|
|
Mar 22, 2012 20:34:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 22:11:04 GMT
|
Well, I am a total lay person, but the wishbone itself looks easily strong enough for the job. I would be a bit more concerned about rotational forces (from braking) trying to bend the studding connecting the rose joint to the wishbone.
|
|
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 22:16:13 GMT
|
I'd try and minimise the length of studding needed if possible. Could you do a bit of cunning cutting and make the tubes longer and bring them together around the threaded bush? Leaving out the flat bar would make it stronger IMHO. Like this:
|
|
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights. 1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 22:25:28 GMT
|
like scruff posted is the correct way to do it. i would always use a male rose joint fitted into a threaded tube rather than using plate like you have, the shear forces are very concentrated in your setup. or like ive just done my rear upper one-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 22:30:00 GMT
|
Tbh, inboard joints and and spherical bearing in a housing is far better than either in terms of strength, fatigue, stiffness and joint life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
problem is my shock absorber clearances i only got enough room for a bolt head on the back, i did think about making the threaded portion longer but wouldnt get the shortness i needed as the rose needs to come right up against the wishbone like this to minimise stress on the threaded portion i sunk it into that metal plate I'm goin home this weekend to grab my smaller shocks if i can make new mounts for these and the short enough i should be able too extend the threaded portion, also i will be using high tensile bolts instead off threaded bar, if i can eliminate the shock being in the way i can run a support through the middle also. more thoughts on that please?
|
|
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
|
OK understand now. Problem you will have with that is camber adjustment. If you use a male rose joint you will gain a bit more movement as the head is smaller. Look at this fine example, it can be made to fit, look how little room there is at the rose joint head and how much of your female rose joint sticks out:
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 23, 2012 8:57:01 GMT by scruff
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights. 1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
|
i get you now, yeah that makes way more sense, I'm ordering two male ends now, cheers guys
|
|
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
|
Keep us updated
|
|
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights. 1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
|
where did you get your roses from? i can on find suppliers that will do up to a 35mm threaded portion, do they come any longer than this? its M14 cheers
|
|
|
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
Mar 23, 2012 10:32:07 GMT
|
Rose joints are fairly standardised. You could do with making your wishbone to suit standard M14 joints if you can otherwise replacing them might be difficult in the future.
|
|
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights. 1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
Mar 26, 2012 14:15:51 GMT
|
You shouldn't need any more than 35mm threaded portion of the rod-end at all (in fact you shouldn't even need the full 35mm). The idea of using the male rod-end would be to make a longer wishbone that the male rod-end screwed strait into.
The point of this is that the rod-end is placed under a bending load when you brake, which is something rod ends aren't really designed to do. The less the rod-end sticks out, the less the leverage there is on it, and therefore the less the bending load is.
As phillipm says, the ideal solution would be to use a spherical joint rather than a rod-end at all, that way you eliminate all the bending loads, and only have a fully triangulated wishbone, with everything in tension and compression. You don't need to have adjustment in the wishbone anyway, as the camber can be much more securely adjusted by shimming the mounts to the front cross-member. If you really do want to use a rod-end, make it so it's screwed very nearly all the way in.
The strength of the rest of it looks fine though.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2012 14:19:21 GMT by RobinJI
|
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
|
Looks more than strong enough, there's a few unstressed areas that could be cut down or radiused to shave a fair bit of weight off it though.
Is there anything stopping you from running the rose joint above the hub rather than under it? It looks like it'd give much more favorable geometry that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything Robin said, looks more than strong enough now. It is good you have got rid of the studding, it is very poor structurally as it usually has cut thread creating big stress raisers. Mig will be fine for the wishbones, however TIG if available will be neater
|
|
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
|
Looking good. I assume that the joint is under to give a lower ride height? Is that camber right too or jsut a trial? Looks like you are out of -ve adjustment?
|
|
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights. 1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
|
i put the rose joint underneath because if it was on top the angle of the wishbones would be different and it would mess up my geometry as the suspension rises and gives me the wrong camber.
yeah they will be tidied up just need to do a trial run first
I'm not going to have much camber adjustment at al whitch is a bit annoying, from all this work ive only managed to drop the car a inch. ow well
cheers for the advice should be moving again in the next 2 weeks, i'll put up final photso of the assembly later
|
|
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
Aug 13, 2012 22:26:29 GMT
|
It would alter the geometry, but whether or not it'd mess it up is dependant on what you want from it. In almost all cases some increase in camber through the travel is a good thing, so as to help keep the wheels parallel to the road when the body's rolling during cornering. If you were to mount it to the top of the hub then it looks like it'd give you a reasonable amount of camber increase, where as at the moment you'll get little or none during the immediate travel. How much you want 'ideally' could be discussed for days, but generally an estimated reasonable amount will be better than none at all.
My only concern with that set-up would be that with it mounted above the rose joint looks like it may not have enough articulation in it to give you full travel, so it may not actually be possible anyway. You'd have to extend the arm a bit to get your camber at ride height back to a sensible amount, but I'm guessing that the wishbone is threaded, so the half nut could be moved to the outside of the wishbone to easily achieve this.
Of course if you're planning on running air-ride/hydraulics then ignore me, as you'll probably want unchanging camber so it stays correct at different ride heights.
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
Aug 13, 2012 22:38:33 GMT
|
seeing it in its proper context now, id also say you should have used a spherical bearing and housing rather than a rose joint. youd have a lot more clearance to the shock, thats for sure. and thats probaby the most critical bit.
are you doing all this solely to lower it then? tbh, youd have been better off spending the time and money on making a set of dropped spindles, theyd have been far more effective at lowering it (typically 2.5" is possible) and wouldnt have effected geometry/shock clearance, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2012 11:05:42 GMT
|
I would run that.
On the original setup with the female rod end and studding, it was actually Alan Staniforth that was an advocate of that arrangement when using rod ends in bending. Essentially, he realised that he was running them in a less-than-optimal arrangement and therefore he would need to replace the male threaded section more often than the bearing. Quality bolts are 2 a penny, quality bearings are expensive, therefore he could replace the weak link in the system regularly for peanuts.
|
|
1997 TVR Chimaera 2009 Westfield Megabusa
|
|
|