RE: Steve Heath launches new suspension parts
Tuesday 23rd August 2005
Steve Heath launches new suspension parts
'Bible' author provides rose-jointed links for older cars
TVR technical 'bible' author Steve Heath launched a set of rose-jointed drop links for TVRs at the Griff Growl this weekend.
 |
 |
 |
 |
They replace the standard rubber versions that crack and harden over time. They improve handling by allowing the anti-roll bar to work with the wishbones all of the time, instead of moving the rubber on the original versions. As well as looking nicer than a lump of mucky rubber, the result is better roll control and turn in while cornering.
The components are available now for the Griff, Chimaeras and Wedges. Versions for Cerberas, Tuscans and S series are under development.
The price is £69.99 inc VAT and P&P.
Links
Discussion
Errrr they are.... 
www.shpub.co.uk/tvrextras/droplinksshop.html if you are having any problems getting to the shop.
PetrolTed must be recovering from too much US influence and got my website down as a .com instead of a .co.uk
>> Edited by shpub on Tuesday 23 August 11:10
www.shpub.co.uk/tvrextras/droplinksshop.html if you are having any problems getting to the shop.
PetrolTed must be recovering from too much US influence and got my website down as a .com instead of a .co.uk
>> Edited by shpub on Tuesday 23 August 11:10
docevi1 said:
I thought the purpose of the rubber was to take up some of the shock and allow the components to flex. Surely making that solid defeats the purpose?
That's true for components taking damper loads, but flex in the ARB just stops it working properly. Solid drop links are a very worthwhile mod IMO.
Indeedy .. if extra roll stiffness is what you're after and what the car requires then going for less squidge is an obvious answer.
I know of one tasmin race car tho that has no anti roll bars at all .. faster through the corners than a similar car with anti roll bars front and back .. I wonder if I'll start a trend for cars with proper suspension geometry. For everyone else there's mastercard
Nice looking stuff tho Steve, well done that man
I know of one tasmin race car tho that has no anti roll bars at all .. faster through the corners than a similar car with anti roll bars front and back .. I wonder if I'll start a trend for cars with proper suspension geometry. For everyone else there's mastercard
Nice looking stuff tho Steve, well done that man
55jnj said:
You guys ordering. Have you any idea what a rose jointed car feels like on the road ? Race cars & the track is one thing but I'm not sure about the desirability of RJ suspension for everyday driving. Just a thought.
It isn't rose jointing the whole suspension at all. The main wishbones are still rubber or poly bushed. The only difference is the antiroll bar spends its time working on the wishbones rather than moving the rubber links until they jam and then the wishbones. End result is improved handling and turn in as the wishbones work as they should.
I finally got the tasmin challenge rules on damper mounts changed so we could get proper wheel rates without bending bottom wishbones with 1100lb/inch springs!!
we now have such good roll control on our car by careful placement of components and tweaking secret stuff that we don't run anti roll bars on it.
previously with the very poor location of the damper mounts the front bar was 1 inch, shortened arms, alloy located, centrally braced, rose jointed and still didn't give enough roll stiffness even on those 1100 lb springs.
a little bit of thought goes a long long way and all through changing two location points.
the car should also be safer too as there's less bending moment on the lower arm, with reduced chassis loading and mximising the use of the stroke of the damper.
we now have such good roll control on our car by careful placement of components and tweaking secret stuff that we don't run anti roll bars on it.
previously with the very poor location of the damper mounts the front bar was 1 inch, shortened arms, alloy located, centrally braced, rose jointed and still didn't give enough roll stiffness even on those 1100 lb springs.
a little bit of thought goes a long long way
and all through changing two location points. the car should also be safer too as there's less bending moment on the lower arm, with reduced chassis loading and mximising the use of the stroke of the damper.
Neatly illustrating the difference between your average semi-educated DIY suspension tweaking that addrsses the symptoms, versus a properly engineered solution that solves the problem. I'm still at the stage of wanting more roll stiffness because the springs are already a little too hard for optimum traction and I want to reduce the roll. Moving the roll axis is probably the right answer longer term, or maybe going to modal suspension, but I'm filing those under Too Hard at the moment.
>> Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 24th August 23:46
>> Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 24th August 23:46
Been there done that too. Gone through several iterations of adding a rear roll bar on the 520 before discovering that all it was doing was hiding some issues with the rear suspension design. Changing that design solved the handling issues and I didn't need the rear roll bar.
On the front I have retained the front ARB on the new design as the model indicated that it was quite benficial. Had to change it as I was cracking wishbones, chassis and so on. Basically just retained the chassis mounting points and designed a fully adjustable replacement that was stronger and didn't bend and 2kg lighter than the original.
I am running the equivalent of about 1200 lb springs yet it is quite reasonable for road use. Alright I can live it. Still need the ARB though to help control the roll because I don't want to go to even stiffer springs. All this on a Wedge and trying to get a Mk 4 Cortina suspension to work correctly. Must be doing something right as it will pull 1.8+g through corners on slicks.
It was during all this work that I developed the drop links BTW.
>> Edited by shpub on Thursday 25th August 07:42
On the front I have retained the front ARB on the new design as the model indicated that it was quite benficial. Had to change it as I was cracking wishbones, chassis and so on. Basically just retained the chassis mounting points and designed a fully adjustable replacement that was stronger and didn't bend and 2kg lighter than the original.
I am running the equivalent of about 1200 lb springs yet it is quite reasonable for road use. Alright I can live it. Still need the ARB though to help control the roll because I don't want to go to even stiffer springs. All this on a Wedge and trying to get a Mk 4 Cortina suspension to work correctly. Must be doing something right as it will pull 1.8+g through corners on slicks.
It was during all this work that I developed the drop links BTW.
>> Edited by shpub on Thursday 25th August 07:42
GreenV8S said:
...... but I'm filing those under Too Hard at the moment.
that'd be the roll moment then..
I'm still convinced the best thing you can do peter is get rid of that heavy bonnet .. it's all the weight high up and forward that i hate..
if i could afford a carbon version for my own car I would! .. in the end a lightweight thin f/glass version might have to do ..
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff