Jump to content


Photo

What do you think Guys?


  • Please log in to reply
466 replies to this topic

#401 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 30 December 2011 - 18:54

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..

Posted Image


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.


Advertisement

#402 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 30 December 2011 - 18:59

Narwhal.


#403 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 243 posts
  • Joined: September 02

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..

Posted Image


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.

.


to get into and out of, would having the tubes hinged at the front and lock (large overcenter clicp latch, underside) at the top be worth considering?

#404 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 December 2011 - 19:42

Posted Image

Hmmm good fun this rendering lark, might have another go.
Bit difficult with a touch pad though.
Thought it needed to be self energizing cheapy.

Edited by 24gerrard, 30 December 2011 - 22:46.


#405 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 764 posts
  • Joined: March 04

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.


I suspect rego authorities would require padding on those tubes.

Not having seen the real thing Cheapy, I am not sure how far the body is from those bars, but in any decent shunt the head and arms move much more than most people imagine. You of course are not 'most people' ... :lol:

#406 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 January 2012 - 17:38

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 ?

Doh !

overlooked the 'A' frame

Edited by carlt, 12 January 2012 - 22:42.


#407 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 12 January 2012 - 19:03

I quite like it Cheapracer... but can't help wondering how would it look with '70ies F1 nose in place of the small winglets/whiskers (you know, full width of the car, airfoil shaped and used to deflect the airflow from the wheels to reduce drag without having fenders; you could maybe even get away with endplates*)... If it would also turn out aerodynamically sound, you could sell it as aftermarket/upgrade option.;)

* and I think it could easily be done as 'bolt-on' solution (with your permission, I could deface one of those pretty pictures of yours to show what I mean)

Edited by Wolf, 12 January 2012 - 19:04.


#408 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 January 2012 - 20:26

Just give me some damn CAD drawings and ill show you some options. Even got 3ds max i can test if Inventor does not satisfy me.

Edited by MatsNorway, 12 January 2012 - 20:26.


#409 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 12 January 2012 - 20:54

Well, I couldn't wait for permissions, so I added the winglet anyways, but then decided to go a step further... I'm no fan of splitters (and believe it or not, I've seen them added to road cars!) and common type wings on road cars, I've decided to do a quick sketch showing the gist of 'my invention' i.e. BumperWing, hahaha.

Posted Image


And here's the way I'd do it- since if I'm to accidentaly run over somebody, I'd rather break their leg than chop ther feet off with something sharp. I'd stick the wing a bit more in front, to serve as bumper, and use thicker profile airfoil in order to use steel tube as leading edge cum bumper... One can use low density foam as a core of the winglet, or styrofoam which I believe can be, after the GRP is cured, dissolved by gasoline, leaving the hollow profile (and owner with a small quantity of byproduct*). I appologize for the sketchiness of the representation- I've neither included the means of mounting, nor properly closed GRP sections, &c...

Posted Image


* needles to say, this byproduct has it's own purposes, but we best not go into that... ;)

Edited by Wolf, 12 January 2012 - 20:56.


#410 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 January 2012 - 22:41

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

#411 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

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 ?


At the moment for pre production cars the 'A' lateral link allows me to adjust the front roll center in minutes merely undoing the bolt and adding/subtracting spacers so I'll see what that offers first before deciding which link to use - if the FRC ends up suitably high I may even go to a simple Panhard rod.


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


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).

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

For those of you who understand the movement, the upper radius rods are longer/lower shorter and that's how caster is gained in bump.

Edited by cheapracer, 13 January 2012 - 06:50.


#412 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 January 2012 - 07:25

I've decided to do a quick sketch showing the gist of 'my invention' i.e. BumperWing, hahaha.


I could start a whole new line ...

Posted Image


#413 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

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.



too many colours man :)

#414 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 865 posts
  • Joined: October 10

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


What Welsor thread is this?

#415 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:57

What Welsor thread is this?


Do you know the secret handshake?


#416 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:04

The Welsor thread, a good read...

http://forums.autosp...showtopic=90327

#417 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 865 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 13 January 2012 - 13:01

The Welsor thread, a good read...

http://forums.autosp...showtopic=90327


Thank you Cheapy - extremely interesting. As they say - they don't build them like that anymore (which is a pity).

#418 Defiant00

Defiant00
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 February 2012 - 15:56

So, any new info/progress?

#419 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 February 2012 - 21:06

1st pre-production car is in the jig now - optimising this and that then get a run started soon and get the first box shipped to the US of Americaland.

Advertisement

#420 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 February 2012 - 21:52

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).

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

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 gruntguru, 21 February 2012 - 21:55.


#421 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 22 February 2012 - 00:13

You'll be telling him next that he can't wear yellow laces in his purple Doc Martens! You fashion police...

#422 Johan Lekas

Johan Lekas
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:15

I don't think it's over-constrained (at least not within limits):
The (orange) beam is constrained by three points; the tip of the A-arm (purple) and the two lower longitudal arms (red)
The top joint of the upright has to be on a circle around a line trough the lower upright joint and the joint where the dark blue arm meets the beam
So as long as the upper longitudal arm from the chassis can reach this circle the design is not over-constrained

#423 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

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.


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).

The whole point of it is to allow caster differences left to right that a normal beam can not offer unless rotation is allowed for in the middle of the beam like the Welsor was (or a twist beam such as some FWD cars have at the rear).

*What's a heim joint and a rose joint? - same just originally the H.G. Heim Company Co. produced them in the USA and the Rose Bearings Co. Ltd in the UK.


Worse still, the (green?) chassis bulkhead clashes with everything else in your colour scheme.


Yes, so I've decided to go with mauve instead.

Edited by cheapracer, 22 February 2012 - 08:36.


#424 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:07

Posted Image

#425 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 865 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:50

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.

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?





#426 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

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?


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.

#427 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

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.


Indeed, many a lateral link would service but the A-link provides 3 advantages, RC is adjustable in seconds using only spacers, acts as a "3rd link"* and is in the middle of the beam which allows for a lighter beam as the main load is only for half the length of the beam in comparison to say a Panhard rod.

*The lower radius rods and A-link need to be mounted at different heights on the beam to stop it rolling - I actually started out with a 4 link and Panhard just for the beam then 2 more for the upper ball joints making a 7 link!

There is also a packaging layout advantage considering the whole system combined, the chassis lateral that mounts the 2 A-link pivots is already there to support the lower radius arm mounts and allows for simple chassis triangulation as shown below ..

Posted Image


#428 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 12 March 2012 - 00:09

I have no experience with location of beams and de Dions, but has slider as means of locating been used only with leaf springs (or some sort of additional was used with coil springs)? The reason I ask is that I have an oddball idea that could turn the sliding joint into ARB with adjustable roll damper...

#429 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:38

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).

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.

#430 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 March 2012 - 09:16

In reality, the beam may have sufficient flex to bend the mm or two required.


You don't seem to see it, the A-link pivot and radius rod's pivots are not on the same horizontal plane so the beam merely rolls exactly as a 3 link setup's axle rolls when one radius rod's chord length is changed while transversing through it's arc. It's not just the radius rod's that change the caster, it's also this roll that dynamically changes the lower ball joints longitudinal position relative to the car - not that theres a lot of roll as the links (A-link and lower radius rods) are very close to being the same length anyway.

Go look at some Hot Rod or Off Road vehicle's common 3 link setups.

Edited by cheapracer, 12 March 2012 - 09:19.


#431 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 23:34

Got it now - thanks Cheapy. Didn't realise the beam could roll.

#432 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:15

Got it now - thanks Cheapy. Didn't realise the beam could roll.


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 ......" :lol:

So now it's 5 and A-link and 13 rod ends combined.


#433 Fondles

Fondles
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: July 11

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 ......" :lol:

So now it's 5 and A-link and 13 rod ends combined.



Leaf spring FTW!
;)

#434 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 14:15

Leaf spring FTW!
;)


Can do great things with them, problem is public acceptance ....


#435 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,924 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 March 2012 - 15:07

The contact patch won't care what type of spring is employed, only its rate. If a leaf spring make sense from a packaging perspective I can't see any reason not to use one.

#436 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 16:14

The contact patch won't care what type of spring is employed, only its rate.


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!  ;)


#437 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 13 March 2012 - 17:58

And as they would put it in real estate business- 'location, location, location'. :lol:

#438 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 March 2012 - 22:51

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! ;)

Neither system is a substitute for a proper coil and damper setup.

Leafsprings have high stiction, and then tend to have friction like damping, which makes them overdamped for small motions and underdamped for large ones.

Simple rubber bushes have frequency and amplitude dependent damping, which a skilled blender can modify somewhat, independently of the rate of the bush. They do have the fantastic advanatge of no friction. Of course you can add internal mechanisms to the bush, when it is called a hydrobush, and those can get as complicated as you want. You can't get much damping out of them in road damper terms as you'll cook the rubber in no time flat, but for specific frequencies etc they are very clever.

#439 Fondles

Fondles
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: July 11

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.


Not if you use a single tapered leaf. Works well on light cars.
And in any case I think it's possible to ceramic coat the leaves so they don't suffer from the sticktion problem so much if you need multiples.


Advertisement

#440 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:57

Not if you use a single tapered leaf.

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.

#441 Fondles

Fondles
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:15

I would also only use them as a spring, not for location.
I can't see a problem with that.

#442 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:02


Cheapy was saying that leafsprings provide damping, i was pointing out that it wasn't the right sort.


Kind of but I was referring mainly to the Group 4 Mk2 Escort that had considerable success in it's day when dampers were fairly basic still, especially in long, rough rallies (against IRS cars) and I always considered that may have been partly due to the springs having extra damping and not solely relying on the dampers which faded rather rapidly unlike today.

Neither system is a substitute for a proper coil and damper setup.


As I mentioned, "maybe not so much these days with the current damper tech..." :)




#443 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:48

Thought you might like to see a proper beam axle car one of less than 200 made.
Colin Chapmans first real production car, the Lotus 6.
This one is all original.
We are repairing the front stub axles and welding repairs on some of the original body panels.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Prefect E93A modified front suspension.
This one has the 100E side valve engine. Some had the older E93A engine with white metal bearings and non adjustable tappets.
I have cast new bearings for one of them.

Edited by 24gerrard, 15 March 2012 - 11:52.


#444 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 18:23

.
This one is all original.


Posted Image



it most certainly is not !

#445 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 764 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2012 - 22:41

We are repairing the front stub axles and welding repairs on some of the original body panels.


The gearbox is fine, trust me on that. Please.

 ;)

#446 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:48

:up:

#447 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:00

This one is all original.



It 'seams' there is another 'gap' in your knowledge

#448 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:18

It 'seams' there is another 'gap' in your knowledge


Possibly.
I cant say as I know of all the variations of build on the Lotus 6.
From your comment, you do.
So enlighten us.

#449 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 March 2012 - 13:55

Possibly.
I cant say as I know of all the variations of build on the Lotus 6.
From your comment, you do.
So enlighten us.

I was merely making a point regarding pedantry and cussed behavior
The bright yellow adjustable Spax are quite obviously not "all original"

#450 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 865 posts
  • Joined: October 10

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"


A very nice little car.