.jpg)
I'm now nearly ready to put the front end of the car together and I'm trying to decide,Is it worth spending more money getting ally
uprights/hubs to try and reduce the unsprung weight or am I aswell sticking with orginal cortina cast ones ??
Is there a big weight difference between the 2 set ups ??
I'm trying to keep the weight of the car down to a bare minimun but I don't want to go throwing money at it for the sheer hell of it !!!
Cheers Mike
Any saving on unsprung weight will make the car handle better but ask yourself a couple of questions 1st.
Will you drive it hard enough to notice the difference, and are you like me carrying a few extra personal kgs that could be removed a lot cheaper than
spending mega bucks to save a couple of kilo ?
Largely depends on what use you're intending to put the car to. If it's road use & the odd trackday or 2 then I feel you'd be wasting your money, you'd never notice the difference. For any serious competition use it's a case of every little helps, so you've virtually got to do it. Obviously this is IMHO
Thanks for the replys guys.
The car is mainly for track days and road use,I was basically trying to save as much weight as possible but if there is very little gains to be had I
will give the ally uprights a miss.
Thanks again guys
Not sure on the weight saving on the cortina upright set up,but this sierra replacement set up saved me a total of 11kgs on the front end,not sure if
most people would notice any real difference,but they do look nice
don't be put off, its your car, but I would look for bigger weight savings for less money 1st, eg, wheels, seats, battery, floor and a diet ?
edit to add, weight savings on sierra uprights are much larger than those to be had on cortina set ups
[Edited on 28/12/07 by Jon Ison]
quote:
Originally posted by PAUL FISHER
Not sure on the weight saving on the cortina upright set up,but this sierra replacement set up saved me a total of 11kgs on the front end,not sure if most people would notice any real difference,but they do look nice
Certainly does look good 
I have just got a set of 13" minilites,they are mega light compared to what was on,I have also just changed to the light weight fibreglass seats
and fitted a bike battery.I will have to see where else I could go about saving a few KG !!
I'm using an older GPZ 1000 engine I realise this is heavier than the newer units but I have no intention on pulling it out !!!
Mike
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
quote:
Originally posted by PAUL FISHER
Not sure on the weight saving on the cortina upright set up,but this sierra replacement set up saved me a total of 11kgs on the front end,not sure if most people would notice any real difference,but they do look nice
Yeah they look great, where did you get them?
Hi on the cortina setup it has been proved many times that the difference in the upright between std and the ali versions is negligible . The saving
is in the hubs ect. And as yet non of the ali versions has proved reliable or been tested except the westfield ones and maybe the raldes ones if now
available but still no real weight saving on the actual upright weight.
Cheers Matt
The alloy ones have rather sketchy specifications and there seems to be a weight limit of 750Kg bandied around by some people. As the weight saving is very small when compared to the 'full fat' Cortina version, I would be inclined to get the alloy hubs and some light rims.
PAUL your top wishbone looks dangerous from the view in pic. 
Hi yep the top joint on the new mk has the exact same problem as the old one in that the angle of the joint dose not allow full articulation IE the
joint runs out of travel before the damper dose. Quite amazing they havent corrected that problem considring how bad a flaw it is.
Cheers matt
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi yep the top joint on the new mk has the exact same problem as the old one in that the angle of the joint dose not allow full articulation IE the joint runs out of travel before the damper dose. Quite amazing they havent corrected that problem considring how bad a flaw it is.
Cheers matt
Hi perfectly right Jon you can fit bump stops to restrict the amount of travel to less than inch to correct the fact that the manufacturer has made
such an incompetent job of the suspension in the first place.
Give me strength it's like returning back to the industry 20 years ago. Most manufacturers learn from there mistakes not continue to copy them
again and again.
Cheers Matt
Ive not looked close enough so cant comment on what I've seen cos I ain't seen it, but you telling me there is only one inch of suspension travel before the top ball joint "locks"
Hi Depends on your ride height but basically it's the same as before and yes people have expressed concerns about the problem before.
Cheers Matt
Hi as can be seen here in this picture when the suspension is at full droop the top joint is in its ideal mid articulation. So when at static ride
height or in bump the top joint is reaching it's limits of articulation. However the push rod is not connected in this picture but can clearly be
seen in the pic of the same car/setup above.
New inboard setup.
.jpg)
[/img]
And a link here to a pic of the original outboard setup.LINK
Cheers Matt
Ive not seen it in the flesh so cant comment, but that's a lot of effort gone into your reply.
Is it at full droop ? Is that a jack under the upright ? I dunno but could be, whatever I don't own one anyways.
Hi " A lot of effort " Not really but you have to feel sorry for the guys that spend all there hard earned cash and then put there effort
in to building one only to then realise it's got some serious issues with the basic design. Now that is a waste of some hard work and effort.
Cheers Matt
EDIT to change hard work to effort in the quote.
[Edited on 29/12/07 by procomp]
you're making valid points matt, but id raise 2 points myself!
have you measured the new version to see if it is *actually* suffering from the same problem? Or are you assuming that because it looks the same as
old one it too will lock?
And, have any actually failed?! I know, thats a lame argument since theres no substitute for a good reliable design, but running out of travel by a
few mm of bending in the joint isnt the end of the world on a road car, unless it literally falls apart! The initial result would be sloppy joints.
Most road users would never even know if it ran out of travel!
anyway i thought uphill racer was refering to the bend in the back leg!
Hi yes it has been seen and yes it has happened many times where the joints have run out of travel and either bent or as you say gone sloppy.
Wheres the line drawn between a potential accident about to happen and a death occurring due to poor design that was not necessary . MK have had this
pointed out to them long ago in the past but nothing has ever been done just passed over without concern. So yes it hasn't happened AS YET but
how long till it dose. And why has it nether been given any attention.
I think i have pointed out my concern and will refrain from further comment. But it can clearly be seen as a problem with potential drastic
consequences.
Cheers Matt
All those pretty pics of fancy uprights.
Has anyone yet sighted a verifiable testing certificate for any of them, Rally Design included?? Methinks NO is the answer for all.
And those pretty gold steering arms! You are trusting your life to that little weld holding the arm onto that boss with the bolt through it!
No worries, it won't be long before SVA and MOT will find them all and put them off the road until proper industry testing is done and
certificates of testing are produced.
The industry hasn't changed in 20 years, just produced prettier parts that are still as dangerous as what was around way back.
Cheers,
Syd.
I've always wondered about the tilted balljoint using up travel which you will probably need.
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi yep the top joint on the new mk has the exact same problem as the old one in that the angle of the joint dose not allow full articulation IE the joint runs out of travel before the damper dose. Quite amazing they havent corrected that problem considring how bad a flaw it is.
Cheers matt
Also just to add pictures of the original design of the suspension travel,at rest,and at maximum travel
Rescued attachment THE 3.jpg
This shows the suspension at a position at maximum travel and clearly showing the ball joint angle no where near its maximum acticulation
[Edited on 19/05/04 by PAUL FISHER]
Rescued attachment the 78.jpg
It is right that the upper balljoint must NEVER reach the end.
The shock-absorber should be stopping the movement or something other than the ball-joint.
I presume MK did the angle to prevent this.
[Edited on 30/12/07 by t.j.]
Hi there are no personal vendettas with any one on here. I am simply voicing an opinion based on fact having worked on one of the cars. And having had
discussions with other owners who have also expressed concerns.
I will send you a u2u to continue discussion if you wish.
Cheers Matt
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
anyway i thought uphill racer was refering to the bend in the back leg!
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
anyway i thought uphill racer was refering to the bend in the back leg!
Yes, that was my point.
Paul look at the pics where the yellow line dissapears under the top wishbone. Now visualise what is happening there under braking and cornering loads.
[Edited on 30/12/07 by Uphill Racer]
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi there are no personal vendettas with any one on here. I am simply voicing an opinion based on fact having worked on one of the cars. And having had discussions with other owners who have also expressed concerns.
I will send you a u2u to continue discussion if you wish.
Cheers Matt
ill prob get slated. but to me the uprights are not made to be used for this car thats why they have bent the top arm to suit. its just bad
engineering.
adam
quote:
Originally posted by PAUL FISHER
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
anyway i thought uphill racer was refering to the bend in the back leg!
Yes, that was my point.
Paul look at the pics where the yellow line dissapears under the top wishbone. Now visualise what is happening there under braking and cornering loads.
[Edited on 30/12/07 by Uphill Racer]
I understand your concerns Uphill Racer,but this chassis has not been drawn up with a piece of paper and a pencil,the latest computer aided design has gone into its innovative design,simulations on stress points and material used have been made,also extensive track testing over the last 18months,with various cars including a supercharged gsxr 1000 on up to 220mm wide slicks has highlighted no problems,regards Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
quote:
Originally posted by PAUL FISHER
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
anyway i thought uphill racer was refering to the bend in the back leg!
Yes, that was my point.
Paul look at the pics where the yellow line dissapears under the top wishbone. Now visualise what is happening there under braking and cornering loads.
[Edited on 30/12/07 by Uphill Racer]
I understand your concerns Uphill Racer,but this chassis has not been drawn up with a piece of paper and a pencil,the latest computer aided design has gone into its innovative design,simulations on stress points and material used have been made,also extensive track testing over the last 18months,with various cars including a supercharged gsxr 1000 on up to 220mm wide slicks has highlighted no problems,regards Paul
Paper and pencil, how derogetory. Computer programs allow engineers to proove basic problems, it needs them to understand the problem from 1st principals. Your top upright when it fails on a car and sooner or latter 1 will because of the constant unsuported loading outboard and in a different plane than the wishbone I hope they have insurance that covers them for incompetence
[Edited on 31/12/07 by Uphill Racer]
quote:
Originally posted by oadamo
ill prob get slated. but to me the uprights are not made to be used for this car thats why they have bent the top arm to suit. its just bad engineering.
adam
Hi well here are my finding after some discussion with the owner of the car that i had been working on.
In order to gain at least some sort of control of the camber and to induce more mechanical grip from the tyre footprint we had decided to run the car
at the lower end of the ride height that was available. This was working quite nicely except for the fact that when the car was in corners such as the
old hairpin at donnington where the car would be in a bump and roll situation IE not just a bump situation that is where it was found that the top
joint ran out of travel.
Also if i can draw your attention to the above pictures. How come in the one the damper and spring on the drivers side that we are looking at are the
same as the other side on the lower picture. And then on the lower picture where both dampers are in view you can quite clearly see that the spring on
the drivers side that we are looking at are not the same as the spring on the other side. It is quite clearly of different wire gauge. Which to me
indicates that you have done some swapping of dampers to achieve a lesser movement of the setup. And can also be seen by the fact that the damper is
shown in full droop and then in full compression. However the spring dose not seem to have compressed by the same amount that the damper appears to
have. Although the lower spring platform seems to be in a very similar position.
I think that this will end in nothing but an ongoing discussion with no point to it at the end. Other than a difference of opinion. I have said my
piece and will leave it at that. But as has been pointed out by Uphill Racer there is some bad engineering there and for no reason what so ever as it
did not need to be off that design to achieve the same result but in a manner that would have been far better engineered and not off caused there to
be a potential problem with that top joint.
Cheers Matt
I've seen today a wishbone from a MK with angled top balljoint.
IMO it will not a bigger problem than not angled.
I would say if there is enough "meat" which can be welded to the threaded part. So the old style wishbone in a V is IMO better than those
nicely bent wishbone which have only about 3,14x25 mm is welded.
I would like to know now if the ball-joint reaches his end or not.
If not this discussion should be closed.
I had the same problems using the transit M20x1,5 ball-joint at full-drop. It happened when the inner brackets of the upper-wishbone where not placed
at the exact place.
Maybe MK limited the travel tru the bump-stop? So before we make conclusions first let someone have a look if the travel is limited by the ball-joint.
If not this is IMO a non-issue
It makes sense to me now that I can see the top ball pin is 90° to the insert in the upright on the MK wishbone. I've helped on Indy and MAC#1 and never took notice of it before to tell the truth.
Balljoints differ from manufacturer to manufacturer.
I've personally bought at least 10 different sets and found articulation in the same joint to vary quite considerably.
Some to the extent that a fully articulated joint in one setup became 'bound' when joint replaced by another.
However, that said, the pics look OK and shouldn't be used as reference. Only in the 'flesh' so to speak can you really make comment.
Until then accept the word of the poster.