Haynes Forums  

Go Back   Haynes Forums > Haynes Roadster Forums > Running gear
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 28th February 2010, 11:11 AM
Bonzo's Avatar
Bonzo Bonzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 3,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deezee View Post
The more you post, the more the Haynes Roadster seems to be unsuitable for your requirements.
Or any 7 type car for that matter

Speed humps are harsh on any car's suspension system .... How's about a nice 4X4 .... One thing for sure though .... Over time, speed humps will even FUBAR a 4X4s joints, like I said .... They are service parts
__________________
I am not a complete idiot...........Some of the parts are missing !!
Ronnie

www.roadster-builders.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 28th February 2010, 11:19 AM
twinturbo's Avatar
twinturbo twinturbo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlisle
Posts: 4,333
Default

IF your realy unsure, speek to Martin at MK sports cars, or someone from the MK owners club.

TT
__________________
You only get a woosh with a dump valve

Build Thread


Man Cave Mantiques



Cecil Street Auto Repairs Garage Carlisle




Build Cost 4181.65 - Last - Wheel Cylinders
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 28th February 2010, 11:22 AM
twinturbo's Avatar
twinturbo twinturbo is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlisle
Posts: 4,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzo View Post
Or any 7 type car for that matter

Speed humps are harsh on any car's suspension system .... How's about a nice 4X4 .... One thing for sure though .... Over time, speed humps will even FUBAR a 4X4s joints, like I said .... They are service parts

I just take em slow slow slow. Does a lot less damage over time.

TT
__________________
You only get a woosh with a dump valve

Build Thread


Man Cave Mantiques



Cecil Street Auto Repairs Garage Carlisle




Build Cost 4181.65 - Last - Wheel Cylinders
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 28th February 2010, 11:26 AM
les g les g is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: S.E.Cornwall
Posts: 760
Default

maybe just try visualise whats going on in the suspension.

when you go over a bump the wheel goes up the spring is pushing down
if the spring is acting on the top of the upright through either the bone or joint in effect its clamping the assembly together the load is on the top spring mount

where the spring is is pushing down on the lower arm as the wheel goes up
the spring tries to hold the lower arm down and in effect is trying to force the lower swivel joint apart
thats why the lower swivel joints are quite specific
cheers les g
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28th February 2010, 12:00 PM
ozzy1's Avatar
ozzy1 ozzy1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: perth,australia
Posts: 760
Default

Maybe your over thinking it all.This design has been used by all the manufacturers incl caterham ,westfield,dax etc. I think if there was a problem with the design one of the large manufacturers ( caterham etc)would have modified it and everyone else would have followed suit.Also remember that the roadster chassis has been design on cad and tested for stress etc.
Maybe you just need to slow down over speed bumps
Just my 2p worth
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 28th February 2010, 12:32 PM
correl correl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 105
Default

its not so much the ball joint i am worrieds about its the knock not being able to take the constant impacts
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 28th February 2010, 01:03 PM
AshG's Avatar
AshG AshG is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rochester
Posts: 1,882
Default

correl i think you are worried over nothing. the original sierra setup doenst come into play here as the only part we are using is the hub.

the reason why we dont use the sierra bottom ball joint is for the reason you are trying to get at. it cant take the forces we want it to.

the maxi ball joint was chosen as it is a lot stronger and designed to be used in a twin wishbone design rather than a Mcphereson setup.

as far as i am aware almost every kit car manufacturer uses the maxi joint and i have never heard of one fail ever, even under racing conditions.

the other thing you need to think about is how many miles do you do in 2 years in your daily driver before the ball joints fail? at a rough guess it would probably take you 10 years to do the same mileage in the roadster, factor in the extra strength and the lower weight and i doubt the ball joint would fail in a very long time.

as for speed bumps you dont need to worry, you will only have about 100-120mm ground clearance so wont be going over any
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 28th February 2010, 01:19 PM
Big Vern Big Vern is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 320
Default

I think Correl has fallen into one of the regular 'traps' on suspension design here.

This explaination comes from a supplier of track control arms to major OEM's:

"The track control arm, ball joint and lower section of the upright are NOT unloaded as you have presumed although thats how it looks when the vehicle is stationary, a substantial anti-roll bar passes through the track control arm and when cornering considerable forces are applied to try to pull the track control arm from the upright. The ball joint and lower part of the upright must be able to withstand these forces or they'd fail in service."

If that's what is required for the donor vehicle then I'm sure it's not a problem here.

My MX-5 has a very narrow part to the upright in the area you indicated and that has the spring and vehicle load acting on the lower wishbone.
The haynes design and many like it will work fine as they put less load through these parts that would have been the case with the donor vehicle due to their lower weight.

Ash as stated above the Sierra ball joint and most others CAN take the load or it would fail when you go round a corner as the anti-roll bar puts considerable forces through the track control arm, i.e. most of the load from the unloaded side of the car is transfered to the loaded side through the ARB pulling the TCA from the upright.

Hope that explains it BV.

Last edited by Big Vern : 28th February 2010 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 28th February 2010, 03:58 PM
dogwood's Avatar
dogwood dogwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 899
Default

^^^^^^Like wot he said^^^^^^^
__________________
.
.
David.

Heaven, Warm days and Cool rides
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 28th February 2010, 04:27 PM
alga's Avatar
alga alga is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Posts: 1,249
Default

Correl, I understand your argument is that the bottom part of the hub is not engineered to be the point of most of the force transfer. However, consider the following along with the other excellent points people have brought up above:

* The widely used Cortina upright looks flimsy in comparison with the Sierra design.
* Sierra parts have been the mainstay of the kit car industry for many years, no problems of uprights failing being reported.
__________________
Albert
Haynes Roadster FAQ | Haynes Builder Locations
Gallery, build thread in Lithuanian / via Google Translate.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.