Both eyes should be parallel to each other and on axis with the axle and the trailing arm pivots IMHO
Caber
Apologies if this topic has been covered before, but I’ve had a good search and not found anything.
Basically, I bought a De-dion axle which has mounting brackets for the shocks at 90 degrees from the ‘book’ brackets as welded to a live axle.
My question is, should I mount the top brackets to the chassis 90 degrees to the book design to match the axle? If so, I’m going to have to make some
modifications in that area to allow me to get the bolt through.
Alternatively, would there be excessive stress on the shocks if I keep the book design for the top bracket and have the two ends of the shocks at 90
degs to each other?
Hope that makes sense?
Thanks,
Bill
As long as the shock body sits vertically (at 90deg to each mounting) it should be fine, I can't see how it would cause a problem.
Cheers
Alex
I think I disagree with Alex on this! The deDion axle will describe an arc as it moves because of the trailing arms constraining the movement if the
axis of both bushes are not parallel to the axis of the trailing arm pivots you will have problems, either bushes that need replacing very frequently
or worse the eye that is not parallel to the trailing arm will break off the shock absorber!
Both eyes should be parallel to each other and on axis with the axle and the trailing arm pivots IMHO
Caber
I stand corrected 
(damn, making a habit of this 
)
But will the panhard not cause the same problem then, or is the effect reduced enough by its extra length?
Thinking about it I suppose it must be okay or someone would have noticed by now
Cheers
Alex
Can't see it being a big problem. Tha axle moves in an arc in both planes and so shockers have either compliant bushes or rose joint which allow for some sideways movement.
Thanks for the replies.
Trouble is I can see both points of view on this
But as gazza285 says, the axle moves in an arc in both planes. Even if both ends of the shock are oriented the same way, they'll still have to
give in the oposite plane regardless of if they are parallel with, or at 90 degs to the axle?
Yes it does arc in both directions however reason for making the Panhard Rod as long as possible is to increase radius of arc to minimise sideways
displacement , trailing arms are a lot shorter therefore radius of arc is much shorter resulting in a lot more movement front to back than side to
side that is why my money is on having rotational axis of coilover bushes on same axis as majr movement.
Caber
But there are two trailing arms and only one panhard rod 
. I would decide which way round you are putting them and then have top and bottom the same
orientation. Whichever is easiest gets my vote.
quote:
Originally posted by caber
Yes it does arc in both directions however reason for making the Panhard Rod as long as possible is to increase radius of arc to minimise sideways displacement , trailing arms are a lot shorter therefore radius of arc is much shorter resulting in a lot more movement front to back than side to side that is why my money is on having rotational axis of coilover bushes on same axis as majr movement.
Caber
You could always use a Watts link to eliminate the side ways movement. Only have to worry about for-aft then, and can orientate the shocks accordingly.
So much easier to draw than to explain, but i'll have a go.
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 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.
Does that make any sense at all?
It's late, and i've had a couple
That is where i went wrong then, forgot to have a beer b4 thinking about it
Glad you explained that John as I've got my brackets on wrong!
Cheers
Alex
PS
Just tacked so no big problem, but never even thought about it
I've always thought the book design was wrong, the arrangement used on the de-dion axles makes much more sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
You could always use a Watts link to eliminate the side ways movement. Only have to worry about for-aft then, and can orientate the shocks accordingly.
.
quote:
Originally posted by jroberts
So much easier to draw than to explain, but i'll have a go.
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 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.
Does that make any sense at all?
It's late, and i've had a couple