Rear Droplinks?
Discussion
Just a quick one, guys.
Just had my chassis waxoyled and, while it was on the ramp, noticed that the diagonal bracings which hold the droplinks for the rear ARB have pretty much had it.
Now, I can get these re-welded (and strengthened I think!) but will need to remove the (very corroded) drop links and I reckon they are gonna shear. Anyone know where I can get these seperately? The roll bar itself is perfect (was replaced 2 yrs ago by previous owner).
Any ideas?
Mark
Just had my chassis waxoyled and, while it was on the ramp, noticed that the diagonal bracings which hold the droplinks for the rear ARB have pretty much had it.
Now, I can get these re-welded (and strengthened I think!) but will need to remove the (very corroded) drop links and I reckon they are gonna shear. Anyone know where I can get these seperately? The roll bar itself is perfect (was replaced 2 yrs ago by previous owner).
Any ideas?
Mark
It trims the rear handling balance, but only if it's allowed to transmit it's force into the suspension .. if the mounts are weak and flexing then it can't do that.
Adding the rose joints will allow this to happen more than the rubber bonded versions and therefore give a greater tail-happy balance (but they're very stiff as std so i wouldn't expect a great change tbh) but any extra loading will make the mounts flex more so i would advise strengthening the wishbone mounts anyway if going rose joint. I always weld a deeper section into the wishbone mount if putting rose joints in, but advise people to take the rear anti roll bar off in 99% of upgrade cases
edited to add .. the later cars have a deeper welded section on the wishbone mount .. it's the early cars that suffer most with this flex problem.
>> Edited by trackcar on Monday 16th January 12:56
Adding the rose joints will allow this to happen more than the rubber bonded versions and therefore give a greater tail-happy balance (but they're very stiff as std so i wouldn't expect a great change tbh) but any extra loading will make the mounts flex more so i would advise strengthening the wishbone mounts anyway if going rose joint. I always weld a deeper section into the wishbone mount if putting rose joints in, but advise people to take the rear anti roll bar off in 99% of upgrade cases
edited to add .. the later cars have a deeper welded section on the wishbone mount .. it's the early cars that suffer most with this flex problem.
>> Edited by trackcar on Monday 16th January 12:56
They do make a difference in that they make the car less tail happy because the ARB transmission into the suspension becomes gradual and not haphazard. They also help prevent that plate from twisting which is what causes the failure. The original just moves that bolt and all it will do is dig the nut/washer through the bush and into the plate. The later wishbones are stronger with a redesigned bracket but even so I've seen them with added strengthening, primarily because of that original drop link. Put articulation in there and the problem goes away.
Interestingly enough the early Griffs did not have rear ARB but many have been fitted with one to help improve the skittishness.
www.tvrextras.co.uk if you want some droplinks though. .
Interestingly enough the early Griffs did not have rear ARB but many have been fitted with one to help improve the skittishness.
www.tvrextras.co.uk if you want some droplinks though. .
trackcar said:Define "early"?
It trims the rear handling balance, but only if it's allowed to transmit it's force into the suspension .. if the mounts are weak and flexing then it can't do that.
Adding the rose joints will allow this to happen more than the rubber bonded versions and therefore give a greater tail-happy balance (but they're very stiff as std so i wouldn't expect a great change tbh) but any extra loading will make the mounts flex more so i would advise strengthening the wishbone mounts anyway if going rose joint. I always weld a deeper section into the wishbone mount if putting rose joints in, but advise people to take the rear anti roll bar off in 99% of upgrade cases
edited to add .. the later cars have a deeper welded section on the wishbone mount .. it's the early cars that suffer most with this flex problem.
shpub said:
the ARB transmission into the suspension becomes gradual and not haphazard. .
until the rose joint wears ..
However having said that, I'm a big fan of rose joints and use them widely on front suspension, just not keen on them on the rear. I definately disagree with you on rose joints making the rear less tail happy.
Did you ever get the Cerbera fronts sorted out?
The ones on my 520 have lasted for 5 years now or close onto 40000 miles of pretty rough treatment.
The twitchyness and tail happy ness. The cars are inherently tail happy because of RWD and lots of power. The driver has an immense responsibility to control this by driving smoothly and feeling what the car is doing. The problem is sudden changes in the suspension loads can make this very difficult as the situtaion goes from OK to bad so quickly that the driver can't control or react to it. That's were the rose joints come in and why I say it makes the car less tail happy. In reality, the transition period is smoother giving the driver more opportunity to stay on the right side. It doesn't change the amount of tail happiness but does help the driver to stay on the right side by preventing those sudden unpredictable changes. And all for less that the cost of the originals as well...
The arguments for /against the rear ARB are interesting. Certainly Griff 4.x that have had it added have expressed a big improvement to the handling. I fitted a rear ARB to the 520 and it was a big help - knocked some 2 seconds off my lap time. I no longer run it as I have redesigned the spring/shock setup to cure the real problem that the rear ARB was addressing. The result is a big improvement but at the expense of ride height and comfort. Key point here was I had to modify the rear suspension to provide the help that the rear ARB was providing.
The other thing Joolz that you are forgetting is the BLING factor which totally makes a mockery of all this science stuff...
The twitchyness and tail happy ness. The cars are inherently tail happy because of RWD and lots of power. The driver has an immense responsibility to control this by driving smoothly and feeling what the car is doing. The problem is sudden changes in the suspension loads can make this very difficult as the situtaion goes from OK to bad so quickly that the driver can't control or react to it. That's were the rose joints come in and why I say it makes the car less tail happy. In reality, the transition period is smoother giving the driver more opportunity to stay on the right side. It doesn't change the amount of tail happiness but does help the driver to stay on the right side by preventing those sudden unpredictable changes. And all for less that the cost of the originals as well...
The arguments for /against the rear ARB are interesting. Certainly Griff 4.x that have had it added have expressed a big improvement to the handling. I fitted a rear ARB to the 520 and it was a big help - knocked some 2 seconds off my lap time. I no longer run it as I have redesigned the spring/shock setup to cure the real problem that the rear ARB was addressing. The result is a big improvement but at the expense of ride height and comfort. Key point here was I had to modify the rear suspension to provide the help that the rear ARB was providing.
The other thing Joolz that you are forgetting is the BLING factor which totally makes a mockery of all this science stuff...
Where's the pitchfork and flaming torches!
No. The issue was caused by a Cerbera that had modified suspension which meant that the fitting kit was not ideal. The fitting kit has been modded to allow the same drop link to fit both standard and modded Cerberas as a result. Before anyone starts saying have I got the latest kit... yes you have as the change over was immediate.
As for Griffith and Chimaera... different drop link, very different design to Cerberas.
It has been fitted to standard and modded cars alike. Same design as on my own car.
So calm down... please...
>> Edited by shpub on Tuesday 17th January 09:51
No. The issue was caused by a Cerbera that had modified suspension which meant that the fitting kit was not ideal. The fitting kit has been modded to allow the same drop link to fit both standard and modded Cerberas as a result. Before anyone starts saying have I got the latest kit... yes you have as the change over was immediate.
As for Griffith and Chimaera... different drop link, very different design to Cerberas.
It has been fitted to standard and modded cars alike. Same design as on my own car.
So calm down... please...
>> Edited by shpub on Tuesday 17th January 09:51
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff