Lightweight

[Guest gdc]

that chassis is partly strengthrenthened but requires

more work please contact me and i will give you the info rqd

regards graham

 

i am more than happy to work with anyone with a lightweight to achive sva

[Guest colinplatt]

thanks for that i must say i do not know a lot about the lightweight but i did build a hawk 289 and have been restoring classics for 25 years, i would be happy to have any help or info, my email is colinplatt@dsl.pipex.com or Tel 02392 551116 again many thanks Colin.

[Guest gdc]

with regards the question from scott mac some time ago re bump steer.

 

i have tried my lightweight a couple of times and found realy bad bump steer ,to the effect that it has almost throwm me into oncomming traffic .

i as others fitted the track rod ends into the top of the stubs .

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the sierra has the track rod end in the bottom , and rs said to rework the holes and fit from the top.

NOT so

IF YOU FIT THEM AS HENRY INTENDED THERE IS NO BUMP STEER

sorry shouting again !

 

the angle also looks more natural.

 

regards graham

[Guest DRC7]

This one is for you graham on ebay at the mo there is a part built lightweight for sale

[Guest ScotMac]

Timely post, as i was just finishing the reworking of my front suspension this weekend, and was looking at the bump steer (i finished installing the new balljoint sleeves, and switched to rose-joints for the rod ends). Note, my car is on front wheels again!!!

 

As i mentioned earlier (sorry for the repeat), the goal for eliminating bump steer is for the spot where the rod-end/steering-arm joint bisects the top and bottom BJ's to be equal (in terms of ratio) to the spot where the rod bisects the lines of the top and bottom chassis wish-bone attachments (hope that makes sense). And that the rack inner joint should be on the plane made by the four chassis side wishbone attachment points.

 

For my steering rack (different from the rhd uk one), the latter point (track inner joint position) is good...and think it is ok for the UK one, as well, at least from the pics.

 

However, as Graham has now confirmed, and as it appeared to me, all the UK l/w's rod-end joints are way too high, in comparison to the chassis side.

 

Mine also appears to be too high. The ratio is 3" to 9" on the upright/balljoints side vs. 2 1/4" to 8" on the chassis side. Actually, that ratio is pretty good. The rod-end is a little high (33.3% ratio vs. 28% ratio). But it would be worse if i reversed the rod end (would take it down to 1" to 9" on the upright side!!!). Thus, I'm going to stay w/ the rod-ends on the top for now, and see it works. In fact, I had the pins for switching to rose joints custom made, and i could have the machine shop turn some more material off of them...maybe about 1/8" (down to 31.9%). Might be also able to take about an 1/8" off of the steering arm (though that would be a bit more risky), which would take it down 30.5% ratio...pretty close to the 28% on the chassis side.

 

I'll try to put up a picture...Graham, do you have one of yours?

 

Cheers, -Scot

[Guest ScotMac]

This one is for you graham on ebay at the mo there is a part built lightweight for sale

 

And note, it has the TRE's on the *bottom*.

[Guest ScotMac]

And i just looked, Diyer's is also on the bottom...Graham, it appears that they all left you hung out to dry!! Well, better late than never!!

 

Here is Diyer's (Simon's):

 

http://locostbuilders.co.uk/photos.php?act...to=DSC00100.JPG

[Guest ScotMac]

Graham, it looks like your ratio would actually be worse for you by putting the TRE on the bottom (really LOW on the upright side) Maybe that is why RS said put it on the top. But, whatever works...empirical is always better than theory. By putting the TRE at a weird spot, you can sometimes move the bump steer problems to an area outside of the usable suspension travel....

[Guest ScotMac]

In fact, don't some race cars have the steering arms all the way up near the top balljoint?

[Guest gdc]

hi

at least i didnt kill myself before sorting it out .

dale i have 3 lightweights here and 1 cut in half .the problem one!

i dont need another and the wife will kill me if i buy any more.

but its intersting to see how the lightweights that are for sale are being advertised,

ie strengthened bits and bobs ect ,

its a shame that the advertiser is not mentioning the real strengthening problem to a potential buyer .

regards graham

[Guest gdc]

scott

if you look at a lightweight on the floor (not on stands)with the tre in the bottom the angle appears better ie

the bottom wishbone angle and the rack angle are similar.

i am no expert in the geomotry but i know by experiance that the tre in the bottom works better.

it may be that the info for fitting them in the top came from the video for the 2 b and it stuck in my head .

and confusion set in ?

the lightweight dvds are vague to say the least

 

i am happy to be proven wrong and can if nessarry addapt .

your ability to soak up knowledge and regurgitate it is admirable.

however your angles and math scills leave me aggog.

i want my car to handle as well as could be expected without making my brain hurt too much.

regards graham

[Guest ScotMac]

Yes, i regurgitate things well...er i mean i retain alot...er thanks Graham...i think.

[Guest gdc]

hi scott

there is no offence ment and it is to your credit that you can do this, more power to you .

it is unfortunate that we seem to speak the same language but the jist of the comment can be interpritated differently on different sides of the atlantic.we tend to enjoy sarcasm.

it was ment as a compliment.

i must say that i have been deeply shocked by the events in the news today .

we have gun crime here to but it seems that its mainly related to drugs .or armed robery.

regards graham

[Guest ScotMac]

hi graham, yes, the language thing is interesting...don't worry, no offense taken.

 

in terms of the v-tech thing, yes, it was quite shocking. i was looking at some stats, and it appears that we have 3 suicides EVERY DAY on US college campuses. I have to assume that there are quite a few mentally unstable people on the campuses, and this was just another example of such, who happened to decide to take out some other people when he decided to off himself. in this case, and many others, there was actually quite a bit of warning before final act, that shouldve allowed it to be avoided. I believe that is the key to preventation, as opposed to any type of gun control. people will always be able to get guns *or* find some other way to take themselves and others out. we will next be outlawing cars, since many have been used kill people in similar murder/suicides?

 

anyway, the good that has come out of this, is that funding for mental health is now being looked at much more seriously. in fact, they were about to cut 10million dollars from the mental health programs in the UC campuses, but instead left it in place. The US is actually very bad at taking care of the mentally ill (witness the amount of homeless people in our cities. note, homeless on street == mentally ill, in most cases)

 

hope everything is going well in the uk rh l/w world. cheers, -Scot

[Guest gdc]

hi scott

we find on this side of the pond that people with a mental problem tend to build kit cars ,

not shoot people.

 

the ones with the severest problems tend to purchace the robin hood type of kit ,

 

and the people with the most severe problem appear to try to make several sheets of ally into a road going vechicle.

shame.

 

its sad that with all the medical help at hand no help can be found for these unfortunate soles.

 

ps blew my bloody engine up today.

 

hope this type of humor travels ?

no offence or disrespect intended.

 

regards graham