Trailing Arm is buggered
Discussion
Took the S in for it's service and MOT expecting maybe a couple of minor things to be needed but no......
Left trailing arm is badly corroded and has in fact fractured. A complete shock to me as I had spent a weekend this year cleaning, painting and waxolyling the whole of the rear of the chassis when I put on new shocks and springs. The trailing arm certainly wasn't fractured then and I couldn't see anything more than normal surface rust. I can only surmize that the corrosion was from the inside.
Well I've asked the garage to replace them both (as they have to be replaced in pairs) and they've managed to find some of the later adjustable ones after ringing around.
It appears these are becoming hard to track down now, TVR don't make them any more and I had the last pair from DG!!
At least the chassis has passed muster, and it should all be fixed by the weekend and I can enjoy the improved handling that the later trailing arms are supposed to deliver. Not that I had any complaints about the handling before.
Colin
Left trailing arm is badly corroded and has in fact fractured. A complete shock to me as I had spent a weekend this year cleaning, painting and waxolyling the whole of the rear of the chassis when I put on new shocks and springs. The trailing arm certainly wasn't fractured then and I couldn't see anything more than normal surface rust. I can only surmize that the corrosion was from the inside.
Well I've asked the garage to replace them both (as they have to be replaced in pairs) and they've managed to find some of the later adjustable ones after ringing around.
It appears these are becoming hard to track down now, TVR don't make them any more and I had the last pair from DG!!
At least the chassis has passed muster, and it should all be fixed by the weekend and I can enjoy the improved handling that the later trailing arms are supposed to deliver. Not that I had any complaints about the handling before.
Colin
The design isn't brilliant and they suffer from fatigue as well as corrosion. Mine has much stiffer suspension than normal and tends to get chucked over the curbs a lot so when one of the trailing arms eventually failed, Tower View rebuilt them using much stronger material. For most people the standard units should be more than adequate, but if the supply ever does completely run out getting them rebuilt is always an option.
GreenV8S said:
The design isn't brilliant and they suffer from fatigue as well as corrosion. Mine has much stiffer suspension than normal and tends to get chucked over the curbs a lot so when one of the trailing arms eventually failed, Tower View rebuilt them using much stronger material. For most people the standard units should be more than adequate, but if the supply ever does completely run out getting them rebuilt is always an option.
Stronger material as in what?? Stainless?? Or just a thicker section??
Roy.
I like it!!! 
Rozza!!! said:
Stronger material as in what?? Stainless?? Or just a thicker section??
Roy.
Bigger section (more leverage to resist the twisting loads), square instead of round, much thicker wall material. Basically a big gnarly lump of tube instead of the original frilly stuff. It stops the big channel section twisting under the loads from the hub - it's the twisting that wrecks the standard unit.
GreenV8S said:
Stronger material as in what?? Stainless?? Or just a thicker section??
Roy.
Bigger section (more leverage to resist the twisting loads), square instead of round, much thicker wall material. Basically a big gnarly lump of tube instead of the original frilly stuff. It stops the big channel section twisting under the loads from the hub - it's the twisting that wrecks the standard unit.
Would Tower View be able to build more if needed ie do they have a jig, or would they need to tailor it to each car?
Roy.
Colin BlueS2 said:
I can only surmize that the corrosion was from the inside.
Replaced mine in the spring, also obtained from DG. Yes, they do seem to corrode from the inside. I think the problem is that no powder coating/paint is applied to the internal sections, tube etc. So, made sure my new one's had a few coats of epoxy paint applied with a oil spray gun to reach right inside, then finished off with good old waxoil.
RT racing also refurb trailing arms, they quoted me £150 each, but decided to go for new at £220 i think, this includes new bushes though.
Also, don't forget to get rear toe checked.
Colin BlueS2 said:
Thanks, I'll make sure that I get plenty of waxoyl in the box sections once my baby's back home. £220 is about what I was quoted. Not sure what the labour is going to be though. I'll check the toe-in is sorted.
Anyone know what it should be?
Colin,
These are what I used when I sorted out my trailing arm problems
Front toe in: +3.2mm +-1.5 mm Camber: 0+-0.5 degrees Castor: +3.5 +-0.5 degrees
Rear toe in: +3.0mm +-1.5 mm Camber: -1+-0.25 degrees
Trev.
GreenV8S said:
Where did those figures come from Trev?
I got them from the bible and also found them by searching through previous postings ..
see
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=8295&f=11&h=0&hw=toe
Trev.
It's probably more a matter of personal preference rather than absolute right or wrong, but they don't look quite right to me. I don't think positive camber is ever a good thing, I think the front would be better with something like -0.75+/-0.25 (OK mine runs waaay more than that but it's set up for track use). The toe-in figures look a bit on the high side for such low camber settings, and I'd have thought 0 toe rear isn't far wrong (it'll gain toe-in under acceleration). Not saying the differences are enough to matter or that you'd like these settings any better that the ones you have, just that yours seem some way off what I'd consider a good typical setting.
I think your right actually... Until an hour ago I never really understood camber, caster and toe ! (just gave the settings to the garage and they set it up when I had changed my trailing arms!!), however after looking into how & why they effect the handling of a car I can see what you mean...
I just took it as these were the settings to use after seeing them on previous postings, I have just checked the bible and it says the
toe in on the front should be +0.5 degree +/-0.25 degree and the toe on the rear should be +0.25 degree +/- 0.5 degree
caster +3.5 degree +/-0.25
camber front +1 degree +/-0.25 degree and the camber on the rear +1.25 degree +/-0.25 degree
interestingly these figures also have a positive camber and from what I have just read about camber this does seem a bit strange. From what I gather (this is just from reading a few web sites (also not really TVR related)- so I may be pretty wrong !!), a lot of people tend to run up to 2 degree negative camber for day to day use as this tends not to cause any excess tire wear but gives them the ability to push the car harder through corners. Anything over 2 degree negative is best done for track days...
I have not noticed any major tire wear from the settings I'm using and having only ever driven my S I have no way to really compare how it handles to others. My rear springs are also a little tired which I'm sure is not going to help me get the best handling out of my S. Hopefully in the new year I shall get round to replacing them all and then at that point I shall have to look changing the settings I'm using.
Do you reckon the bible settings above are more realistic as a good setting or would you change them to something else ?, (mainly for day to day use not track days)
Trev
I just took it as these were the settings to use after seeing them on previous postings, I have just checked the bible and it says the
toe in on the front should be +0.5 degree +/-0.25 degree and the toe on the rear should be +0.25 degree +/- 0.5 degree
caster +3.5 degree +/-0.25
camber front +1 degree +/-0.25 degree and the camber on the rear +1.25 degree +/-0.25 degree
interestingly these figures also have a positive camber and from what I have just read about camber this does seem a bit strange. From what I gather (this is just from reading a few web sites (also not really TVR related)- so I may be pretty wrong !!), a lot of people tend to run up to 2 degree negative camber for day to day use as this tends not to cause any excess tire wear but gives them the ability to push the car harder through corners. Anything over 2 degree negative is best done for track days...
I have not noticed any major tire wear from the settings I'm using and having only ever driven my S I have no way to really compare how it handles to others. My rear springs are also a little tired which I'm sure is not going to help me get the best handling out of my S. Hopefully in the new year I shall get round to replacing them all and then at that point I shall have to look changing the settings I'm using.
Do you reckon the bible settings above are more realistic as a good setting or would you change them to something else ?, (mainly for day to day use not track days)
Trev
Just to add to the confusion... the official figures (??) for the Wedges have a 0 to positive camber. I am wondering if there is a bit of a camber change with the geometry and as a result you start with something slightly positive. Go to negative and the tyres will wear very quickly.
The bible figures came from two seperate sources and they agreed! Just chceked the originals and no it is not a steve typo.
The bible figures came from two seperate sources and they agreed! Just chceked the originals and no it is not a steve typo.
Gassing Station | S Series | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff