Aesthetics and suspension
Discussion
I've been thinking for a while that the rear end of my S3C sits too high and doesn't look right.
The gap seems much too big between the top of the tyre and the arch. It would look much better if the gap was the same all around. It is currently195mm between the arch and the wheel rim., which doent seem too far off most other cars when I look at the suspension wiki.
had a mess around last night and temporarily lowered the rear end unitil it looked better.
Trouble is, the rear suspension units were then on their bump stops and there was no movement left.
The car was fitted with Gaz Monotubes (the correct kit for the car, according to the Gaz website - GP82286NP) by a previous owner in 2006
The original springs were 350lb rear / 375lb front. The fronts were very tightly wound and clearly too weak for the weight so I changed them last year, shortly after buying the car, to 375lb rear / 425lb front. I was careful to keep the ride height the same, but even then, I didn't like the way the car sat.
I've just put the ride height back to where it was.
Is that just the way it has to be?
Would a different make of shock allow a lower ride height and still let the suspension work?
Any observations appreciated.
Ta.
The gap seems much too big between the top of the tyre and the arch. It would look much better if the gap was the same all around. It is currently195mm between the arch and the wheel rim., which doent seem too far off most other cars when I look at the suspension wiki.
had a mess around last night and temporarily lowered the rear end unitil it looked better.
Trouble is, the rear suspension units were then on their bump stops and there was no movement left.
The car was fitted with Gaz Monotubes (the correct kit for the car, according to the Gaz website - GP82286NP) by a previous owner in 2006
The original springs were 350lb rear / 375lb front. The fronts were very tightly wound and clearly too weak for the weight so I changed them last year, shortly after buying the car, to 375lb rear / 425lb front. I was careful to keep the ride height the same, but even then, I didn't like the way the car sat.
I've just put the ride height back to where it was.
Is that just the way it has to be?
Would a different make of shock allow a lower ride height and still let the suspension work?
Any observations appreciated.
Ta.
Difficult to tell from the photos but what profile tyres are you using? They look a bit on the low side.
What is the ride height floor to outrigger? Looks very high with the wheel in the arch like that.
The distance from tyre to top of arch on the S I have is about 50mm but I'm not saying this is best.
What is the ride height floor to outrigger? Looks very high with the wheel in the arch like that.
The distance from tyre to top of arch on the S I have is about 50mm but I'm not saying this is best.
Hi Andy,
Yes, I agree, your ride height does look too high.
I have just been out to measure Austin's (S1) rear height using your method ( arch lip to wheel rim ) and it's 170 mm ish.
Arch lip to top of tyre 53mm measured vertically.
The suspension Wiki figures are measured from the underside of the outrigger corners to the floor.
I wonder if you do have the correct length dampers fitted, because I believe there were different mounting bracket positions as the S Series developed. Or perhaps your monotubes are for a 3000S?
Your spring rates sound good, you should be able to adjust height without compromising suspension/damper travel if they are the correct ones.
I have no problems with Austin's set-up, plenty of travel left, if anything it is a bit too low at the front for the exhaust to clear speed bumps.
Yes, I agree, your ride height does look too high.
I have just been out to measure Austin's (S1) rear height using your method ( arch lip to wheel rim ) and it's 170 mm ish.
Arch lip to top of tyre 53mm measured vertically.
The suspension Wiki figures are measured from the underside of the outrigger corners to the floor.
I wonder if you do have the correct length dampers fitted, because I believe there were different mounting bracket positions as the S Series developed. Or perhaps your monotubes are for a 3000S?
Your spring rates sound good, you should be able to adjust height without compromising suspension/damper travel if they are the correct ones.
I have no problems with Austin's set-up, plenty of travel left, if anything it is a bit too low at the front for the exhaust to clear speed bumps.
Thank you all for your replies. I must say what a friendly much I've bought into with my S.
I'm now seriously beginning to think I have the wrong shocks on the car. WhenI mentioned that I had lowered the rear, the fact of the matter is that, on winding down the collars on the body of the shocks to check out the 'aesthetics', the spring unseats at the top collar (i.e. the damping rod can extend further than the length of the spring - this is okay when the weight is on the springs in the garage, but then the wheels go down a hole on a drive out, the springs could unseat (does that make sense?)).
As for the front, I've realised that the damper body is pushing against the rubber bump stop anyway in the current position. No wonder the front feels a bit harsh.
Looks like my Gaz GP8's might be going....
I'm now seriously beginning to think I have the wrong shocks on the car. WhenI mentioned that I had lowered the rear, the fact of the matter is that, on winding down the collars on the body of the shocks to check out the 'aesthetics', the spring unseats at the top collar (i.e. the damping rod can extend further than the length of the spring - this is okay when the weight is on the springs in the garage, but then the wheels go down a hole on a drive out, the springs could unseat (does that make sense?)).
As for the front, I've realised that the damper body is pushing against the rubber bump stop anyway in the current position. No wonder the front feels a bit harsh.
Looks like my Gaz GP8's might be going....
Andy,
last night I was re-visiting the December issue of Sprint, and in Steve Bruce's excellent article on restoring his S1 to multiple prizewinning standards, he mentioned that when he fitted new ( S3 ) rear trailing arms, the back end sat way too high due to the different damper mounting bracket locations. The shorter S3 dampers were the answer to the problem.
I reckon you probably have S1 dampers on your car.
last night I was re-visiting the December issue of Sprint, and in Steve Bruce's excellent article on restoring his S1 to multiple prizewinning standards, he mentioned that when he fitted new ( S3 ) rear trailing arms, the back end sat way too high due to the different damper mounting bracket locations. The shorter S3 dampers were the answer to the problem.
I reckon you probably have S1 dampers on your car.
Ok Glen and Mick, I will be checking my ride heights with the new suspension this weekend, and I think I need to lower to the levels you have as they look good....but one thing worries me...how high is your exhaust above the road level on these...ideally at the hockey sticks as these are the vulnerable bits?
Cheers
Cheers
Yes, well, err.......there's the rub as they say Andy.
There were a succession of ridiculous speed humps on my satnav's chosen route into Aldeburgh, and each one was causing the exhaust centre box to ground.
These were proper humpety humps, wide & high, but short, specially designed to cause maximum damage to low slung sportscars underthings.
The ones that get the hockey stick clamps are the "cow pat" type of sleeping policemen where your wheels pass either side but your exhaust.....doesn't! So for safety, you just have to drive in the middle of the road to avoid this, into the oncoming traffic.
The average S1 does sit lower than subsequent models, but I will have to raise the front by 10mm or so.
On normal roads and on the track, my ride heights are pretty good and Austin handles well.
There were a succession of ridiculous speed humps on my satnav's chosen route into Aldeburgh, and each one was causing the exhaust centre box to ground.
These were proper humpety humps, wide & high, but short, specially designed to cause maximum damage to low slung sportscars underthings.
The ones that get the hockey stick clamps are the "cow pat" type of sleeping policemen where your wheels pass either side but your exhaust.....doesn't! So for safety, you just have to drive in the middle of the road to avoid this, into the oncoming traffic.
The average S1 does sit lower than subsequent models, but I will have to raise the front by 10mm or so.
On normal roads and on the track, my ride heights are pretty good and Austin handles well.
Edited by glenrobbo on Wednesday 21st January 21:46
phazed said:
You say the Monotubes were fitted in 2006 but they weren't for sale to the public till about 2008/9.
Not being picky but you may have a different damper.
I have a pre production set that I bought around late 2008 or 2009.
Hi Peter.Not being picky but you may have a different damper.
I have a pre production set that I bought around late 2008 or 2009.
I hear what you say, but I have the receipt from Horizon Motorsport dated 7th March 2006 in the car's history file showing that, amongst other things, it was fitted with "Gaz shock absorber set GP82286NP" at a cost of £450.21.
Looking at the current Gaz online catalogue, it appears to be the same kit.
glenrobbo said:
Yes, well, err.......there's the rub as they say Andy.
There were a succession of ridiculous speed humps on my satnav's chosen route into Aldeburgh, and each one was causing the exhaust centre box to ground.
These were proper humpety humps, wide & high, but short, specially designed to cause maximum damage to low slung sportscars underthings.
The ones that get the hockey stick clamps are the "cow pat" type of sleeping policemen where your wheels pass either side but your exhaust.....doesn't!
The average S1 does sit lower than subsequent models, but I will have to raise the front by 10mm or so.
On normal roads and on the track, my ride heights are pretty good and Austin handles well.
Hmmm....there's part of dilema Glen. With the high ride height on mine, there are only very few occasions when the exhaust is in danger of being left behind on those feckin speed humps. Admittedly, with a full tank of fuel, me and the bride on board, plus a bit of luggage for a dirty weekend away, at Skeggy it would be a bit lower. It just looks a bit saft unloaded at the roadside (the car, not the wife).....steady...she might read this....There were a succession of ridiculous speed humps on my satnav's chosen route into Aldeburgh, and each one was causing the exhaust centre box to ground.
These were proper humpety humps, wide & high, but short, specially designed to cause maximum damage to low slung sportscars underthings.
The ones that get the hockey stick clamps are the "cow pat" type of sleeping policemen where your wheels pass either side but your exhaust.....doesn't!
The average S1 does sit lower than subsequent models, but I will have to raise the front by 10mm or so.
On normal roads and on the track, my ride heights are pretty good and Austin handles well.
NaCl said:
the spring unseats at the top collar
My old AVO's did that, they offered me two options:1. They could shorten the piston rods.
2. They could supply some of these to take up the slack on full drop... helper springs
Gassing Station | S Series | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff