omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
Suspension mounts
OK following a few discussions locally the questions about shock absorber bracket orientation needs discussion.
The questions relate to the bolt orientation on a live axle with rubber bushes. Taking into account the (albeit) arc of the rising/falling axle and
the torsional twisting of (limited) body roll.
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
never thought about it tbh, but markh snapped a shocker, he had it like everyone else does, side to side. Actually makes a lot of sense to me having
it front back now you mention it.
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
Damn, I clicked the wrong one... muppet
Take one away from side to side please!
I asked this a while back and the answer was front to rear, as there is more side to side axle twist during bump/droop, and as my shocks angle in
slightly it makes the effect even worse.
Does that help or just confuse?  
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
never thought about it tbh, but markh snapped a shocker, he had it like everyone else does, side to side. Actually makes a lot of sense to me having
it front back now you mention it.
Mine arnt like everyone else's, front to rear here.
|
|
|
jamesbond007ltk
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
Have got mine side to side, but they are on spherical bearings so have some movement in both directions.
Saying that i can really see the point in front to back. Especially as the panhard rod forces a sideways arc in addition to that of the trailing arms.
How about if you were using a watts linkage?
Rich
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Does that help or just confuse?
Well the way I see it is that the twist of body roll must try to bend a shock with the bolts side to side (or knacker the bushes) and the arc of a
rising/falling axle will do the same on a front to rear bolt alignment but I doubt it'd be as much as the body roll. Ideally spherical bearings
would be the only answer but I reckon most will have gone the side to side route (as per the book IIRC). As I'm at this stage and the bracket on
the axle is already side to side I now have a dillema (AGAIN) as I'm really quite pleased with the way the axles looking. On the upside
I've done what I think is a good job with a rear disc conversion using fiesta discs and golf callipers and they fit within 13 inch wheels (JUST)
and it was all guess work.
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
Definately front to rear for me, the same as the front shocks in fact !
All you have to do is imagine an excessive amount of travel to justify this, even if in reality its only a couple of inches.
Regards Mark
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:45 PM |
|
|
Front to back would be easier to get the shocker out after (wheel arch gets in the way of a side to side).
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
I've gone front to back, as I think the biggest movement is required sideways.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 06:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
Front to back would be easier to get the shocker out after (wheel arch gets in the way of a side to side).
Pat...
we had to chisel part of the arch off to get a socket in
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 07:04 PM |
|
|
Found the post I was looking for
quote:
Originally posted by jroberts
When mounted with the bolts of the shock facing front to rear, the shock bush will cope with the amount of movement that is generated from vertical
movement of the trailing arms.
If you were to mount them with the bolts facing left to right, the bush in the shock would have to allow for a situation where an extreme may occur,
4" compresion on one wheel and 4" drop on the other, for instance.
Where the most movement occurs is side to side, so the shock has to be mounted to allow torsional twist to happen.
It would be the same as turning your wishbone bushes through 90 degrees, so the bolts were vertical and still expect the front end to have
suspension.
Linky
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
could you not mount the bottom ones diffrent to the top ones then it would allow movement both ways.
adam
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 07:13 PM |
|
|
Mmmmmmmm Good link Alex it looks like another Mk3 version of the axle is required. Ho Hum
Adam I could still mount the top front to rear I'll need to ponder it for a while. Adam
[Edited on 27/7/07 by omega 24 v6]
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
ha ha i take my last post back i dont think it would work lol. it would stop it moving both ways.adam
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 08:18 PM |
|
|
Well I've been out and had a look and the axle movement front to rear on full travel from the level position is +or- 5mm. However the torsional
movement is as the earlier post said HORRENDOUS. Looks like the angry tool will be required tommorrow on the plus side I'm working in the
morning so I'll need to be quick and get a couple of cutting discs.
[Edited on 27/7/07 by omega 24 v6]
Thanks to all that posted and for all those that veiwed and did not post a vote I wonder how many of you have got a nigling(sp) doubt in your head now
(over a hundred views and less than half voted.
[Edited on 27/7/07 by omega 24 v6]
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by omega 24 v6
Well I've been out and had a look and the axle movement front to rear on full travel from the level position is +or- 5mm. However the torsional
movement is as the earlier post said HORRENDOUS. Looks like the angry tool will be required tommorrow on the plus side I'm working in the
morning so I'll need to be quick and get a couple of cutting discs.
[Edited on 27/7/07 by omega 24 v6]
Thanks to all that posted and for all those that veiwed and did not post a vote I wonder how many of you have got a nigling(sp) doubt in your head now
(over a hundred views and less than half voted.
[Edited on 27/7/07 by omega 24 v6]
If it's any consolation (probably not though) I had to do the same thing
It really brings it home when you see the movement the axle goes thru on bump/droop
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
iam at this part putting the de dion on my saxo and thought about the bushs iam gonna mount them side to side.because they will have the movment in
the bush up and down the panhard rod should keep it from moving side to side to stop the side loading. and in the arc in the wheels with one up and
one down the bushs should take the arc movment because there wont be much. but if you mount them front to back the trailing arms acts as a scissor so
you would be loading the shock bolts and i think you would get stress fracture in the shock mounts.
adam
[Edited on 27/7/07 by oadamo]
[Edited on 27/7/07 by oadamo]
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
It really brings it home when you see the movement the axle goes thru on bump/droop
Does'nt it just
Oadamo I reckon if it was irs or trailing wishbones then it'd need to be side to side. But not in the case of a live axle. Ah well you live and
learn. An old teacher of mines said if you go to bed having learnt something new then the day hasn't been wasted. Looks like he never built a
locost LOL
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by omega 24 v6
quote:
It really brings it home when you see the movement the axle goes thru on bump/droop
Does'nt it just
Oadamo I reckon if it was irs or trailing wishbones then it'd need to be side to side. But not in the case of a live axle. Ah well you live and
learn. An old teacher of mines said if you go to bed having learnt something new then the day hasn't been wasted. Looks like he never built a
locost LOL
if you see a saxo with the back end thats fell off thats me
adam
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 27/7/07 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
I have shockers with a turret type mount on rubber bushes at the top so they have full rotational motion at the top. The bottom is mounted off the top
axle mounting bolt so rotates in line with the axle. I think this is the original Westfield solution to the problem.
Caber
|
|
|
Angel Acevedo
|
| posted on 28/7/07 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
Vote for option not listed:
90 degrees between both to get a virtual U-Joint.
Direction of bolts depending on preference and space constraints.
$ 0.02 (Mexican Peso cents....)
Beware of what you wish.. for it may come true....
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 28/7/07 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
90 degrees between both to get a virtual U-Joint.
Surely thats the same as option 3 or 4???
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
robertst
|
| posted on 29/7/07 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
A simple drawing should clear all kinds of doubts and close this can of worms FOREVER
[Edited on 29/7/07 by robertst]
 
Rescued attachment why.jpg
Tom
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 29/7/07 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
Sorry robertst BUT what about the torsional twist on a live axle??? I was going the side to side route until I put it all together hence the poll to
see what others have done. As you can see most have gone front to rear and I hope they all read the original post about the axle being a live one.
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 29/7/07 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by omega 24 v6
Sorry robertst BUT what about the torsional twist on a live axle???
I agree, IME the angular bush movement required is far greater in roll than it is in simple bump or droop.
The diagram is also a little misleading, the shock should be as vertical as possible from the top mounting to the axle, as the axle moves up and down
looking from the side there is very little rotation at the shock mounting point, just a small amount of fore-aft movement due to the arc of the
axle.
That said, there are a lot of locosts with the bushes mounted sideways out there, and I've not read much on shock mounting failures.
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
