Sean
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 04:01 PM |
|
|
Caterham wishbone piics, Please!
Am I right in thinking that earlier Caterhams ran triumph front end suspension in terms of uprights but with their own wishbones? My kit uses the
front suspension from a triumph spitfire, which is far from aesthetic. What I would like to do is make up some new wishbones but retain the trunion
although poss changng the top bush for an adjustable one ( if there is a track rod iwth the correct taper ) if the caterham did indeed do this I would
like to see a picture to use as a pattern to get some made up.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
i believe some early robin hoods and locusts were triumph based, but from memory i think they retained the standard triumph wishbones/suspension which
is I suspect what you are hoping to change.
guess the above is pretty useless then really?! DOH!
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 04:48 PM |
|
|
Sean,
I cold not find a decent picture of the early Caterham wishbone, but this is a Lotus Series 2 (It might be a series 3) wishbone.
 
Rescued attachment sevBlouin212.jpg
Jon
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
I found this one. I believe it's a Caterham
 
Rescued attachment 0e_3.JPG
Jon
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
this is a picture of a Lotus 18 suspension. The lower wishbone is similar to an Lotus 7 or early Carerham design
http://www.atspeedimages.com/lotus18ref/sanehiro_nozaki/left_fr
ont_suspension.jpg
[Edited on 16/3/05 by JonBowden]
Jon
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
Already been discussed widely in the forum you will find a design for a lower wishbone on in the files area of the yahoo locost group or it would be
easy to adapt the standard Locost wisbones as Ken Walton did on his MGB locost.
Another alternative is making wishbone similar to the ones Spyder make for 60s Lotuses.
http://www.spydercars.co.uk/pg3_spy_tubular_wishbone.htm
 
Rescued attachment AVO-sus.gif
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 05:52 PM |
|
|
Another picture of the late Ken Walton's car
 
Rescued attachment front-susp.jpg
|
|
|
Sean
|
| posted on 16/3/05 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
Thanks guys that is all very helpful. I will check out the files. I'm not quiet sure what the upper one is doing. Is that a diff ball joint or a
track rod end. Or just my eyes not seeing it properly?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
Lotus/Caterham used a track control arm similar to that used as a lower arm on Fords with MacPherson struts, the anti-roll bar formed the front part
of the wishbone -- typical Chapman minimalism (or cost cutting ?)
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:07 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ned
i believe some early robin hoods and locusts were triumph based, but from memory i think they retained the standard triumph wishbones/suspension which
is I suspect what you are hoping to change.
guess the above is pretty useless then really?! DOH!
Ned.
Robin Hood used the Triumph Toledo-Dollomite-1500 front suspension the top ball joint was much the same as that on the Herald but the spring damper
unit acted on the top wishbone. Unlike the Herald the Toledo used a lower ball joint. Robin Hood put the spring loads through the lower ball joint
--- which was a puny thing that wasn't up to the job.
|
|
|
Sean
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 06:07 PM |
|
|
So if I want to go the way of the ford boys and make up an upper wishbone (which is adjustable using I think a track rod end Is there a similar
solution in terms of a track rod to fit the triumph upright?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
because of the taper size you are unlikely to find a trackrod end up to the job --- on Ford style suspension it works because the Transit drag link
end is pretty hefft bit of kit.
Use the Triumph ball joint make up a fork similar to Ken Waltons but using 2 bolts.
On a Clubmans racer have also seen it done by using a threaded rod TIG welded to Triumph ball joint (turned through 90 degrees) but strongly advise
against this the weld and bar would have to be to notch.
|
|
|
Sean
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 07:28 PM |
|
|
I suppose I could use some type of fork arrangement bracket with a bolt welded to it, to allow for adjustment. But as you say, it's in the
strength of the weld. However, I do have a mate who is a coded welder of all types. What dya think?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
Braze a nut on and use an HT fully threaded bolt going right through the U bracket that way it should be bullet proof.
|
|
|
madman280
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 04:19 PM |
|
|
The original triumph didn't use ball joints it used trunions. Ken used the triumph suspension as it came or of the car. Caterham and Lotus
subtituted the upper trunion for the truck tie rod end and used iot as a ball joint.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by madman280
The original triumph didn't use ball joints it used trunions. Ken used the triumph suspension as it came or of the car. Caterham and Lotus
subtituted the upper trunion for the truck tie rod end and used iot as a ball joint.
None of the above the Triumph Herald uses an upper balljoint but a lower trunnion.
Ken Waltons car has MG suspension becuse he based in on MGB donor.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 05:00 PM |
|
|
Triumph front suspension
 
Rescued attachment 18a.gif
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 05:07 PM |
|
|
MGB Front suspension which is what Ken used
 
Rescued attachment front-suspension.gif
|
|
|
Sean
|
| posted on 24/3/05 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
I see thanks for that. It does all look agricultural, but I suppose not designed to be seen like the wishbones of a cycle guard kit car. I will see
what my mate can come up with in stainless steel, for a better effect.
|
|
|
madman280
|
 posted on 25/3/05 at 12:22 AM |
|
|
Appoligies your right. Ken did use an MGB. Its easy for a half frozen Canadian to confuse antique british parts.
|
|
|
Sean
|
| posted on 28/3/05 at 04:16 PM |
|
|
I was actually at the Loton Park Hill climb on Sunday and there was an early caterham. This had an upright based on the triumph but had a ball joint
top and bottom. The upper being on an adjustable wishbone for camber. I wonder what ball joints these are. it was suggested they could be sherpa or
something similar.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 28/3/05 at 07:20 PM |
|
|
The Triumph upright can be machined to take a rose joint at the bottom but it isn't a good idea for a car intended for road use.
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 29/3/05 at 04:36 PM |
|
|
Don't top racecars use spherical joints for the bottom joints at the outside front? I'm sure i've seen this in pictures. They have a
lot more loading than a locost would have. and they get a hammering bumping over kerbs. Should be ok for a locost, shouldnt they?
Nev.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 29/3/05 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
Don't top racecars use spherical joints for the bottom joints at the outside front? I'm sure i've seen this in pictures. They have a
lot more loading than a locost would have. and they get a hammering bumping over kerbs. Should be ok for a locost, shouldnt they?
Nev.
Its not the loading its the dirt -- race car joints don't have to deal with road salt and are cleaned after every run.
|
|
|
