Actually I wonder if licencing in the USA will have anything against the original 2 tubes in the line of vision? - I'm sure Australia will object, hmmmm, that might decide it for me.
.
Edited by cheapracer, 30 December 2011 - 19:03.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 18:54
Edited by cheapracer, 30 December 2011 - 19:03.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 19:39
besides having 10,000% more vision than a modern car, Australian licencing would tell you to go away with the tubes going across your line of vision with the bottom 2 I am sure..
Actually I wonder if licencing in the USA will have anything against the original 2 tubes in the line of vision? - I'm sure Australia will object, hmmmm, that might decide it for me.
.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 19:42
Edited by 24gerrard, 30 December 2011 - 22:46.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 22:31
Some have commented that they worry about banging their head on them but the reality is your head is no where near them.
Posted 12 January 2012 - 17:38
Edited by carlt, 12 January 2012 - 22:42.
Posted 12 January 2012 - 19:03
Edited by Wolf, 12 January 2012 - 19:04.
Posted 12 January 2012 - 20:26
Edited by MatsNorway, 12 January 2012 - 20:26.
Posted 12 January 2012 - 20:54
Edited by Wolf, 12 January 2012 - 20:56.
Posted 12 January 2012 - 22:41
Posted 13 January 2012 - 06:44
Are you still using the centre geared pivot on the front axle beam ?
just had a look at the Welsor thread and it doesnt look like the axle is pivoting centrally on your diagrams ?
From the Welsor thread I see you have ditched the geared lateral link and gone for an 'A' frame
I'm interested as to how you got the 'A' frame and 4 links to work .
Conventionally on a rear axle it doesn't work geometrically
Edited by cheapracer, 13 January 2012 - 06:50.
Posted 13 January 2012 - 07:25
I've decided to do a quick sketch showing the gist of 'my invention' i.e. BumperWing, hahaha.
Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:45
You may have missed that the upper ball joints/upright is free to move where it wants to within the constraints of the upper radius rod's and lateral rod's arc motions.
Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:31
From the Welsor thread I see you have ditched the geared lateral link and gone for an 'A' frame
I'm interested as to how you got the 'A' frame and 4 links to work .
Conventionally on a rear axle it doesn't work geometrically
Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:57
What Welsor thread is this?
Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:04
Posted 13 January 2012 - 13:01
The Welsor thread, a good read...
http://forums.autosp...showtopic=90327
Posted 21 February 2012 - 15:56
Posted 21 February 2012 - 21:06
Advertisement
Posted 21 February 2012 - 21:52
Cheapy your lower "beam" (orange?) is over-constrained. In a situation where one wheel undergos jounce and the other rebound, the orange beam moves longitudinally towards the (red?) leading links and the (purple?) A frame wont allow that. You need a flexy beam.You may have missed that the upper ball joints/upright is free to move where it wants to within the constraints of the upper radius rod's and lateral rod's arc motions. A live rear axle has fixed mounts and of course a 3rd plane(?) will rigidify the movement.
And yes I did add the 'A' lateral link to my highly professional computer drawings ...
Purple = beam lateral link (and roll centre where it meets the beam).
Edited by gruntguru, 21 February 2012 - 21:55.
Posted 22 February 2012 - 00:13
Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:15
Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:24
Cheapy your lower "beam" (orange?) is over-constrained. In a situation where one wheel undergos jounce and the other rebound, the orange beam moves longitudinally towards the (red?) leading links and the (purple?) A frame wont allow that. You need a flexy beam.
Worse still, the (green?) chassis bulkhead clashes with everything else in your colour scheme.
Edited by cheapracer, 22 February 2012 - 08:36.
Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:07
Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:50
Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:44
In theory - is that A-frame actually needed at all? With those leading arms steeply angled in (as they are in the drawing) wouldn't this be enough to constrain the beam to just where it has to move?
Posted 22 February 2012 - 14:46
Yes, the A-frame is required. Without it the axle can move left simply by the right side of the axle moving forward and the left side of the axle moving rearward. I've done the layout work to reassure myself.
Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:09
Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:38
Sorry, somehow missed your reply. My problem has nothing to do with upper anythings. If you delete everything except the orange beam and the four links that locate it to the chassis. Lift one wheel to full bump travel. Lower the other wheel to full rebound travel. The two red links locating the ends of the beam will pull the beam closer to the chassis mounting plane. The A-link on the other hand, maintains the beam at a fixed distance from the chassis mounts so - conflict - overconstrained. In reality, the beam may have sufficient flex to bend the mm or two required.That rough drawing is taken from the real existing one that works just fine, you even just quoted this part; "You may have missed that the upper ball joints/upright is free to move where it wants to within the constraints of the upper radius rod's and lateral rod's arc motions" - the short lateral rods are not fixed to the beam, they are rose* jointed at either end and the upright is free to caster with the upper radius rod's length change (through it's arc).
Posted 12 March 2012 - 09:16
In reality, the beam may have sufficient flex to bend the mm or two required.
Edited by cheapracer, 12 March 2012 - 09:19.
Posted 12 March 2012 - 23:34
Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:15
Got it now - thanks Cheapy. Didn't realise the beam could roll.
Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:00
My first iteration was a full 5 link (4 radius rods and a Panhard rod) just for the beam location, then 2 more radius rods and 2 lateral rods for upper BJ - 9 rods, 18 rod ends (Bex or Watts link 10 and 20), I thought "hmmmm ......"
So now it's 5 and A-link and 13 rod ends combined.
Posted 13 March 2012 - 14:15
Leaf spring FTW!
;)
Posted 13 March 2012 - 15:07
Posted 13 March 2012 - 16:14
The contact patch won't care what type of spring is employed, only its rate.
Posted 13 March 2012 - 17:58
Posted 13 March 2012 - 22:51
Neither system is a substitute for a proper coil and damper setup.Rubber and multiple leafs have one advantage over coils and torsion bars in that they have self damping. Rubber just because it has and leaves because they rub against each other.
I always believed that was one of the Group 4 Mk2 Escorts advantages (the damping) and part of it's success, maybe not so much these days with the current damper tech - oh, and the beam axle of course!
Posted 13 March 2012 - 23:38
Leafsprings have high stiction, and then tend to have friction like damping, which makes them overdamped for small motions and underdamped for large ones.
Advertisement
Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:57
Which given the context of the discussion throws the baby out with the bathwater. Cheapy was saying that leafsprings provide damping, i was pointing out that it wasn't the right sort.Not if you use a single tapered leaf.
Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:15
Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:02
Cheapy was saying that leafsprings provide damping, i was pointing out that it wasn't the right sort.
Neither system is a substitute for a proper coil and damper setup.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:48
Edited by 24gerrard, 15 March 2012 - 11:52.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 18:23
.
This one is all original.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 22:41
We are repairing the front stub axles and welding repairs on some of the original body panels.
Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:48
Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:00
This one is all original.
Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:18
It 'seams' there is another 'gap' in your knowledge
Posted 16 March 2012 - 13:55
I was merely making a point regarding pedantry and cussed behaviorPossibly.
I cant say as I know of all the variations of build on the Lotus 6.
From your comment, you do.
So enlighten us.
Posted 17 March 2012 - 05:38
I was merely making a point regarding pedantry and cussed behavior
The bright yellow adjustable Spax are quite obviously not "all original"