Slimy38
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 07:39 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lew The Machine
Good question about shock position, again it's not confirmed but I've seen it done that way on other rear ends so thought it
wouldn't be a problem? The reason for having it low down was to avoid having to fabricate a relatively heavy duty shock mount at a high level, I
thought I'd try and utilise the rear wishbone & diff mounting frame for as many purposes as possible!?
The shock can be fixed to the lower wishbone, it's more the placement of the fixing? The photos posted above actually show a similar
arrangement, but notice how close they are to the upright (pretty much as close as they can get without fouling the upright itself). I think you
having yours two thirds along the wishbone, and directly above a heat affected zone (from the horizontal brace) which is already under stress due to
no triangulation, is just asking for a break.
|
|
|
|
|
Lew The Machine
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
Ok so here's my first re-design!
I've left the top joint as a bush but I might change that to a rosejoint too as it don't like the idea of effectively
"twisting" when adjusting toe-in/out!?
I may also change the angle of triangulation to sit behind the rosejoint brackets on the diagonal!
I've moved the shock out and closer to centre, this has forced me to decrease the angle it was sitting at... Not too drastically but still!
[Edited on 19/9/14 by Lew The Machine]
ITS FINE! i welded it!
|
|
|
Mr C
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
Looking good. The second joint was rose jointed on mine to allow the movement. Makes sense to have the triangulation behind the inboard rose joint,
maybe move the rose joint further inboard making the turnbuckle longer??
Anyhow good job and loving the CAD work.
Girl walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one
|
|
|
Lew The Machine
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr C
Looking good. The second joint was rose jointed on mine to allow the movement. Makes sense to have the triangulation behind the inboard rose joint,
maybe move the rose joint further inboard making the turnbuckle longer??
Anyhow good job and loving the CAD work.
Haha cheers, it's my job so it helps to be half decent at it 
As soon as I'd modelled the triangulation I knew it was in the wrong place but I was in a rush so had to leave it... The principle seems ok
though!?
I think I need to space the bottom of the upright out a bit more to move the rose joints apart and allow the link to mount further inboard like you
said, the rose joint was starting to sit on a bit more of an angle than I'd like
Here's some more CAD... can never have too much CAD 
ITS FINE! i welded it!
|
|
|
Lew The Machine
|
| posted on 23/9/14 at 01:40 PM |
|
|
ok, Bit more work done on the design (pics to follow)...
Do we like these or are they to be avoided?
http://www.mcgillmotorsport.com/m12-turnbuckle-link-adjustment-210mm-240mm-linkage-12mm-559/
And which rose Joint do i want? They will be M12 but there are 3 types...
http://www.mcgillmotorsport.com/metric-rod-ends-accessories-male-rod-ends-metric/
Never played with rose joints so any warnings/advice you have would be appreciated!
Cheers 
ITS FINE! i welded it!
|
|
|
