omega 24 v6
|
 posted on 11/2/06 at 07:51 PM |
|
|
Top Bone design?
I've started the top bone jig today but after looking at it a couple of things came to mind.
1 Is there any difference in strength between a Vee shaped bone as per the book or a Bent U shaped bone which would give more coil over clearance and
look nicer ( personal choice ).
2 With the extra offset for castor, and the resulting mating fishmouth shapes, the balljoint threaded tube needs to be considerably longer ( usind
the vee method) to meet the extra angular tube lengths ( not a great description I hope you get my meaning). If I used the U method I'd get
away with std balljoint tubes.
Up for discussion now over to the experts
|
|
|
|
|
emsfactory
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
I know what you mean. i'm still tyrying to work out how to make quick camber adjust top bones.
I thought that round tube is stronger than box size for size.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
The round tube bone is not technically very good as the tube isn't on the load path (not to say they don't work fine though) and
there's plenty of clearance for the shocker with std vee bones (I have 2.25" springs and they clear with ease.
Personally I don't like the look of the bent ones either!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 08:22 PM |
|
|
You should only have to set your camber once, don't compromise your design by trying to save yourself half an hous work
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
emsfactory
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
You should only have to set your camber once, don't compromise your design by trying to save yourself half an hous work
Good point.
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
Mmm I preferred the look of the U shape (in plan veiw) wishbone but can see hoe the load path offers to bend the bracket instead of transferring the
load path through the chassis.
I am hoping to mount the coil overs on the underside of the top rail. But by mounting on the outside of the rail the coil over is more vertical and
therefore more efficient.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 11/2/06 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
the angle wont make a vast difference, just changes the effective spring rate (ie pounds per inch of wheel movement). It does slightly affect the load
into the chassis, but these are small things. I know what you mean though, its better to have things working efficiently if possible.
But i dont like bent bones myself, straight lines work for me, bends dont  Id rather straight bones and inefficient shocks than bent bones and
efficient shocks!
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/2/06 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
One of the reasons the arch style bones are popular is getting into the corner of the weld for the ball joint tube is slightly awkward with a standard
MIG torch.
From the cutting and bending point iof view Arch bones are a bit more fiddly to make and get identical for a one off.
Arch bones are obviuosly weaker because there is a bending moment on the tubes but top bones are much lower loaded than the lower wishbones and
outside the Locost world TVR have been using a similar design top ad bottom since the 1960s without trouble.
|
|
|
