A bit of info for those people who have expressed an interest in the photo of a GT6 rear suspension in my photo archive.
It is not my design but that of a chap called Jango. Info can be found on the Club Triumph website under the post titled "jango GT6 rear end ect". Also of interest on www.spit6.co.uk. is "rebuilding and modifiying a MK11 Triumph Spitfire".

I would put a link to these pages but I do not know how and the time to learn this feature is better spent on completing my Locost (12yrs and counting, completing the final build, again).

If anyone is interested in a dismantled GT6 MK2 for £500 gave a look in my photo archive under GT6 PROJECT. Bodywork is solid ideal for a replacment motor and running gear project.

Triumph forum won't let non members search. Can you tell me what page the jango thread is on. I have searched back 6 pages in the spit/GT6 area and it is a very slow forum.

I think you will have to register as a member of the site to do a search. The IRS posts start on page 5 of Jangos posts.
Look for "new rear end set up".
If you Google "jango GT6" it will take you straight there.

[Edited on 8/10/11 by spiderman]

[Edited on 8/10/11 by spiderman]

http://club.triumph.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum10/Blah.pl/Blah.pl?m-1258933165/s-34/highlight-jango+GT6+rear/#num34

That the one?

Yes that's the one.
Thanks for the link Cliftyhanger.

He also has some good video footage on "YOU TUBE"

I'm rebuilding a MK3 GT6 at the moment. This is fitted with the latest development of the transverse spring, the "Swing Spring". Now I am quite ready to be shot down by others more knowledgeable than I, but I cannot understand anybody designing such a crude system. The previous offering, the Rotoflex seems to be moving along the right lines with a lower wishbone and a driveshaft articulated at both ends. I've been told that it was superseded by the swing spring as soon as BL cost accountants got hold of it. Apart from cost, I can see nothing to commend it and I have examined it very closely. The only drawbacks that I can spot with the Rotoflex is the short life of the rubber coupling and the weight of the wishbone/hub assembly.

So please correct me if I've missed something vital but I would have thought that a much easier and less arduous route to a decent rear suspension on a GT6 would be based on the Rotoflex design rather than the more radical approach of chopping off the chassis and welding on a fabricated rear end although I agree it has been beautifully executed. Driveshafts with CV joints are available to eliminate the rubber coupling so that's a start.

As mention by cliftyhanger with the link, PRI in the States do an expensive IRS conversion base on the swing spring. They replace the transverse spring with two pivoted arms as in the picture. Now, I would have thought this approach together with the rotoflex lower wishbone and cv jointed driveshafts would be the ultimate. All bolt-on and no grey areas involving IVA.

This is a subject which interests me so I'd be very interested in your thoughts.


Description

John

[Edited on 9/10/11 by John Bonnett]

[Edited on 9/10/11 by John Bonnett]

John, the swing spring was aeither a stroke of genius or sheer good luck.
It is way way better than the early "swing axle" design that many associate with the small chassis triumphs, and not a million miles off the rotoflex performance. partly I suspect because of the reduced weight.
The PRI effort looks to be an expensive waste of time and money. Replacing the spring with a wishbone and a spring, but keeping the so;id shaft. Sheer bananas.
Yes, a system as you describe, keeping the cahssis intact, would be a clever idea. Just needs somebody to do the donkey work. FWIW I am using rotoflex with CV shafts. The lower wishbone attachment is a little lower (25mm) and further out (5mm) than factory, and with a spring spacer it is hopefully going to give small camber changes and keep it mainly negative except under extreme droop. Not my R+D, I stole the ideas

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliftyhanger
John, the swing spring was aeither a stroke of genius or sheer good luck.
It is way way better than the early "swing axle" design that many associate with the small chassis triumphs, and not a million miles off the rotoflex performance. partly I suspect because of the reduced weight.
The PRI effort looks to be an expensive waste of time and money. Replacing the spring with a wishbone and a spring, but keeping the so;id shaft. Sheer bananas.
Yes, a system as you describe, keeping the cahssis intact, would be a clever idea. Just needs somebody to do the donkey work. FWIW I am using rotoflex with CV shafts. The lower wishbone attachment is a little lower (25mm) and further out (5mm) than factory, and with a spring spacer it is hopefully going to give small camber changes and keep it mainly negative except under extreme droop. Not my R+D, I stole the ideas

---

quote:

---

As mention by cliftyhanger with the link, PRI in the States do an expensive IRS conversion base on the swing spring. They replace the transverse spring with two pivoted arms as in the picture. Now, I would have thought this approach together with the rotoflex lower wishbone and cv jointed driveshafts would be the ultimate. All bolt-on and no grey areas involving IVA.

This is a subject which interests me so I'd be very interested in your thoughts.


Description

John

Thats the sort of mod I am considering in the future, but I find the standard rotoflex system is more than capable with a standard motor, however as I plan to upgrade motor I would like to upgrade the rear end for a little more adjustability and more choice on spring rates ect.

There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST friendlywhich you may find of interest.

[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]

---

John Bonnett - 9/10/11 at 12:39 PM

There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST friendlywhich you may find of interest.

[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]

---

John, years ago I built a sprint powered mk3 spitfire. Great car, fast, economical.
However, the one thing that stood out the most was the swap from the early spring setup to the late swingspring. Meant I could go round corners without soiling myself
Actually, the 130+bhp the engine produced was entertaining, can't deny that.

The missus drove that car to work until she was so pregnantly large she physically couldn't get behind the wheel. Still miss it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Bonnett
There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST friendlywhich you may find of interest.

[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]

---

Description

this is similar to what i want to do
full details on
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm

http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by geordielad

Description

this is similar to what i want to do
full details on
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm

---

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=146283

http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=readersrides&action=display&thread=92009
Jacko

[Edited on 19/11/11 by jacko]