t.j.
|
| posted on 27/5/06 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
rear uprights
Let's hear from the experts!
This is how i want the make my rear uprights.
 
Description
 
Description
 
Description
|
|
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 27/5/06 at 07:51 PM |
|
|
I cannot comment on the calculations on COG etc, hoever you do seem to have a flaw with the bones.
Your design has them as trapezium, this is not good, you really need an extra tube to triangulate from corner to corner.
By doing this (I assume your shock is mounting on the rear of the hub carrier) you can reduce the size of the tubes and save unsprung weight.
Regards Mark
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 27/5/06 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
If you are going to use polybushes then my feeling would be that the two bushes at each end will be too close together, which won't provide much
resistance to the upright twisting under load.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 27/5/06 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
myself, i would modify it like this. Firstly, id aim for just 3 arms, to make it easy to adjust rear toe and reduce the chance of binding if you get
anything slightly inaccurate. I would choose two at the bottom, one at the top. For the bottom, i would use a pair of rosejoints on the outside of the
outer two lugs, and remove the inner two lugs. I would then weld some 16g sheet round the radius of the remaining outer lugs, between them, to reduce
the chance of them buckling (since i would unashamedly do the bolts in single shear  ) For the top, the opposite, i would remove the outer two lugs,
and put a rosejoint between the inner two, with spacers to fill it out.
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 27/5/06 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
The 3D modelling software is great for this type of stuff - and it actually goes together when you make it!
Anyway FWIW I agree with JoelP, but I would worry about single shear (or use 14mm rosejoints :^) - I just wanted to say if you do widen the bottom
take care that it still fits inside your wheels!!!!
I used mx5 uprights & they get round this problem by having the lower pivots higher up on the upright, which in turn means the chassis pivots have
to be higher too.
Why is the shock bracket not welded on? - it all has rather a weighty look about it - how does weight compare with the tiger ones?
I can't see caliper fixings - you doing drums? now's the time to think about it!
All the best
Bob
|
|
|
t.j.
|
| posted on 28/5/06 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
The 3D modelling software is great for this type of stuff - and it actually goes together when you make it!
Anyway FWIW I agree with JoelP, but I would worry about single shear (or use 14mm rosejoints :^) - I just wanted to say if you do widen the bottom
take care that it still fits inside your wheels!!!!
I used mx5 uprights & they get round this problem by having the lower pivots higher up on the upright, which in turn means the chassis pivots have
to be higher too.
Why is the shock bracket not welded on? - it all has rather a weighty look about it - how does weight compare with the tiger ones?
I can't see caliper fixings - you doing drums? now's the time to think about it!
All the best
Bob
I want to go first on drums. The tiger uprights cause turned back-plates so the handbrakecables aren't simitrycal left/right.
That's why...
The upper brackets inwards are lowered to get a better RC. The shock bracket isn't welded because the upper to you can reach the bolts M6 of the
brakecilinder.
I wanted to use low inwards two rose-joints. As i'm knowing now it's nessary also inwards up.
The bushes i use come from a peugeot 205 lenght about 32 cm.
 
brackets
[Edited on 28/5/06 by t.j.]
|
|
|
