AGK7
|
| posted on 14/11/05 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
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.
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.
Also don't want to add to you work load but what about looking at taking the suspension inboard on the new design??
Cheers
Andrew K
Albury, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 12:41 AM |
|
|
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.
Yes, I would make it so OEM calipers would fit, but onto a removable bracket. Modelling caliper brackets is a minor task and I can do as many of them
as people want calipers for.
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.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 06:16 AM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:25 AM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
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?
Well, he put his deDion & IRS drawings up for all to see, so perhaps we should be charitable in our views... 
rgds,
David
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 10:34 AM |
|
|
As syd says, Toyota is the most prolific world brand, and as such would be the most universal for parts availability worldwide.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 11:08 AM |
|
|
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
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
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?
Syd I realise you're trying to be as unhelpful, pedantic and disruptive as usual in some misplaced attempt to gain the limelight, but if you
would take the time to read the content of this thread, you would see that I am genuinely offering to do something for the benefit of others here and
have absolutely no mercenary intent whatsoever.
You might notice I quoted you rather than just reply to you, so as to make sense of this post, as you have a habit of scurrying off and deleting all
your posts from threads that show you in a less than favourable light.
Do you really think nobody notices that your post tally doesn't match your posts? Or that you keep reinventing yourself?
Let people enjoy this forum Syd and don't hijack this thread. Why not start an interesting one of your own? Now there's an idea!
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 12:04 PM |
|
|
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.
I totally agree that Toyota is the world leader and if they currently have components that match or better what VW have to offer in their Golf, then
of course their parts should be considered. I'm not sure if they do at the moment though.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
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.
Well most of your points are very valid. This is exactly what I'd like to see; plenty of suggestions and discussion.
I don't really want the choice to be mine. I would much rather the design be a collective decision with me just as the pencil and paper.
Sure, I can allow for the inclusion, or at least easy alteration, of the wishbones so that push/pull rods or any other preferences can be accomodated.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 12:33 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
andyd
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
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?
Isn't this the point of the thread? Everyone who's reading it is welcome to share their opinion just like you have. However, Rorty is
the one who's offering to collate all the data into a viable option. If there are better alternatives I'm sure he'll consider them
given enough evidence and a decent discussion about suitability (or lack of).
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Just try to keep an open mind.
Good advice and something to remember before acusing people of self gaining interests. I for one wouldn't blame Rorty for getting some monetary
gain for this venture . Keep up the good work Rorty, some of us think you're doing us a good service.
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 Syd Bridge
Please, prove those thoughts wrong, so that all of the input to this is for the public good, and not monetary gain.
He doesn't have to prove it, he's already given people plenty of information which they could now use to do the job for themselves.
Nuff said on that, back to the point of the thread.... I hope!
Andy
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 02:26 PM |
|
|
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.
Question1: Is the stub axle really f bolton type? from the pictures posted earlier by Rorty it looks like the axle and the bracket for the
brakecaliper is tha same part.
Question 2: I dont agree about the fear for machining. If you chose to fabricate your own uprights and only plan to use your hacksaw and 110 A Miller
welder we'll probably end up with a design that would not really be neat, good looking and accurate. And even if the stub axle could be welded
to the upright you still need the machined inserts to adapt the ball joints?
If we choose a manufacturing process that secures a high quality/repeatability with a low cost it will probably benefit all of us. The ideas posted
earlier about laser/water cut peases with good tolerances that puts together and basically works as a jig by themselves would help to get accurate
dimensions.
If the drawings then are made public it's up to every one to either rder the cut/bended peaces or most certainly some of the existing suppliers
will be able to sell kits or even welded uprights to a cost far below the race leda and other high cost variants. With a very rough estimation on
costs for lasercutting the parts it would be like £10-15/upright in small volume in a lo cost country.
In the end i think we are after a new solution that is low cost, have a good geometry and looks nice. It really can't be that important if we
buy the material in 100mm wide steel in lenght of 6 meter or precut to build a set of good uprights ( i think most people would consider a kit of pre
cut parts would apeal to the DIY sense)
|
|
|
andyd
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 04:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lozec
I dont agree about the fear for machining.
I wasn't saying it's a fear just that I for one don't have an accurate way of machining such things i.e. a lathe and don't
want to have to pay someone to do it if it's not really necessary. If Rorty can design the uprights utilising "standard" parts that
can just bolt together but the uprights themselves need to be custom made then I'm all for that. If the uprights are "home
makeable" then all well and good but I'm expecting them to go the same route as Rorty's previous post on the Cortina upright
replacement i.e. some other company takes the design and manufactures them. The difference being that the uprights will be more suitable for the
types of car we are building as opposed to just making do with a donors parts.
[Edited on 15/11/2005 by andyd]
Andy
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 05:59 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Kowalski
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 08:33 PM |
|
|
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 
|
|
|
Mave
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:15 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
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:
- One car can give up the necessary front and rear hubs, discs and calipers.
- 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.
- The parts are common to a number of VAG platforms.
I'm not aware of any other car or manufacturer that can currently offer such a complete package, but I am prepared to consider any and all donor
vehicles, but not just for one component. If they're to be considered, surely they should be able to contribute the majority, if not all of the
necessary parts?
I foresee the VW front hubs, discs and rear calipers being used at the rear of the Locost (so the hubs/CVs/axles can be connected to the diff) and the
VW rear hubs and discs will be used on the front of the Locost. So, unless a second VW is relieved of its front hub, disc and outer CV joint,
there's no way to avoid performing some machining; a new front stub axle will have to be made to weld into the fabricated front upright to
accept the VW rear hub.
If someone can confirm there is a viable front calliper that will bolt up to the VW rear stub axle's caliper mount, then I would certainly
consider offering a variation of the new front upright that would accept the bolt-on VW rear stub axle, thereby fully recycling all the VW parts and
negating the need for a machined front stub axle.
I think I can keep the turning/machining down to just the front stub axles and a couple of balljoint bushes. I imagine the upright will be keyed, so
it can either be laser/water/plasma cut, or done on a bandsaw or with a jigsaw. That covers both camps pretty well.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
Take a look here!
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?
|
|
|
mrlynx
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 10:26 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
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?
I really would prefer to steer (no pun intended) clear of using the VW front casting for the following reasons:
- On the front, it would be similar to the Sierra/Locost "upright" along with all its constraints.
- Using a VW front upright at the rear introduces the exact same problems.
- Due to the casting, using a VW front upright at either end would restrict the caliper choice to just the VW front caliper.
I would prefer a clean sheet of paper for the front upright of this project for these reasons:
- To optimise the geometry.
- To make provision for a variety of calipers.
- To reduce cost by making the uprights from cheap sheet steel (and a short length of pipe!).
If I do a bearing housing for the rear, then it can be used for both the De Dion and IRS set-ups.
It's not a case of buying an entire car, although Golfs and Jettas etc. are widely available, it may still be difficult for some people to find
two separate cars. Adopting my proposal would mean only finding the one car down the scrappy's.
I do appreciate your input and if the majority wish to use two sets of front uprights, then that's what I'll work with.
I agree with your figures for KPI and ET, though perhaps the scrub radius should be slightly more; perhaps 10mm-15mm?
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 15/11/05 at 11:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrlynx
Could you post that list of axels because I am looking for a way to shorten my sierra axel?
My sources are scattered across a number of documents and is by no means comprehensive. I'll have to find time to compile the list which is a
low priority for me at the moment I'm afraid.
I will post all the data I have regarding this project later on.
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.
The VW calipers are made by a number of manufacturers including ATE, GIR and Lucas. There are a number of variants across the range and I spotted what
look like a bunch of identical calipers, but their part numbers vary by just one digit. That may only refer to the plating finish on the stamped steel
parts or the material used for the seals etc. They may still be identical fitments.
It would require a lot of time to trawl through the catalogues and cross-reference callipers from one make to another.
Does anyone here have access to a computerised caliper catalogue? If so, cross-referencing would be a simple task.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
