in this thread to make it easier for all to find, but here it is again anyway.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The dimensions of the following components are required from a Mk IV Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98-'03) or in the US, A4 Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98.5-'04):
       
       1. 5-stud front and rear hubs.
       2. Outer CV/stub axle and axle.
       3. Rear bolt-on stub axle.
       4. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm-30mm) front discs.
       5. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm) rear discs.
       6. Aluminium rear calliper.
       7. Tie rod end.
       8. Manual steering rack.
       
       
       Maybe you know someone who works in a VW dealership? If you have any trade catalogues with dimensioned diagrams of any of the items, then I'd welcome that info too.
       If you have the parts, but aren't sure how to go about extracting the data, email me and I'll gladly give you instructions on how to accurately take the measurements.
       If you can help with dimensions of any of the above parts, please let me know and specify the model and year please.
       I'm also happy (in fact I would prefer) to receive actual parts and reverse engineer them myself, so if anyone can source any of the parts and post them to me, I promise faithfully I'll return them within a week.
       I've seen most of the parts appearing on eBay, so perhaps some of you who are interested in this project would consider buying even one item each or sharing the cost of one item with others to get this project underway.
       Just one of each component is all that's necessary.
       
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ---

       Rorty - 19/11/05 at 10:05 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriks
       Here are some examples of alloy hubs already on the market. They are from Raceleda and Lusso Motors.
       
       http://www.raceleda.co.uk/products.htm
       
       http://www.lusomotors.com/product.html
       
       Both of these suppliers copy the original Ford layout which, based on a back of an envelope calculation for the Raceleda Escort uprights, gives a very high scrub of around 45mm for a wheel with a standard ET / offset of 38mm
       
       This seems very high. Staniforth in his book "Race and rally car source book" advised 0mm scrub. Mazda also chose 0mm for the Miata/MX5. Lotus used 10.5mm for the Elise. Oddly a very high sounding value is quoted for the Ultima on Jay Esters very interesting website but it's also one of the first things he decides to change. Check this site out.
       
       http://www.ultimav12.ca/
       
       Interestingly the Lusso Motors upright use a fwd hub so it can be used at the front or rear of the car.

       ---

       
       None of the above are compatible with the VW components we're aiming to employ.

       ---

       cymtriks - 19/11/05 at 10:44 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriks
       Here are some examples of alloy hubs already on the market. They are from Raceleda and Lusso Motors.
       
       http://www.raceleda.co.uk/products.htm
       
       http://www.lusomotors.com/product.html
       
       Both of these suppliers copy the original Ford layout which, based on a back of an envelope calculation for the Raceleda Escort uprights, gives a very high scrub of around 45mm for a wheel with a standard ET / offset of 38mm
       
       This seems very high. Staniforth in his book "Race and rally car source book" advised 0mm scrub. Mazda also chose 0mm for the Miata/MX5. Lotus used 10.5mm for the Elise. Oddly a very high sounding value is quoted for the Ultima on Jay Esters very interesting website but it's also one of the first things he decides to change. Check this site out.
       
       http://www.ultimav12.ca/
       
       Interestingly the Lusso Motors upright use a fwd hub so it can be used at the front or rear of the car.

       ---

       
       None of the above are compatible with the VW components we're aiming to employ.

       ---

       
       
       I never said they were!
       
       The Lusso Motors upright can be used all round and does employ an fwd hub so it's pretty close to my suggested design route and also pretty close to your preffered route for the rear uprights, you just need to swap Ford bits for VW bits in the design. You can actually download drawings from their website.
       
       I was pointing out designs of hub that, possibly, we could copy or modify. Drawings are available from both sites. Does this give a head start? Can anything be learned from these designs? Has anyone on this Forum used these hubs?
       
       I was also pointing out that the available hubs all seem to copy what appears to be a very high scrub radius geometry. I can't see any reason for this in a new Locost design.

       ---

       Rorty - 20/11/05 at 12:35 AM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriks
       I was pointing out designs of hub that, possibly, we could copy or modify. Drawings are available from both sites. Does this give a head start?

       ---

       
       Ah well, that's different then. I'll have a look at them. About a year ago I posted a pic of an aluminium upright I've done here.
       
       

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by cymtriksI was also pointing out that the available hubs all seem to copy what appears to be a very high scrub radius geometry. I can't see any reason for this in a new Locost design.

       ---

       
       More steering feedback? They are a very light car.
       That's why I thought a bit more scrub radius than your proposed 10mm might be a good idea.

       ---

       wilkingj - 20/11/05 at 10:35 AM

       I havent read the whole thread...
       
       But... Being a Land Rover Man through and through.. Look at Series Three Land Rover Track Rod Joints. Tough as old boots. Large, never ending supply available from a lot of places. Best of all CHEAP.
       
       www.paddockspares.com is the place to start. Just follow your nose to the Series 2/3 pages.
       Most Paddoce Parts are either OEM or pattern, and rarley Genuine Green Boxed LR parts. However, Most peopl I know use them and some of the other dealers. I have used paddocks for years.
       
       Eg.. My Clutch Master Cylinder is Land Rover Series 3. Genuine Girling, cost me £19 (pattern was £9). From Kit Car Dealers was Over £30+.
       
       There were over 2 Million Series Threes made, and probably 60% Plus are still running (Seen the stats in one of the mags).
       Plentiful spares at reasonable costs..
       MOST Parts were from British Leyland cars from the 70's, and a huge amount of commonality exists in that area.
       
       Whilst I cannot guarantee their suitability strength etc.. Someone with more technical knowlege can take up that investigation.
       
       

       ---

       Stephant - 20/11/05 at 10:45 AM

       Hi
       I'm Stephan from Germany and that's ,why my english may sound strange,sometimes.
       I'm working on a midengined project and plan to use selfmade urights for several reasons:
       1. they will be "availeble" for ever
       2. for those knowing a little about suspension geomotrie, there's more freedom in design.
       3. unsprung weight.
       4.you get a quick steering(if liked) without having to buy a quick rack(will be a mini rack with extensions for me)
       Rorty postet an adress ,where trailer stubs and hubs can be bought.I've tried to get drawings or measurements of the HG515 hubs,but they did'nt answer me.
       Can anyone help.
       For the rear uprights ,there are precision seamless steel tubes as starting point.
       I've bought one with a inner dia of 72mm and 6mm wall thickness,which gives VW Golf front bearings (mk 1-3 and several other VW's)a tight fit.The rest is made of two laser cut and bended 3mm Steelparts.
       The reason for chosing VW parts is ,that new! parts can be bought for allmost nothing ,over here and the 4x100mm weels are used by Opel/Vauxhall, VW and several japaneese cars,so finding cheap weels will be no problem

       ---

       daffy - 20/11/05 at 12:30 PM

       [quote=rorty]
       Maybe you know someone who works in a VW dealership? If you have any trade catalogues with dimensioned diagrams of any of the items, then I'd welcome that info too.
       If you have the parts, but aren't sure how to go about extracting the data, email me and I'll gladly give you instructions on how to accurately take the measurements.
       If you can help with dimensions of any of the above parts, please let me know and specify the model and year please.
       I'm also happy (in fact I would prefer) to receive actual parts and reverse engineer them myself, so if anyone can source any of the parts and post them to me, I promise faithfully I'll return them within a week.
       I've seen most of the parts appearing on eBay, so perhaps some of you who are interested in this project would consider buying even one item each or sharing the cost of one item with others to get this project underway.
       Just one of each component is all that's necessary.

       ---

       
       
       Can't send any parts unfortunately. I live in greece (bred down under though). Suffice to say though that my ties with vw run deeper than most. i doubt finding the dimensions will be a problem but i'll need a few days cos i'm on call at work monday/tuesday
       
       [Edited on 20/11/05 by daffy]

       ---

       Rorty - 20/11/05 at 10:12 PM

       That's great news and much appreciated.
       I've short-listed the 04/'75-06/'96 VW Transporter LT 40/45 outer TRE for the front upper balljoint. It has a M18x1.5 RH thread.

       ---

       Rorty - 21/11/05 at 05:20 AM

       I'd like to establish the rear and front track (in that order) and to do that, I require the width of the Sierra (and MX5/Miata – why not?) diffs from CV mounting face to CV mounting face. It would probably be easier to measure the entire width of the flanges and then subtract 2x the height of the raised shoulders on the drive flanges.
       
       I have factory data on the length of the VW "axles" which I understood to be the whole axle assembly (axle shaft, inner CV and outer CV), but some doubt has been cast on my assumption.
       On each car there are two lengths of axles and there are two versions, so that makes a total of four different axles on late G3 and G4 cars. According to VW, the lengths of the pairs of "axles" are: LH 455.5mm & RH 691.5mm and LH 447.4mm & RH 681.5mm.
       It would be pretty obvious if one measured any of the four different axles whether the dimension refers to the assembly, or just the axle shaft.
       
       Would some of you kind folk please confirm the diff width and "axle" length?

       ---

       smdl - 22/11/05 at 03:54 PM

       Sorry if this is a basic question, but will a rear-steer rack cause any conflict with the engine positioning? I know that this configuration was discussed as an option, but not sure if that is the current thinking. I was planning to place the engine as far forward as possible to avoid the heavy rear weight bias that a number of people have ended up with.
       
       Shaun
       
       [Edited on 22/11/05 by smdl]

       ---

       JoelP - 22/11/05 at 06:46 PM

       what cars would end up with a rear weight bias? Even if it made it as high as 55% rear id still try to get the engine as far back as possible, to minimise the cars moment or inertia. A rear steer rack would also help this.
       
       Rorty, if you find any parts on OZ ebay, i dont mind having a bid for you. This thread isnt much use to me as im not going to build a locost in the near future, but i would like to help the plan progress
       
       [Edited on 22/11/05 by JoelP]

       ---

       Rorty - 22/11/05 at 08:08 PM

       Joel, that's very generous of you. I'll keep an eye out on eBay and let you know if anything comes up.
       I think if others join in, we should post who is bidding on what parts to prevent a bidding war between forum members.

       ---

       smdl - 22/11/05 at 10:53 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by JoelP
       what cars would end up with a rear weight bias? Even if it made it as high as 55% rear id still try to get the engine as far back as possible, to minimise the cars moment or inertia. A rear steer rack would also help this.
       
       [Edited on 22/11/05 by JoelP]

       ---

       
       
       Several people on the Locost North America group have weighed their completed cars, and have been surprised by the the amount of rear weight bias. Figures of 56 - 58% for book-sized chassis (mostly Miata) seem to be common, and this is with front-steer. I am concerned about about increasing this further.
       
       Here is a excerpt from a message that seemed to sum up (IMHO) the discussion on that thread:
       
       "G'Day Wayne,
       I've noticed that we all tend to put the motor/gearbox
       assembly as far back as we can in the Locosts, mostly it seems to get the
       gear change where we want it. I've had a look at a genuine Lotus 7 series 3
       recently and the motor is a lot further forward. I've got probably 500mm
       between the front of the motor and the frame on mine. Also on average you're
       adding 160Kg minimum to the rear weight when running two up.
       Regards,
       Mike Laws"
       
       My thought was to shift things forward a bit, although still behind the front wheels.
       Looking at pictures of several Caterhams, it is clear that they mount the powertrain much further forward.
       
       Any thoughts are appreciated. I'm just at the point of starting my chassis (on hold as a result of this thread), and am just trying to gain knowledge as I go along.
       
       Thanks,
       Shaun

       ---

       JoelP - 22/11/05 at 11:05 PM

       it it did get to 60% rear weight, i would try to lighten the back end, not add weight to the front. Ive never weighed mine, so i couldnt comment on how much it affects handling. However, moving the fuel tank forward would be one option for me, or use a bike engine. Also, i wouldnt bother with a full sized locost chassis for a bike engine anyway, as its a waste of wheelbase.
       
       Either way, its you car so build it as you see fit!

       ---

       Rorty - 22/11/05 at 11:12 PM

       Could a few people please confirm the distance between, say, a 4-cylinder car engine/bike engine and the current front-mounted rack? Links to a few pictures would be good too.

       ---

       SilverFox - 24/11/05 at 08:36 PM

       Per Rorty's earlier request, I don't have a Sierra diff, but did measure a 7 1/2" Merkur XR4Ti diff if it is of any interest and comparison - use a tape so maybe within 1 mm or so.
       a) distance between flanges = 12 1/16" (say 306 mm).
       b) about the pinion C/line LH = 6.875" (175 mm) and RH = 5.1875" (131.7 mm).
       c) Bottom mount'g face width = 6 15/16"
       d) Top mount'g face = 7 5/8" (193.6 mm)with LH = 4.125" (104.7 mm) about pinion c/line and RH = 3.50" (88.9 mm).
       
       Will try to measure the driveshaft lenghts to compare with VW lengths quoted by Rorty.
       Alf

       ---

       JoelP - 26/11/05 at 07:41 PM

       i have 8 inches between the front of my 4 cyl crossflow engine and the steering rack. The horns are here but could easily be moved.

       ---

       Rorty - 26/11/05 at 08:26 PM

       The centre of the escort rack lies about 118mm in front of the (Cortina) axle line in a Book Locost, so placing the Golf rack behind the axle (even with shorter steering arms - for quicker steering) sounds like it may be too close.
       I'll have to model it all and check for fit.
       Thanks JoelP for your input.

       ---

       scotmac - 27/11/05 at 12:59 AM

       I understand the point about the very prevalent VW parts, and there availability worldwide, and their future availability. And just for those reasons, this effort is worthwhile. Also, i very much like the idea of lesser expensive performance based uprights and hubs.
       
       However, what are the pure performance reasons for the new design? eg, let's say someone has a zf/quaife sierra diff, sierra axles, lusomotors uprights/hubs all round (not THAT expensive, and good geometry), wide front wishbones (to match the back), etc.
       
       That would give them a KPI of 4.8deg, and a scrub radius around 15mm (based on the improved luso hubs, and a guess on the wheels/tires), and lets assume an ok caster (say around 7deg, which can be done, regardless of the above components).
       
       That would give them pretty much the same performance as being proposed here, right?
       
       But, the VW stuff does still have that availability thing...and they are likely to be cheaper...and more in tune w/ the locost culture.
       
       Keep up the good work.
       
       Cheers, -sm

       ---

       SilverFox - 29/11/05 at 04:11 AM

       FWIW the Merkur axles as measured with tape are LH = 476.2 mm and RH = 517.5 mm. Shaft Diameter is 28 mm and Lobros are 6 bolt on 86 mm PCD, 100 mm OD

       ---

       Rorty - 29/11/05 at 08:16 PM

       Thanks SilverFox, I'll add that data to the list.

       ---

       SilverFox - 30/11/05 at 01:24 AM

       Cheers Rorty. I wonder if others could post similar data on the Uk Sierra. be interested to compare.
       Alf

       ---

       jcduroc - 1/12/05 at 08:15 PM

       [Edited on 1/12/05 by jcduroc]
       
       How do I publish a pdf here?
       
       [Edited on 1/12/05 by jcduroc]

       ---

       andyd - 1/12/05 at 08:39 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by jcduroc
       How do I publish a pdf here?

       ---

       
       Just use the Attachment box below where you type your message. It'll attach as a download.

       ---

       Rorty - 1/12/05 at 08:53 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by jcduroc
       How do I publish a pdf here?

       ---

       
       There's a size limit Joao, so if you're having problems posting it, it's probably over-size.
       In which case, contact flakmonkey as he seems happy to host such files. He hosts the suspension files that I posted here.

       ---

       jcduroc - 1/12/05 at 10:40 PM

       I managed to make it a jpeg
       
       Sierra half-safts
       
       Description
       
       Bob
       I can send you the .dwg
       [Edited on 1/12/05 by jcduroc]
       
       [Edited on 1/12/05 by jcduroc]
       
       [Edited on 1/12/05 by jcduroc]

       ---

       SilverFox - 2/12/05 at 05:31 AM

       Thx Joao, I was looking for something like that to compare. Are these lengths for the Lobro bolt-on shafts or what I perceive to be the slip-on at the diff end.
       
       My measurements above are for the Lobro bolt-on style (both ends), and are for the axle shafts only. I would have to measure the respective diff and outboard spindles to get an equivalent lengths to those you posted.
       
       Appreciated
       Alf

       ---

       Rorty - 2/12/05 at 05:51 AM

       If you would send me the drawing Joao, that would be most useful.

       ---

       jcduroc - 3/12/05 at 03:36 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Rorty
       If you would send me the drawing Joao, that would be most useful.

       ---

       
       
       You've got mail

       ---

       jcduroc - 3/12/05 at 03:38 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by SilverFox
       Thx Joao, I was looking for something like that to compare. Are these lengths for the Lobro bolt-on shafts or what I perceive to be the slip-on at the diff end.
       
       My measurements above are for the Lobro bolt-on style (both ends), and are for the axle shafts only. I would have to measure the respective diff and outboard spindles to get an equivalent lengths to those you posted.
       
       Appreciated
       Alf

       ---

       
       
       Unfortunetly I've never seen the Lobro ones.
       If you could produce a similar dwg for them might be great.
       
       João

       ---

       SilverFox - 11/12/05 at 10:28 PM

       Joao - A stretch on my posting capabilities I think - can't even seem to post a pic. But... will see what can be done.

       ---

       omega0684 - 14/12/05 at 01:07 PM

       i dont care about the post but rorty that bird is fit!

       ---

       jcduroc - 24/12/05 at 08:37 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by SilverFox
       Joao - A stretch on my posting capabilities I think - can't even seem to post a pic. But... will see what can be done.

       ---

       
       
       You can always send it to
       joao.matoso@gmail.com
       is you have a drawing.
       
       Cheers
       MERRY XMAS TO ALL LOCOSTBUIDERS

       ---

       SilverFox - 27/12/05 at 06:01 AM

       Cheers Jaoa. But too cold out in the shop right now - could suffer ice worms. I will need to do the drawing anyway as am looking inbard discs as locost option

       ---

       davidfe - 26/1/06 at 04:26 PM

       Greetings,
       
       Is there anything I can do to help the process along?
       
       David Edwards

       ---

       SilverFox - 1/2/06 at 03:22 AM

       David, I am not really sure what the next steps are for the overall picture. As I understand it, Rorty is asking for assistance from one and all in assembling the component data base.
       I still have to brave the elements to try and accurately measure the Merkur halfshafts - and I'm not even sure that a tape measure will be adequate to the task!!

       ---

       daffy - 13/12/06 at 10:10 PM

       i wonder what happened with this? something happen with rorty while i was gone?

       ---

       nkosta - 17/12/06 at 03:21 PM

       Ask Sid
       
       [Edited on 18/12/06 by nkosta]

       ---

       britishtrident - 18/12/06 at 02:21 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by daffy
       i wonder what happened with this? something happen with rorty while i was gone?

       ---

       
       
       
       Yes --- not good but we don't know what

       ---

       Fred W B - 18/12/06 at 02:25 PM

       Last I heard was this
       
       Cheers
       
       Fred W B

       ---

       nkosta - 18/12/06 at 08:21 PM

       Sorry to hear this
       all the best Rorty

       ---

       Rorty - 18/12/06 at 09:39 PM

       I just received an email regarding this and the other thread. Thanks to all for the kind wishes. I have been quite ill for some time which was the initial result of my absence, although I've been back home for quite a while now.
       
       The main reason I don't frequent this forum any more is that one forum member has an unhealthy dislike for me and has continually caused me a lot of hassle. This person hacked into my computer some time ago and did a lot of damage. My web site was hacked, mailing lists were stolen and years of photos were destroyed including pictures of my family growing up (both on my computer and the off-site backup which was on my ISP's server.
       
       My then ISP couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything other than report the issue. I contacted a lawyer here in Australia and was told I would also need to retain a lawyer in the UK if I was to take matters further. The whole thing got too big and I couldn't afford to pursue him. Congratulations – you got me!
       
       Although I changed ISP and have a new web host, the culprit continued to cause me problems virtually every time I posted here. He obviously still has my mailing lists and continues to mass mail my customers with obscene and vindictive rubbish.
       
       The last onslaught was at the time I posted my De Dion and Cortina upright designs which were obviously more than he could bear to observe, so after my hospitalisation, I just didn't bother coming back here.
       
       I'm still happy to carry on with this VW/Locust front end design, but only via email as I don't want to stir the (currently) sleeping beast – although this post will probably result in some form of "retaliation". So if anyone wants to provide any of the info or dimensions I requested, I'll start drawing it up.
       
       It's sad because this forum was a rich part of my daily life and I really enjoyed hanging out here, sharing ideas and having a laugh.

       ---

       3GEComponents - 18/12/06 at 09:47 PM

       Hi Rorty,
       
       Have to say I've missed your posts, and as you have been missing for so long feared that things were worse than you cared to mention.
       
       But i'm glad you're well and hope that you frequent this forum more in future.
       
       You have been missed.
       
       [Edited on 18/12/06 by jroberts]

       ---

       caber - 18/12/06 at 11:07 PM

       Rorty,
       
       I am shocked to hear that anyone on this forum should attack you like this. Please Name and shame the offender he should be booted off here and locked out!
       
       Your wisdom was invaluable to me while considering my build which is now well on the way I would value your continuing contribution to ths forum.
       
       caber

       ---

       Ian Pearson - 18/12/06 at 11:17 PM

       Welcome back Rorty. Sorry to hear of the troubles you've been having.

       ---

       Bob C - 19/12/06 at 10:22 AM

       Really glad to hear you're better Bob - I too had feared the worst. The forum is a poorer place without your contributions.
       Shame about the bollox, all you can do is ignore it (which is , I guess, what most people try to do)
       I learned last week that another of my friends has made a complete recovery from a "sword of damocles" type condition - so it's been a good christmas as far as I'm concerned.
       Bob

       ---

       Guinness - 19/12/06 at 10:34 AM

       Glad to hear you are feeling better Rorty. Sorry to hear about your troubles with someone on here.
       
       I for one missed your posts and advice!
       
       Cheers
       
       Mike

       ---

       Syd Bridge - 19/12/06 at 10:40 AM

       I, for one, would like to know who did this, because it's not me! As much as we jousted, I haven't the internet knowledge nor desire.
       
       I've just had a u2u from Dick Bear, who I've been talking to, saying that he had just recieved a particularly nasty message from a forum member.
       
       Who are these people??
       
       Cheers,
       Syd.

       ---

       nkosta - 20/12/06 at 10:59 PM

       GLAD TO READ YOU ! RORTY
       
       puno pozdrava Kosta Nikolic
       
       [Edited on 20/12/06 by nkosta]

       ---

       t.j. - 21/12/06 at 06:59 AM

       Hey!,
       
       What's happening???
       Who the hell likes to get into someones computer and fool around?
       
       Probably looking for your intelligens?
       
       Hopefully you have a better fire-wall.
       
       Wish you the best,
       
       Grtz

       ---

       JoelP - 21/12/06 at 11:41 PM

       hi rorty, nice to see you back. Stick around this time?
       
       
       
       [Edited on 27/2/07 by JoelP]

       ---

       Hellfire - 27/2/07 at 09:35 PM

       BTTT

       ---

       JoelP - 27/2/07 at 09:48 PM

       lol, would take a lot of effort to revive this thread, you'd have to re-read it all

       ---

       rgdavid - 12/10/08 at 04:04 PM

       hi rorty & others , this is a great thread, been learning lots from it and will be a great thing if a design for common use is decided, thanks, david

       ---

       Mave - 15/1/09 at 08:15 PM

       Can we revive this thread? Maybe this helps:
       
       

       ---

       ettore bugatti - 16/1/09 at 09:56 PM

       quote:

       ---

       Originally posted by Mave
       Can we revive this thread?
       

       ---

       
       
       Well perhaps if you have some more info about it

       ---

       Mave - 17/1/09 at 06:54 PM

       Well, it has nothing to do with me, but I came across it HERE. It's using the Sierra rear bearing carriers and hubs, and I liked the concept.
       
       Thought I'd show it to revive this thread, but ehm, to no avail apparantly.....
       
       In my eyes it would be good to have a newly designed front upright available though. Cortina's are getting rare, Raceleda's are not really suitable for anything but the lightest Sevens (BEC's). I'm trying to find a nice suitable upright for my CEC to replace the Sierra ones, and as such am searching around for all options....

       ---

       ettore bugatti - 19/1/09 at 12:56 AM

       Looks interesting, but I would go for a bolted steering arm. Although fully welded it should be strong enough.
       
       How about machine an upright from 9SMn28K or 11SMn30C steel? Shouldn't be that expensive...
       
       Some reading before bedtime:
       http://www.engr.iupui.edu/me/courses/lotuseuropa462.ppt#272,14,Design Evaluation
       http://nicolas.theobald.free.fr/Caterham-new-susp.pdf
       
       Let's hope that by now more knowledgeable members react here

       ---