crbrlfrost
|
| posted on 20/7/05 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
F1 has been known to run the pushrod directly to the upright. This can be done by running the heim joint horizontally to account for steering travel,
or vertically with a high misalignment bearing (still less steering angle however). But this get rid of the bending problems in the wishbones as well
as the stacked tolerance take up before actuation of the damper. Anyway, just something to think about. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
AGK7
|
| posted on 20/7/05 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the replys guys, Chris i am having trouble finding those two guys Matthew_1 doesn't seem to have a website or archive and i
can't see any of the Robs as you suggested.
My thinking is as follows, top rocker arm similar to
these
using in Gemini uprights (similar to the Cortina units just a little lighter). For the top ball joint i will make up a spigot similar to the Raceleda
unit listed above and here
Raceleda
with spherical bearings. Taking another look at the Raceleda site they seem to offer this spigot conversion for the top and bottom of the cortina
units
top and bottom spherical bearings
I presume then that in this application the bottom joint would be taking the load from the traditional outbound shocks and as such can put up with the
load (as you also suggest Chris).
One of the advantages i see in going this way is that i could then simply remove the Gemini uprights and insert some nice and light Rorty style
uprights by simply turning the spherical bearings from horizontal to vertical.
Rorty's
I realise that many don't see the value in the trouble but with a rocker arm you remove the problems of push rods and rockers etc and it
definitely "cleans" up the look of the car.
Thanks again for all comments.
Sorry again for the long winded post.
Cheers
Andrew
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 08:46 AM |
|
|
If you want a good example of inboard suspension look at any Striker. If I remember correctly it was originally design with inboard suspension so that
over 15 years! Also Strikers dont use anti-roll bars.
[Edited on 21/7/05 by bimbleuk]
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 09:14 AM |
|
|
another slightly different way to do it is like the quantum extreme:
http://locost7.info/files/suspension/QuantumExtremeFrontSus.jpg
this may reduce the weight of and simplify the mechanism a little, but you need ot make sure your shocks work correctly on the horizontal.
Ned.
[Edited on 21/7/05 by ned]
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
geoff shep
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 10:25 AM |
|
|
I think Rorty's design is outboard - there's a thin piece of wire where the coilover would go.
My Robin Hood has inboard suspension - but I don't think it's that highly tuned to worry about how much unsprung weight I've got!
|
|
|
AGK7
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 11:07 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the comments guys, talking to a few guys locally i am pretty sure the Landcruiser tie rod end will stand up to the job. Now to start
modelling it up and see how it goes 
Quantum certainly looks like a nice car!!
Geoff Rorty's certainly are outboard i was only refering to the upright, with spherical bearings it would be a very easy change over for Gemini
to fabricated uprights.
Thanks again for all the input.
Andrew
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
I'm using maxi balljoints as my top joints, and i've seen lots of other inboard rocker arm designs that use production car ball joints too
- sylva, fisher etc etc. So i dont think you'll have a problem as long as your joint is up to it.
Without chopping one apart I can't be sure, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any springing inside my maxi joints as BT mentions.
There's certainly no movement at all when the joint is used in compression - just seems to be a big solid ball joint which I'm sure will
work fine.
One thing to be aware of - locosters commonly use Transit drag link ends for top ball joints, and these joints have only just enough movement for the
suspension travel. They top wishbones therefore have to be made with the joint pointing upwards slightly to prevent it from reaching the limit of
travel in droop. Looking at a picture of MK top front wishbones will explain this much better than my words - just make sure your ball joint will not
go solid in any part of your suspension travel!
liam
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
I seem to recall the Maxi the (top) ball joint was designed to take spring/hydroelastic displacer loads pressing the top whishbone down into ball
joint socket,but it is more than 20 years since I last changed a Maxi/Allgero ball joint.
Using a tre or drag link is a different matter.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 21/7/05 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
ball joint info here http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/infosheets/infosheet-2-05-200310.html
|
|
|
davidfe
|
| posted on 31/12/05 at 05:16 PM |
|
|
AWD??
I think the most interesting thing about Liam's build is I think it is AWD.
David Edwards
quote:
Originally posted by scoobyis2cool
Hi Andrew, welcome to the site. Sounds like an interesting idea, I don't see any reason it couldn't be made to work in a 7 and as you say
it has a number of benefits over the traditional outboard design. (Having said that, outboard suspension is used on some of the best handling cars
around, such as the Lotus Elise, so it's not something to disregard completely!).
I was looking through Liam's photo archive yesterday - HERE.
He's made a nice looking inboard set up, maybe you could get in touch with him for some pointers. I'm sure other people have done it too
but I don't know who they are!
Good luck with the build, I look forward to seeing how it turns out.
Pete
David Edwards
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 31/12/05 at 11:05 PM |
|
|
Smith warns against adjusting ride height by altering push rod lengths in Engineer to Win (page 221)
Wimmera
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 31/12/05 at 11:12 PM |
|
|
..and it says 'INDIA' on bus tyres , but I have never heard of one that went that far.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 1/1/06 at 01:09 AM |
|
|
His exact words " not to be fooled around with by the uninitiated, imprecise or unwary" =a rather nice turn of phrase I thought
Wimmera
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 1/1/06 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WIMMERA
Smith warns against adjusting ride height by altering push rod lengths in Engineer to Win (page 221)
Wimmera
Altering pushrod length is little different to altering spring seat position up and down. Does the same thing.
Why do you think that most racecars with front pushrods are configured to be adjustable? Just for looks?
EDIT... Further, it is desirable to keep the angular geometry between the pushrod/rocker/coilover fairly even, within limits. A little variation
won't cause any real upset, particularly in a road car. If you are adjusting ride height by large amounts, then both pushrod AND coilover will
need to be altered. At least, that's how the racers do it.
A lot of those old books need to have a 'Useful Working Life' date, or 'Use BY...'
Suspension is no 'Black Art', just adjustment and feel. Heck, what is a perfect setup for one driver, is undrivable to another. So...?
Cheers, and Happy New year All, you too Rorty(alias Wimmera)
Syd.
[Edited on 1/1/06 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
Ian Pearson
|
| posted on 1/1/06 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
Syd, I'm a complete computer numpty, how on earth are you able to find out if someone is posting under another name?
[Edited on 1/1/06 by Ian Pearson]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/1/06 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
you could always hack them, failing that, its guesswork.  
|
|
|
