alfas
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
my locost is too low at front?
Mk Locost, , x/flow powered. Original 12" shocks with far too long coils.
actual situation:
coil platform on spax-shocks are already winded down to lowest point.
watching the car from front upper whsibones are parallel to the ground
lower wishbones and steering tie-rods are inclined towards wheel
we all know that the ideal situation would be lower wishbones parallel.
ok..this said i have purchased some shorter coils and set them up that the
lower wishbones are parallel to the ground (automatically the tierods also came nearly parallel)
upper wishbones are now inclined upwards (towards wheel)
now the car sits very low...imo not on the limt, but for a road car already too low (i will use it only on the track anyway)
anything i can do? not much i guess?
|
|
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
Drop the back so it's 1/2" higher than the front, job done 
If it's scraping on the road it's to low!
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 07:51 PM |
|
|
Wishbone tubes parallel with the ground (how it reads to me) or an imaginary line between centre of the ball joint and the inner pivot bolt (which is
what you want)?
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 08:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Wishbone tubes parallel with the ground (how it reads to me) or an imaginary line between centre of the ball joint and the inner pivot bolt (which is
what you want)?
hmmm...which should be favoured?
just a shrt sketch: red-- before, blue after (just a sketch about the inclination)
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 08:21 PM |
|
|
do you mean this line?
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 10:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alfas
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Wishbone tubes parallel with the ground (how it reads to me) or an imaginary line between centre of the ball joint and the inner pivot bolt (which is
what you want)?
hmmm...which should be favoured?
just a shrt sketch: red-- before, blue after (just a sketch about the inclination)
Blue, you are now correct
|
|
|
40inches
|
| posted on 22/11/17 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
Blue!
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 23/11/17 at 09:25 AM |
|
|
The correct wishbone geometry sets the ride height, so, if it's too low you'll need bigger tyres/wheels or to move the stub axle up a tad
in a fabricational way.
If you're not on a track and/or don't require the best handling/camber control/etc./etc., then just wind up the platforms.
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 23/11/17 at 10:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Wishbone tubes parallel with the ground (how it reads to me) or an imaginary line between centre of the ball joint and the inner pivot bolt (which is
what you want)?
My thoughts...it's about pivot point centre points, not the wishbone tubes.
As I understand it the pivot point centres of the lower front wishbones should be parallel to the ground.
[Edited on 23/11/17 by nick205]
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 23/11/17 at 11:32 AM |
|
|
ok...got it....with the pivot-point-line parallel i will gain further ~10 to 15mm (i guess) on height....so the fnal result will be fine for a track
car.
sure you can always move things higher by fitting bigger wheels...but i need to consider having a x/flow with around 100BHP fitted....if the wheels
are too big, that small engine will not have enough power anymore to accelerate the car properly....which means fitting a shorter diff....so this
becomes and endless story.....
i also need to put into consideration fitting wheels where i get racing tyres for. so the choice is not as big as with a road-car.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 23/11/17 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
What's too low? 100mm should be fine for all but the biggest speed bumps.
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 27/11/17 at 12:48 PM |
|
|
today i viewed several pictures of rather modern caterhams...
interestingwise all are set with the lower wishbones parallel to ground
the "theorectical line" between pivot points would mean a different setting.
after this i searched around the web and found lots of entries in different forums around the world...all are talking about "set lower wishbones
parallel to ground"
"The rule of thumb for a seven still stands - parallel front lower wishbones "
now i´m confused...are all those cars wrongly setted?
[Edited on 27/11/17 by alfas]
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 27/11/17 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
The simple answer is...not simple. There may be an "as designed" position, but it's not wrong to modify suspension settings for an
individual choice/feel/tyre setup, shock type etc. There's a starting point, and some rules of thumb, but any car like this has adjustability
built in.
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 27/11/17 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Hi.
Its quite straight foward to get the best rideheight set but alot off the above is just typpical internet myth being recycled.
1. What size tyres are fitted.
2. What uprights.
3. How far is sump below chassis rails.
If you wish send u2u.
I
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 27/11/17 at 10:03 PM |
|
|
but the old cat/lotus cars had a triumph trunion as lower pivot point on the uprite. on those cars the pivot centre was definately above the
wishbone...like on locost´s or westifields....but also those cars are mostly set with lower wishbones parallel.
bumpsteer is the related problem i think...
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 30/11/17 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
today i recognized that the maxi balljoint is mounted, as with most seven-ish cars, above the lower wishbone.
if it would be mounted below, than the pivot-point line would also come lower, so more into direction of "lower wishoine should sit
parallel".
good idea, bad idea, crazy idea?
|
|
|
Irony
|
| posted on 1/12/17 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
 
Description
u2u me your email if you want a bigger version of this page
[Edited on 1/12/17 by Irony]
|
|
|
alfas
|
| posted on 3/12/17 at 12:10 AM |
|
|
sent u2u
|
|
|
