Has anyone have one of these on the road for a year or 2 yet?? i am just interested as to whether the lower joint is prone to needing replacing alot??

If you decided that you needed bracing, you would have to be 100% sure that the distance between the locating points remained 100% identical throughout the travel. I am not sure on the haynes but on many double wishbone setups the distance would alter duting travel.

The Locost uses the same balljoints just on cortina uprights, there has not been any complaints that I am aware of.. Try LCB site as they have a large number of running cars.

Westfield and Caterham also usse simialr setups on LVP cars.

TT

That will not work as the upper and lower bones are not parallel so the length of you additional link will vary. In other words you suspension will be solid.
So far the comments from other builders are correct. Ford/BL would design the susension with high multiplication factors. I.e. they would design the part then add a factor (say x2) so that the part is as twice as strong as it needs to be. As the Roadster is going to be at least half of the weight of the donor tin top we have a factor of at least 4 times.

Having said that I have changed the design to suit my BMW upright and will use a Volvo ball joint. Piccies to follow.

The only reason i am thinking of this is because my road has alot of annoying speed bumps and the mondeo tends to chew up lower arms because of them at a rate of a set every couple of years and was thinking about the fact your adding weight to the lower arms than there is on the mondeo as standard as there is none its all sheering forces and on the kit car it would have all the sheering forces and 25+% of the weight of the too each side.

I do uderstand where you are coming from .... Alas, I am not a suspension designer & unable to give you the guidance that you so obviously need :confused: :confused:

As previously mentioned .... This is a well proven & trusted suspension design.

On the subject of joint replacement, yes of course over time the joints will need to be replaced.
Joint replacement on all types of suspension systems need replacing from time to time .... After all .... They are a service part.

Spent the best part of the last 30 -40 years changing ball joints :eek:
In the case of the Mcphereson strut ..... I have changed a fair few top bushes/bearing assemblys.

It may intrest you to know that many of the early Triumphs used an almost identical front suspension set up as the Roadster, in it's day, thought to be well advanced engineering ..... My point is .... I had to change the upper joints almost as frequently as the lower ones, must have been some even loads in there somewhere ;)

The more you post, the more the Haynes Roadster seems to be unsuitable for your requirements.

Also remember, the maxi weighed in a 1 Ton.

The locost/roadster is about half that.

TT

I think i am going to be spending some time with some wood lol

Working out the exact positions

WHOA.........GUYS......
You are all missing the point.....
The reason maxi balljoints are used in this car is............
they are designed to take the load that way .............
thats why you should not use other types
on a maxi the the suspension was on the lower arm
in effect trying to push the arm away from the upright...............
the maxi ball joint is designed especially for this purpose..if you used any old b/j tthey would fail quite quickly..

on a normal car (as we know them) the springing/suspension pushes down on top of the upright..

Hope that clears up this point chaps
cheers les g