Rear ARB ...

[johno]

..... was evidently knocked together on a friday afternoon by bodgit and scarper at the factory when bright spark the teaboy wondered why the early Griffiths didn't have one and Mrs Miggins the sandwich lady suggested they try it on the later cars .....

I love my Griffith to pieces, but why do TVR work so hard to make me think I could have done a better job designing it .... bearing in mind I sell beer for a living.

It is a hopeless piece of design. It doesn't sit squarely to the chassis, it's mounted onto plates that are already out of square and then the bush plates/brackets cause further twist onto the bush unnecessarliy ...

I'll spend another couple of hours under the car adding shpub's drop links to it and then trying to get the bar and bushes as square as possible, but it really shouldn't be this hard to get a valuable suspension component to fit properly ...

Then I'll move to the front one ... replacing bushes and links what joy !

You have to love 'em !!

(especially after its first run with the new engine ended with a 6" piece of metal pipe through the rear n/s tyre and a subsequent blow out ... sounded like a drive shaft had gone to start with ! - meaning that I prob won't get a chance to run it again on the road before new tyres arrive and we leave for Le Mans !)

[studog]

I think they call that soul!

Glad its all back together.
Looking forwards to meeting up at
the french beer fest.

All the best

Stu

[gsw500]

Pah....!

Went to fit my Steve Heath ones on the rear arb last week and the bleedin plate across the two chassis members that the drop link fits to had.... snapped in half..
What a crap piece of thin metal... surely no where near thick enough gauge to cope with those stresses..
Got over it though and made a small adjustment to Mr Heaths lovely drop links..
The fronts are a piece of cake if you have the right tools..

Gsw500.

[Ballistic Banana]

It was a complete afterthought for the rears I should think, The original rears are deffiantly interesting in shape but not in use Glad its going old bean but sory to hear about the tyre, hopefully the run off 3 is over

Studog, which Campsite you in this year, I heard a rumout M&H was taking a motorhome is that true and as we are getting down a day early, shall we save you spot ( if your coming to Houx A )

BB

[wassy]

Ballistic one, are you going with the Langoustine boys, i can lend you some earplugs !

[pupp]

Rear ARB? Take it off... it is the new black to be without!

Suffered the broken bracket trick months ago and junked the assy pending being arsed to strip out the wishbones and weld in some beefed up ones, Never bothered doing the job as the car frankly felt way better without. Now know what the rear is doing

[B16 RFF]

Had this problem with the wishbone bracket too. Chris at James Motorsport (Ex Waldonway)independent tells me there is a reinforcement available for the bracket.

Paul

Edited by B16 RFF on Friday 16th June 23:47

[gsw500]

Gotta say i'm with Pupp on this one.
Changed the front ARB links.... easy job with Steve's RJ ones.
Different scenario with back when changing to Shub ones found offside mounting bracket between chassis members had snapped. ( useless piece of flimsy light guage crap) Made up own fabrication with FIl an thought was sorted.
Well not even 2 weeks later and same happens to near side....
GOODBYE REAR ARB..... I'm gonna feel the back end go but stiffen up the GAZ shocks,
Gsw500

[B16 RFF]

For those that weren't around at the time, the early Griff 4.x models got a lot of criticism in the press because of their wayward handling. Part of the solution, after a lot of head scratching (or so it seemed), and introduced on the 500, was the rear ARB.
So, remove it at your peril !! (IMHO)

I agree about the flimsiness of the wishbone bracket though, TVR have obviously recognised this, as they have produced a reinforcing mod.

Paul.

Edited by B16 RFF on Saturday 17th June 11:04

[shpub]

Yep and a lot of 400s have been upgraded retrospectively.

[laz11]

B16 RFF said:

For those that weren't around at the time, the early Griff 4.x models got a lot of criticism in the press because of their wayward handling. Part of the solution, after a lot of head scratching (or so it seemed), and introduced on the 500, was the rear ARB.
So, remove it at your peril !! (IMHO)
Paul.

Edited by B16 RFF on Saturday 17th June 11:04

So how come some people advocate that the rear arb does nothing to better the handling and is in effect doing nothing?

[GreenV8S]

The rear ARB makes the car slightly more prone to oversteer, so the rear end will break away earlier but more progressively. Until the mounting bracket breaks, and then the ARB does nothing.

[B16 RFF]

laz11 said:

B16 RFF said:

For those that weren't around at the time, the early Griff 4.x models got a lot of criticism in the press because of their wayward handling. Part of the solution, after a lot of head scratching (or so it seemed), and introduced on the 500, was the rear ARB.
So, remove it at your peril !! (IMHO)
Paul.

Edited by B16 RFF on Saturday 17th June 11:04

So how come some people advocate that the rear arb does nothing to better the handling and is in effect doing nothing?

Dunno, I'm only telling you what happened in the early 90s.
Maybe they haven't truly visited that part of the handling envelope where the difference shows. You have to decide who to believe, the factory engineers or some enthusiastic amateurs (presumably). No offence intended.

Edited by B16 RFF on Sunday 18th June 20:07