If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Given the beautiful weather we've had the past few days I decided it was a good time to do some shotblasting, 150 kilos of grit later and after littering the driveway with makeshift hanging rails I painted most of the odds and sods yesterday and today. I'm now left with lots of shiney parts and nowhere to put them, so tomorrow I'l start assembling some of it to get the car rolling at last.
First parts to make it onto the car were the hanbrake lever and gearbox brackets, just cos they were easy
Also spoke to TTV about a flywheel, they do a 5.5 kilo one for the S50 which is standard clutch fitment, so I can keep my uprated pressure and friction plate. The previous one was 7.5 kilos and the engine revved very ncely with it, so im hoping this wil be another noticeable improvent whilst also giving the gearbox a bit of an easier life. Price was 270 quid delivered for anyone interested. Bloody good if you ask me but bearing in mind most of you would have to pay VAT on top of that.....Unlike me :mrgreen:
Haven't touched the car for the past month until this weekend. The good news is that the new diff (4plate with 30 degree ramp angles) is assembled and ready to drop in. Have also ordered my fuel lines and fitting aswell as a fuel smapling kit from torques UK. Flywheel is ordered too but have been told a couple of weeks until another batch are complete.
So, I turned my attention to the front of the car. Bearing in mind i wanted something to mount the skid guard to but also wanted it to be more permanent than the previous set up which was a pure bolt on jobby. This is what I came up with. The top part is removable so that the motor can go in without having to be tilted at al sorts of angles and the scuttle bolts onto the innner wings and the gusseted tubes via 6mm nutserts and some cap head bolts. Just need to paint this lot satin black, then when the flywheel is here I can focus on getting the motor and box together and in the car. Should give me a bit more motivation, not to mention more space in the garage ehich is in short supply at the moment!
Whilst I was in the other shed on Thursday I took the bumper and front panel off a tech 1 sport I keep in there just to see how well it looks. First off I trimmed the front panel down to the bare minimum to shed a bit of weight. After a bit of bending and bashing I got it to fit reasonably well. The car it came off has quite obviously been in a bump and poorly repaired so its no wonder nothing would fit at first.
Just need to make some tabs coming off the scuttle support bars and that should hold it securely enough.
And a trial fit of the bumper. Luckily it sits spot on with the frame I welded in for the sump guard. I think it should suit the new colour scheme a bit more. Reg will also be getting transfered just cos im sad :oops:
Ive approached the stage now where the garage really needs another deep clean before anything can get done properly so think thats going to be the next job unless of course the flywheel arrives before that!
The flywheel arrived today as promised, looks identical to the last billet steel one I had, yet it weighs about 60% the amount. Now when I get the front painted I can get the motor and box in!
The Strut end uses a 5/8ths UNF high tensile bolt instead of the ball joint to enable the use of any normal 5/8ths rod end.
Do you mean the base of the strut? If so I'd urge you to reconsider. An enclosed spherical bearing would be able to take the forces involved but a rod end will be in bending here. This link has a good explanation of why rod ends shouldn't be used in bending. The advantage gained in ease of camber adjustment is outweighed by the liability of sudden, complete, component failure.
Do you mean the base of the strut? If so I'd urge you to reconsider. An enclosed spherical bearing would be able to take the forces involved but a rod end will be in bending here. This link has a good explanation of why rod ends shouldn't be used in bending. The advantage gained in ease of camber adjustment is outweighed by the liability of sudden, complete, component failure.
Dont worry ive done my maths, the rod ends are rated at 76,000 lb load, although this load is determined under either tension or compression force, when you consider that the rod end is unable to max out and the angle is not severe, the force that would have to be exherted on it for it to break would be far greater than the grip factor if the tyres would allow. In other words, I would have hit a wall or a bank before my rod end failed as a result of being 'in bending'. In that article itself it also states that ''of course, if the rod end is sufficiently sized, it will not fail"
just make sure the rod in is plenty big enough and there -PROBABLY- wont be an issue
Fixed for you.
Originally posted by martinpallot
Dont worry ive done my maths
Ok, if you're happy, I'm happy.
I figured, eyeballing it really, that a 5/8" thread wouldn't be enough. Any tarmac action with grippy tyres is going to be putting a lot of force through a component that wasn't designed to take it. Lower suspension links carry greater forces in the horizontal plane than the upper links too so it's really the worst place to use them. Deliberately introducing it permanently as though it's an improvement is a mistake.
Interesting and I value any input, im no expert and do things via trial and error (Not the best way to do it, I know lol) If I hadnt done a season on them without issue I would be running into the garage and re-working them. I know its a slightly different concept, but given that the standard balljoint is 15.5mm at its thickest point, why would the 5,8ths bolt replacing it be any weaker?
Comment