Lotus Elite: Lots of Trouble....EXCELlent news P33

Oooff, they made me go weak at the knees!

Need some like that for my Alpine too.

Thanks Pondy,

I don't know a massive amount about suspension geometry, but something about having a CV joint one end and a UJ at the other seems a bit wrong to me. I know the body is off in the pic (meaning the suspension will be higher) but with the drivesahft making those kind of angles, I wouldn't be happy with a UJ in there. The stock set-up doesn't run anwhere near that kind of angle.

They say the kit will eliminate UJ wear & replacement but they've still got a UJ running in there?? Not sure how they can claim that one??

How can it eliminate wheel bearing failure? They haven't changed the offset of the wheels or the track of the car, or the weight of the car so the load on the bearing will be the same surely?

From what I've seen, there would have to be something drastic occurring to break one of the 1/2" pins that locates the lower arm and radius arm.

I am happy to see reasons why I am wrong for being a bit suspicious of this kit, but from what I have seen of it in the link, I wouldn't expect to be paying much for it...it doesn't seem like the amazing solution they are promising (unless I am much mistaken?)

I do have a plan for the rear suspension, but want to get the current set-up correct and measurements taken before I start making jigs and rigs



Oh yes, I do indeed own them. I've had them about 3 months now and I had bought them for another project which, for various reasons, won't be happening. Let's just say a Lotus took over.

Me posting them up here was actually a bit of a red-herring simply because MDH had asked if I was going to be fitting BBS wheels. I offered them up the other day, they looked good, but they certainly didn't look 'WOW' - they just didn't suit the car enough to make me want to fit them....so yesterday I put them up for sale on E38 (I think you have to be a member to view, but the advert is here with LOTS of photos: www.edition38.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=427901 )

Mark, if you are serious about wanting a set for the Alpine, now is your chance. 16" RS's aren't very common at all so give me a shout if you think you would like them?

Sorry to throw you off the scent a bit guys, but you should know by now that I'm not going to give something as important as wheel choice away at this stage. Especially when they are a lot rarer and (IMHO) a hell of a lot cooler than some 16" BBS's ;D ;D

I have to disagree with you on the upper arm conversion kit, I think you are over simplifying it, drawing out an internal forces diagram will help visualise it..

The thing is it drastically reduces load on the wheel bearing because it changes how the forces act on it, the twisting forces placed on it by being used as the anchor point for the top link are huge, in this new kit the forces are sent virtually straight out front the tyre/wheel at a very acute angle and straight through the 'new' top link and the only force on the wheel bearings are the normal ones imposed by the weight of the car. The leverage exerted on them is only as much as the furthest outside point of the tyres contact to the centre of the spindle/bearing area, rather than acting directly through the bearing effectively using the driveshaft as a flipping great lever.

The UJ thing is a no brainer, instead of the whole weight of the car (on that corner) and all cornering forces being held in place by a UJ in tension or compression it is all transferred into (and through) the top link. These cars get through UJ's and wheel bearings at an alarming rate unless greased religiously with a decent top link they should last as well as any other as they are relieved of pretty much all of the offset torsional loading only having to deal with the linear torque transfer they are designed to do, if your going to fit big wheels ect i'd consider something like this to be essential.

The angle thing in that photo is completely irrelevant that is not set at an operational angle as you correctly noted the car is stripped 75% of the weight that chassis should carry isn’t there! The CV+ UJ thing is fine many cars use this setup stock including some Jeeps and they have a hard life towing and off roading ect no problems I look after many Jeeps and never had to change one yet compared to zillions of Land Rover Range Rover UJ's... In fact it about the only bit that doesn’t brake!

Thanks Ed & Sonus,

I might have just sold the BBS (possibly being collected tomorrow) so I don't think I'll have chance to get them offered up to Rich's MG in time. If it all falls through then I'll be happy to offer them onto Rich's car and get some shots (the tyres are rather large for an MG!)

Ed, I am glad you posted all that info up, it's exactly why I mentioned I'm no suspension expert. Now you've said it, it all makes sense....

It did lead me to search for more info on the Spider rear suspension conversion and I found this interesting comment online:

"I installed the Spyder system when the chassis was rebuilt and ran it for three years. The problem was that I was never really satisfied with the handling of the car at the rear, and I had so little experience of the original Lotus design I had nothing to make a comparison with. It just felt wrong, so I was forever adjusting the rear wheel camber angles (the upper link allows for this), toe in etc. The car always felt twitchy and any steering change mid corner felt as though it would snap into oversteer. An Elite should be better than this.

It was Pat Thomas who finally confirmed what I had been thinking; the car suffers from roll-over oversteer, which explains why mid-corner changes were so unsettling.

If you look in the Lotus Workshop manual you will see a general layout diagram of the rear suspension. This may have been how the designer originally intended it to be as the drive shafts are parallel with the road, but production Elites are just not like this. Unless the car is heavily laden, or has sagging springs or a collapsing cross-member, the driveshafts will angle downwards. That's OK as they are still parallel with the lower link which means that the roll centre will be just above ground level. Now add in Spyders' upper link to the drawing and it is clear that as the link rises at the outboard end the roll centre rises and it goes way above ground level. (The front also has the roll centre just above ground level and should be a little lower than the rear for stability).

In my opinion this is the source of the problem: the pivot for the upper link, either inboard or outboard is in the wrong place!

The Proof

When you buy the Spyder system they take your original driveshafts and convert them to fit the new inboard CV joints by machining a spline onto the shaft. Thus, they are consumed by the conversion. Having reached my conclusion I bought a second hand set of driveshafts complete with alloy hubs ready to fit. It is easy to unbolt the Spyder system and fit the original design. Within 10 minutes of driving the car my confidence in its handling and roadholding ability at the rear just soared. Fantastic! All this time I had been missing out on the Elites legendary roadholding."

Now, I don't for one minute understand all the things about roll centre etc...but in jargon free (understandable to me) terms, the fact he says the car was transformed when returned to stock rear suspension worries me a little about the principle of changing the current design completely.

I also found this comment:

"the drive shaft UJ's will need rebuilding every 25,000 miles and the diff will eventually leak oil over the inboard drum brakes, thereby necessitating new diff seals and new brake shoes."

I know it's not ideal when comparing it to the mileage that other cars can acheive, but I personally don't have a problem if the rebuild rate is as 'low' as 25,000 miles. I reckon it would take a good few years for me to do that kind of mileage (probably 6-8 years if my estimations are correct?) - that's a kind of figure I can live with in the context of how much I'll be using the car.

I'm certainly not going to be making any final decisions or changes for a while, more just plotting through ideas in my head at the moment.

I'm relieved you'r not putting BBS RS on it! I think they'r one of the most overrated wheels ever period, and rarely look realy good on anything but some BMWs. Same for the Elite; I couldn't picture it with BBS... There it is, I came out. I hate BBS RS ;D

You're not the only one. Although they look good in most applications, I don't like them because they are an 'easy choice', and often show no imagination on behalf of the owner.

Thread is now here ;)

Was hoping to see the BBS's make it to the Lotus for real, but alas, needs must! Good updates so far dude

[/quote]

Mark, if you are serious about wanting a set for the Alpine, now is your chance. 16" RS's aren't very common at all so give me a shout if you think you would like them?

Sorry to throw you off the scent a bit guys, but you should know by now that I'm not going to give something as important as wheel choice away at this stage. Especially when they are a lot rarer and (IMHO) a hell of a lot cooler than some 16" BBS's ;D ;D
[/quote]

Tease! 😝

The Alpine is 4x100 though and needs some crazy stagger.

update needed!!!