spiderman
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
GT6 moddified IRS.
A bit of info for those people who have expressed an interest in the photo of a GT6 rear suspension in my photo archive.
It is not my design but that of a chap called Jango. Info can be found on the Club Triumph website under the post titled "jango GT6 rear end
ect". Also of interest on www.spit6.co.uk. is "rebuilding and modifiying a MK11 Triumph Spitfire".
I would put a link to these pages but I do not know how and the time to learn this feature is better spent on completing my Locost (12yrs and
counting, completing the final build, again).
If anyone is interested in a dismantled GT6 MK2 for £500 gave a look in my photo archive under GT6 PROJECT. Bodywork is solid ideal for a replacment
motor and running gear project.
Spider
|
|
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
Triumph forum won't let non members search. Can you tell me what page the jango thread is on. I have searched back 6 pages in the spit/GT6 area
and it is a very slow forum.
|
|
|
spiderman
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
I think you will have to register as a member of the site to do a search. The IRS posts start on page 5 of Jangos posts.
Look for "new rear end set up".
If you Google "jango GT6" it will take you straight there.
[Edited on 8/10/11 by spiderman]
[Edited on 8/10/11 by spiderman]
Spider
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
http://club.triumph.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum10/Blah.pl/Blah.pl?m-1258933165/s-34/highlight-jango+GT6+rear/#num34
That the one?
|
|
|
spiderman
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 11:06 PM |
|
|
Yes that's the one.
Thanks for the link Cliftyhanger.
He also has some good video footage on "YOU TUBE"
Spider
|
|
|
John Bonnett
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 10:26 AM |
|
|
I'm rebuilding a MK3 GT6 at the moment. This is fitted with the latest development of the transverse spring, the "Swing Spring". Now
I am quite ready to be shot down by others more knowledgeable than I, but I cannot understand anybody designing such a crude system. The previous
offering, the Rotoflex seems to be moving along the right lines with a lower wishbone and a driveshaft articulated at both ends. I've been told
that it was superseded by the swing spring as soon as BL cost accountants got hold of it. Apart from cost, I can see nothing to commend it and I have
examined it very closely. The only drawbacks that I can spot with the Rotoflex is the short life of the rubber coupling and the weight of the
wishbone/hub assembly.
So please correct me if I've missed something vital but I would have thought that a much easier and less arduous route to a decent rear
suspension on a GT6 would be based on the Rotoflex design rather than the more radical approach of chopping off the chassis and welding on a
fabricated rear end although I agree it has been beautifully executed. Driveshafts with CV joints are available to eliminate the rubber coupling so
that's a start.
As mention by cliftyhanger with the link, PRI in the States do an expensive IRS conversion base on the swing spring. They replace the transverse
spring with two pivoted arms as in the picture. Now, I would have thought this approach together with the rotoflex lower wishbone and cv jointed
driveshafts would be the ultimate. All bolt-on and no grey areas involving IVA.
This is a subject which interests me so I'd be very interested in your thoughts.
 
Description
John
[Edited on 9/10/11 by John Bonnett]
[Edited on 9/10/11 by John Bonnett]
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
John, the swing spring was aeither a stroke of genius or sheer good luck.
It is way way better than the early "swing axle" design that many associate with the small chassis triumphs, and not a million miles off
the rotoflex performance. partly I suspect because of the reduced weight.
The PRI effort looks to be an expensive waste of time and money. Replacing the spring with a wishbone and a spring, but keeping the so;id shaft. Sheer
bananas.
Yes, a system as you describe, keeping the cahssis intact, would be a clever idea. Just needs somebody to do the donkey work. FWIW I am using rotoflex
with CV shafts. The lower wishbone attachment is a little lower (25mm) and further out (5mm) than factory, and with a spring spacer it is hopefully
going to give small camber changes and keep it mainly negative except under extreme droop. Not my R+D, I stole the ideas
|
|
|
John Bonnett
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cliftyhanger
John, the swing spring was aeither a stroke of genius or sheer good luck.
It is way way better than the early "swing axle" design that many associate with the small chassis triumphs, and not a million miles off
the rotoflex performance. partly I suspect because of the reduced weight.
The PRI effort looks to be an expensive waste of time and money. Replacing the spring with a wishbone and a spring, but keeping the so;id shaft. Sheer
bananas.
Yes, a system as you describe, keeping the cahssis intact, would be a clever idea. Just needs somebody to do the donkey work. FWIW I am using rotoflex
with CV shafts. The lower wishbone attachment is a little lower (25mm) and further out (5mm) than factory, and with a spring spacer it is hopefully
going to give small camber changes and keep it mainly negative except under extreme droop. Not my R+D, I stole the ideas
Thanks for that Clive. It may not be as bad as I'm expecting then. Do you know if Hugh has gone ahead with his plans mentioned in the above
thread?
regards
John
[Edited on 9/10/11 by John Bonnett]
|
|
|
spiderman
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 12:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
As mention by cliftyhanger with the link, PRI in the States do an expensive IRS conversion base on the swing spring. They replace the transverse
spring with two pivoted arms as in the picture. Now, I would have thought this approach together with the rotoflex lower wishbone and cv jointed
driveshafts would be the ultimate. All bolt-on and no grey areas involving IVA.
This is a subject which interests me so I'd be very interested in your thoughts.
Description
John
Thats the sort of mod I am considering in the future, but I find the standard rotoflex system is more than capable with a standard motor, however as I
plan to upgrade motor I would like to upgrade the rear end for a little more adjustability and more choice on spring rates ect.
There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST
friendlywhich you may find of interest.
[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]
Spider
|
|
|
John Bonnett
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 12:39 PM |
|
|
There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST
friendlywhich you may find of interest.
[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]
Ah, you have my interest. There's some fascinating stuff in your blog and you are working along exactly the same lines as I've been
thinking. Perhaps we can keep in touch.
Many thanks Spider.
regards
John
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
John, years ago I built a sprint powered mk3 spitfire. Great car, fast, economical.
However, the one thing that stood out the most was the swap from the early spring setup to the late swingspring. Meant I could go round corners
without soiling myself 
Actually, the 130+bhp the engine produced was entertaining, can't deny that.
The missus drove that car to work until she was so pregnantly large she physically couldn't get behind the wheel. Still miss it.
|
|
|
spiderman
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Bonnett
There is a blog "www.spit6.co.uk. " "rebuilding and modifiying a MKII Triumph Spitfire" which is more IVA/DIY/COST
friendlywhich you may find of interest.
[Edited on 9/10/11 by spiderman]
Ah, you have my interest. There's some fascinating stuff in your blog and you are working along exactly the same lines as I've been
thinking. Perhaps we can keep in touch.
Many thanks Spider.
regards
John
Hi John,
The blog is not mine, just one I have come across in my search of modified Triumphs. I am happy to pass on any info I have and I am happy to stay in
touch for any exchanges of ideas.
Spider
|
|
|
geordielad
|
| posted on 19/11/11 at 08:55 AM |
|
|
 
Description
this is similar to what i want to do
full details on
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm
|
|
|
matt_gsxr
|
| posted on 19/11/11 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 19/11/11 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by geordielad
Description
this is similar to what i want to do
full details on
http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/MaxBrewster.htm
That looks like a vastly better designed system than the tubular subframe effort. Web page says diff is from an RX7, but it looks very similar to the
MX5 diff so potentially a reasonably cheap conversion.
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 19/11/11 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=146283
http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=readersrides&action=display&thread=92009
Jacko
[Edited on 19/11/11 by jacko]
|
|
|
