craig1410
|
| posted on 17/4/03 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
Paul,
I was assuming that the drill was just used as an accurate alignment rod, not as a drill. If it was used to drill them then maybe he just drilled
pilot holes first and used the gun drill to ream it out.
C'mon Syd, spill the beans...
Craig.
|
|
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 18/4/03 at 04:14 AM |
|
|
craig 1410:
quote:
I can squeeze them in my fingers and they go ever so slightly oval
Believe me, those are compliant! If they were pure Nylon, you wouldn't be able to distort them at all.
They sound like they are similar to a high shore PU bush, and will be fine for the job.
If you can get to a lathe, I'd part the ends of the crush tubes off square, and finish them slightly SHORTER than the assembled bushes (0.05mm
total), afording them some pre-load.
I normally assemble the brackets on a jig, using lengths of silver steel, and then offer the jig up to the chassis for welding the brackets on.
As far as good engineering reading/data/formulae goes, the engineer's "Bible" is a publication called "Machinery's
Handbook". It's an expensive tome, and is also now available on CD. Sometimes a second hand edition pops up briefly on ebay.
I have both the book (old copy that I bought nearly 30 years ago!), and the CD (current edition with much updated info), and they're
invaluable.
I also have "Engineering Formulas" (7th edition) by Gieck and Gieck (snigger).
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/4/03 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
Syd,
Read your last post again.....you agreed with Rorty! That makes me so proud of you guys...  (Just don't mention crush tubes eh?)
Anyway, thanks both of you for the posts, I think I will check with Lolocost technical department and see what material these are made of because they
don't seem to be "clearly" PU or Nylon by the sounds of it.
Yes, I agree with a little bit of preload, it seems to be the right thing to do instinctively and with a little bit of suitable grease it should be
virtually bind free. I would like to see the arms almost being capable of holding up their own weight with a steady sink downwards with gravity when
released but I'll see what happens. Ultimately I'm looking for zero clearance with zero bind which is probably very hard to accomplish in
practice.
Thanks for the book reference, I'll look it up on Amazon.co.uk shortly.
On final thing...Syd, how level do you want the technology to become before you buy a digi camera? If you wait any longer it will have been
replaced by holograms or something and digital camera's will be collectors items and cost more than they do today...
I bought a 3.3 megapixel camera recently second hand for under 200 GBP. It's an olympus and works great IMHO. The pictures on my website are
taken with it but reduced from 2048x1536 resolution to just 640x480 to avoid annoying anyone without broadband. I then create thumbnails which are
128x96. At full resolution with minimal compression I can get quality which I can't distinguish from a 35mm camera. Also, at 640x480 resolution
I can take something like 1300 pictures on a single 128MB smartmedia cartridge. It can also record sound and can even take short movies. Also note
that this is a 3 year old design!!
Go on - get yourself a camera 
Cheers guys,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/4/03 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
By the way, have you heard of Kempe's Engineers Year-Book? I have an edition of this from 1986 which I picked up for nothing at a liquidation
auction of an engineering company. Having only just looked on the Amazon website it costs a staggering £160 for the latest version of this book. It
has a massive amount of engineering information in it but this is spread across all disciplines including Civil and Electrical engineering.
How does this book compare with Machinery's handbook? It costs about £55 and I'll buy that no problem but I'd be a bit unhappy if
the Kempe's book covers most of what I will need to know already.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 19/4/03 at 01:23 AM |
|
|
Craig, there are different editions of Machinery's Handbook, and I suspect what you've seen advertised for 55 quid, may be a "tool
box" version, though you could easily prove me wrong. I think here, the full version is something like $350.
I've heard of Kempe's, but have never seen it used, though that's not to say it's no good.
I don't know of any engineering business that doesn't have a copy or two of MH lying around.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 19/4/03 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
I have 2 copies of MH...one about 50 years old that I inherited and one that is 11 years old that I bought new..
To be honest I don't use them that much now as the really frequently used stuff......tapping sizes, spanner clearance, metal gauges, screw head
data, etc.. I have readily available more conveniently.....much of it embedded directly into CAD...
In fact there is probably 99% of the book I hardly look at...and I'm sat here designing machinery all day (except when on this forum..)....So
my advice...which is in agreement with most is.......if you can get one cheap, great...if not save your money for something else.
Another thing I noticed my usage probably dropped off with more internet use, and accumulating a ton of manufacturers catalogues.
As usual all IMO.....
|
|
|
PeetBee
|
| posted on 19/4/03 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
PeetBee,
Sorry if I put you off buying the Lolocost stuff, I didn't perhaps mean to be quite so harsh but I was a little disappointed as I said.
Cheers Craig, I am an ex Robin Hood owner  so I know what to expect from them, I agree they are very helpful and I will be placing an order for some
stuff as I can't find it cheaper elsewhere.
I was more concerned about the compliance of the bushes. I've got to fabricate my own as I'm 5linking a Dutton (long story, but it seemed
like a good idea at the time ) which needs longer than book trailing arms.
However after your remarks about their sqidgyness and Rorty's comments suggesting they're ok I may well reconsider.
Thanks
PeteB
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/4/03 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
Pete,
Scratch my comments about the squidgyness, they ARE NOT in the slightest squidgy!!
Sorry for my previous remarks, I have no idea what I was thinking of in retrospect. I was convinced that they were a little bit squidgy but having
looked at them very closely they simply don't move even when gently squeezed with vice grips.
It is possible to dent them with a flat screwdriver quite easily but the material doesn't recover it's shape afterwards which again would
suggest that it is Nylon.
I assembled one of my trailing arms onto my de-dion ears and it simply does not move laterally even when pulled quite hard so I don't think they
will be suitable after all. I'm going to try to source some poly bushes for at least one end of each trailing link and the panhard rod.
Having said all of the above, I still think that the wishbone kit is worth the money, even if I do now need to buy 5 or 6 poly bushes for the back.
I have taken some photo's of the wishbones so take a look at my photo area later tonight (I've not uploaded them yet)
HTH,
Craig.
|
|
|
PeetBee
|
| posted on 20/4/03 at 10:02 PM |
|
|
Cheers Craig,
It is the squidgyness that's important to me, so perhaps I'll think again!
PeteB
PS I think squidgyness is a far better word than compliance!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 20/4/03 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
PeteB,
Couldn't agree more. Compliance is something we're supposed to do with the law...or so I'm told
Would it help if I gave you the exact measurements of the nylaspa bushes? That way you could try to source poly u bushes from Rally design or someone
else before deciding on the Lolocost stuff? I'm just in from the garage but will measure tomorrow and post here. I'm going to have to do
the same I think because I don't want to over stress my trailing arms with side/twist loads. The front wishbones should be very good though I
think due to single axis movement.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
PeetBee
|
| posted on 21/4/03 at 10:14 AM |
|
|
Cheers Craig, it would be interesting to see if they are the same size as Triumph Herald bushes.
regards
PeteB
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/4/03 at 11:32 AM |
|
|
PeteB,
I don't think they are but here are the dims anyway:
Inner Diameter of tophat = 14mm
Outer Diameter of tophat (the bit which fits into the tube) = 25mm
Outer Diameter of tophat (the bit which stays outside the tube) = 30mm
Overall height of tophat = 20.8mm
Height of bit which bits inside tube = 17mm
Height of the 'rim' of the tophat = 3.8mm
Outer Diameter of crush tube = 10mm
Crush tube material is mild steel and is NOT finished at the ends. It comes in lengths of 46.1mm and must be machined down to about 44.5mm for use
with the wishbone eye tubes and Nylaspa bushes supplied by Lolocost.
HTH,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/4/03 at 12:06 PM |
|
|
Hi,
Some corrections to my last post (was too late at night I think) - Spot the difference!
Cheers,
Craig.
Inner Diameter of tophat = 14mm
Outer Diameter of tophat (the bit which fits into the wishbone tube) = 25mm
Outer Diameter of tophat (the bit which stays outside the wishbone tube) = 30mm
Overall height of tophat = 20.8mm
Height of bit which fits inside tube = 17mm
Height of the 'rim' of the tophat = 3.8mm
Inside Diameter of crush tube = 10mm
|
|
|
PeetBee
|
| posted on 21/4/03 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
Ta Craig,
I think I've spotted the difference!
cheers
PeteB
|
|
|
