Jump to content

Bfg

Members
  • Posts

    671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Bfg

  1. Back on the job., albeit slowly..well even more slowly than usual ! Yesterday, while the car was still unmoved, on the ground, and level I checked the front wheels were straight (tight cord again) and checked the ride height and camber of the front suspension. the check was both from the wheel centre to the arch and again under the chassis. I did this three times with no weight in the car, the 68kg in either seat, and then finally with the 104kg in the driver's seat only. Bottom line is that the LHS is 10mm high (as the rear LHS was previously) but otherwise the camber on either wheel was good to go. Sometime in the future I'll borrow a spring compressor and swap out the coli spring collars on the LHS but otherwise leave it as it is. Final job on the suspension then (..for the time being) was to lift the car back onto the ramps, load it up again with the bricks so that I might tighten the trailing-arm / poly-bush bolts up underneath. While at it to check the tightness of the half shafts and the flexi-brake pipes, etc.. Moving on. . , there were a number of jobs that needed addressing under the car. . . Firstly to grease the half shaft UJ's and the rear propshaft UJ. The first grease nipple was snapped off. I was very fortunate though insomuch as I managed to undo the broken off piece without dismantling again, by poking an Allen key in and turning it out with that. I swapped it out with one from the half-shaft I'd previously replaced. Although it (the grease nipple) had a slight kink in it - I presumed that was to provide a better angle for greasing. But no It had been bent.. and so as I pinched that one up, it too sheered off level with the surface. An Allen key didn't work on that one, but by chance I had a Torx key which did the job. With that removed I found one more grease nipple in the yet to be replaced half-shaft. Job done. Two pumps of grease and the gun was empty ! Hey ho., of five UJ's, I managed to grease the two closer-to-the-diff ones and the rear of the prop-shaft. One outer UJ had no provision for greasing (sealed to destruction) and the other had a grease nipple that was impossible to get at, unless I removed the half shaft again.! For the time being I've left it. I'll need to pull that half shaft out again anyway. ^ Why did it have to be the one tucked up behind the exhaust pipe ? ..just a two minute job huh ! ? ^ second grease nipple. On the right of these photo is the correct long straight type of nipple with small spanner flats ..borrowed from the spare half-shaft. Other jobs while down under . . . The brake pipe on one side would have been squashed under the bump stop, so that had to be moved aside a little. The brake and the fuel pipe were only loosely secured by a cable tie ..where they went into the rear of the tunnel, and the fuel pipe's run would have also chafed on the chassis. The cupronickel pipe was also buckled and I'm sure with vibration it would soon have cracked, so I'll want to replace it. In the meantime, they needed 'adjusting', securing and preventing from chattering against each other or the chassis. ^^ Note on the RHS of the second photo how the exhaust pipe is resting against the chassis gusset, and the way the underside T-shirt panel is buckled up in the middle. The brake and fuel pipes further forward were clipped but still loose enough to rattle against each other &/or the chassis. I've locally rubber sleeved and neoprene padded behind the pipes as necessary. The hard fuel pipe is joined at that corner with a short length of flexi rubber hose, with no ethanol-resistant markings on it and no pipe clips. I'll want to correct this sooner rather than later. And yes there is a drip of fluid from the slave cylinder, which I'd asked to be done. The LHS sill repair is not pretty ..more on that in a future post. I've taped over the holes in the side of the chassis rails (white PVC tape) to lessen water ingress. Those in the bottom are being left open for drainage. The chassis' underside T-shirt plate being pulled straight The cross-box silencer mounts were adjusted (re-done), to raise it up and better support one side (..one bracket now surplus) The exhaust bracket and clamp under the gearbox was 'adjusted' (..also a clamp now surplus ..the car is getting lighter by the hour !). A clamp was fitted at the front of the pipe (where it joins the double down-pipes) as that was missing. The second of those clamps is also missing and the old one is bent so I need to buy another. ^ when all was said and done the pipe and silence are now secure ..and there's 1/4" clearance at its tightest spot. You'll note in the top RH corner the brake pipe was very close to the exhaust. That too has been adjusted. While under I was also spotting the oil drips from the recently rebuilt gearbox (which was 99.5% oil tight beforehand).. ^ This does not please me. So., progress is being made, but its slow because of my own post-op limitations and the fact that working under a car on 8" ramps is itself a slow business. All so many details though will simply take some time to work through. And there are many more yet. Pending the weather, more next week, perhaps, Bidding you all a good weekend, Pete
  2. Bfg

    Joke

    ^ i know.. opening a packet of dry roasted peanuts is becoming a real challenge, but the ratchets are only of any use.. once you've got to the nuts inside
  3. Bfg

    Joke

    ..guess who's just faced insurance renewals again
  4. Thanks Mathew, I wonder how much change I might reasonably expect.. when the front suspension still needs tuning ?
  5. I was a Design Engineer for many years, and although I might draw up something like this in an afternoon, there was a thousand and one things I was considering in the back of my mind ..from experience. Still, I take your point. Indeed the TR4A only used two of the three types of bracket, and although the original short springs and spacers were replaced by longer springs and no spacers, the options were still rather limited. But now we dealing with 50+year old chassis that may or may not have been rebuilt exactly to specification, so perhaps the need for a little post-assembly adjustment is understandable. Btw., I understand the 3-notch bracket was only introduced when the TR6 changed to stiffer springs to prevent that car from swatting under acceleration, and quite probably the effects of out of tune suspension was more noticeable still with wider wheels ..and in view of advancing standards during the 1970's. I guess very few of the racing chaps use TR4A's but I wonder if those racing a TR5 or TR6 set their own suspension or would they take it to a professional outfit.? "just brute force and ignorance" I think not. I'm guessing you get a feel for what moves which direction as you adjust things, and so do things pragmatically and probably very carefully. The problem I had with my previous 'classic' a Citroen Ami super was that the A-posts had been welded in the wrong place. Katie's not much better and the new sill is dismal. Although things can be fudged to lessen panel gap variations, there's a whole lot which simply cannot be done to achieve anything like a silk purse. Pete
  6. A little more progress ..in the right direction After the weekend's exercise I was hurting. I think the sutures are breaking up, as they are supposed to do, and after so many sit-ups and twists working under the car (albeit on stands).. the wound itself is being pulled. Whatever the reason., it's very tender indeed. Bottom line is that I did nothing particularly physical yesterday, so today ..before the seasonal weather closes in I wanted to get Katie's rear suspension sorted. Today's plan was simply to swap out the coil spring collars on the rear LHS. If I get it right, it ought to lower the height the 10mm needed to true the car up, and also increase the negative tilt of the wheels. As said in my previous post ..the question is ; would these estimations be right. ? These are the spring collar options I have available to me at this time . . . ^ Top left is a rubber collar, as previously fitted, the spring sits on the rim whose thickness is about 1/4" (6mm) which soon squashes down to being 4 - 5mm thick. To the right of that is the poly-bush collar fitted by M&T, which as you can see has a larger overall diameter and a thinner inside brim. Its rim is 7-8mm thick and so probably soon squashes down to 5.5 - 6.5mm thick. Bottom right is one of the rubber collars previously fitted under this car's front suspension's coil spring. Larger in diameter and its rim is only 1/8" thick, but the impressions of having been used suggest that it doesn't squash down very much at all., let's say to 2mm. The advantage of the larger diameter rim is that it helps prevent this . . . ^ the collar seen squeezed out from under the spring ..when the spring load was reapplied. Clearly isn't going to do it job so it had to come out again. Perhaps it should have been assembled dry.? Anyhow it happened both top and bottom and so I used the new rubber collar (kindly supplied to me by M&T) at the top, in place of this previously used and slightly contorted one, and then I used a large diameter collar at the base, within the trailing arm's recess. ^ The front spring's collar is a larger diameter (inside out out) but just about squeezes into the rear coil spring, and then sits well in the trailing arm's socket. So with those swapped out, it was time to lower the car, load it back up and re-assess the car's ride height and rear wheel cambers. . . The results are perhaps a little better than hoped, with the LHS of the car dropping from 396.5 to 381mm, so 15.5mm. As before, the measurements were from the underside of the wheel-arch to the wheel-hub centre and so is independent of tyre size or pressures. That's more than I had previously planned (which was 10mm) and is a result of my using the very thin front spring collar in lieu of the original type rubber one. I'm happy with that ride height, as recorded as a static load with 150lb driver and passenger. I suspect it'll settle a little more with use ..which will then be even better for when I drive alone. The camber of that wheel has changed just a little more than predicted, because the ride height was changed more. So rather than -0.4 degrees it now measures as -0.44 degrees, which is a tid-bit of a bonus ..as my arbitrary target was -0.5 degrees. The RHS of the car, although its suspension was untouched, measured a drop in ride height of another 4mm. The only explanation that comes to mind is that the car is now sitting level rather than on a tilt. Whatever the reason, I'm glad for it. The ground clearance under the chassis side rails (one side to the other) is within 1/16", with either side now sitting between 5-11/16" and 5-3/4". I'm very happy with that too. Its negative camber has increased because of the car's tilt being corrected, and now measured as -0.94 degrees ..which is more than my target. Next I altered the load condition once again, to simulate no passenger and with me (105kg) driving. Without the weight in that side, the LHS rose by 11mm but the reversed tilt of the car changed its camber to be -0.51 degrees. I like that. With the additional weight in the driver's seat, the RHS of the car dropped by 5mm and the camber (because of the car's tilt) swung back to -0.58 degrees. I like that too ..but for the implication that I ought to loose some weight ! That's it., the rear suspension is set up to where I wanted it for solo driving. The rear's ride height is now acceptable (..the body mounts are new & thick so the body is a tad high on the chassis but I'll live with that).. and the car is even from one side to the other. You may recall before the chassis swap Katie was riding particularly low on the RHS. Most importantly for handling, the rear wheel camber on either side is so close to my target figure that... I'll not write more about it .! I just need to crawl under the car once again to tighten all the bolts up in this load condition. Then it'll be.. Job done.! And if i can do it without specialist tools, then so can you Bidding you a good evening, Pete.
  7. Following on with my adjustments of Katie's rear suspension, from 20th September ..and it's now 11th October - phew but that's how life goes. Ten days after the op I was down under again. I'm sure the NHS discharge sheet says something about 'light exercise' including (but not limited to) getting down and back-up again from the floor (x100 times), twisting, crawling and reaching to undo rather tight half-shaft bolts, pumping up n' down on the trolley jack handle, and of course moving 136kg of bricks into and out of the car. Still, I'm now having an easier time than Mathew ..who continues to battle on with his ailments. Keep up the good work matey, see you soon. During my convalescence I was struggling to fathom out why suspension adjustments on the car didn't match the figures in Buckeye Triumph reports. So I looked again and picked up a few errors, then remodeled the Trailing-arm geometry for a second time in 3d (Rhino computer program). Possibly I'll pull together a fuller report for the benefit of other TR owners, but here are a few tidbits . . . ^ this is one of the 3d computer models I generated and manipulated to try and better assess what was happening to ride height & wheel camber when the trailing-arm brackets are swapped around. I was working on and so modeled the rear RHS trailing arm of my TR4A. And so as if viewed from the back of the car, the wheel can be identified in the bottom RHS of this screen capture. The row of lines at its base are a visual guide to wheel height (best seen from the side view) which of course is a direct representation of ride height. The black line up from those is a vertical datum, against which I measured the wheel's camber. The wheel and the green lines (which represent the trailing arm) were joined together as a block, so they might be pivoted as an assembly around the polybushes, in their brackets bolted to the chassis. The row of blue lines near the middle of this image represent the various position / options offered by the selection of three types of trailing-arm bracket. The red line seen running diagonally though those is axis of the polybushes,, around which the arm and wheel-hub, and the therefore wheel itself is swiveled (3d_rotate in Rhino ). The cyan coloured circle represents the bottom of the coil spring. The coil spring, with its vibration insulation collars, have a predetermined length ..for any particular load condition. The TR4A manual suggests setting the suspension up with 150lb (68kg) of weight in either seat. The top position of this spring length is fixed (within the cup of the bridge on the chassis). In regard to swapping from one trailing-arm bracket to another.. the height of the polybush axis moves higher or lower relative to the chassis rail. So then., if the height of the polybushes is moved down (when a different trailing-arm bracket is used) ..and the road-spring has a predetermined length, then the back-end of the trailing arm ..complete with wheel-bearing hub and wheel, go up. In short, the change in height of the polybush seesaws around the bottom of the road spring. It's position was estimated from the dimension given in the Buckeye report. The rough dimensions were 10.5" to the spring and 19" to the hub, but I feel they were incorrect in calculating the effect of height rotation based on those dimensions " If you draw a couple of sketches you'll see that the car height changes 10.5"/19" or 55% of the change in bush axis height " How's that.? When I draw a 19" long seesaw with its pivot at 10.5", and then raise the polybush end by 1" ..the other end goes down by 0.81". I suspect they were also very slightly inaccurate in assuming the axis of the wheel hub was in the 2-dimensional same plane. In practice the polybushes are quite a bit lower on chassis than height of the centre of the wheel (..as you can see in the illustration above I've drawn the height difference into my 3d model). Conversely the bottom of the spring is down at the chassis level. I wonder too, if measuring to the centre of the road-spring within the trailing arm is correct. I'm thinking a drop in polybush height rotates around the front edge of the bottom coil of the road spring. That may not seem like much but again this effects the ratio of change, so instead of 10.5" the dimension I used is 8-3/4". Referring back to the sketch of a 19" long seesaw, but now with its pivot at 8-3/4". Raising the polybush end by 1" ..and the other end goes down by 1.17" ..compared to their 55% (0.55") that's a over double the effective difference. Not only does this effect the ride height, but any suspension travel also changes the angle of wheel camber. Moving on. . . As you can see in the illustration, I've played with the model and listed the effects of changing from one bracket to another. NB. this computer model's adjustment is completely manual, and therefore subject to minor error. I'll come back to those figures in a short while, but firstly let's quickly review the trailing-arm (bush mounting) brackets . . . ^ this screen capture of my Autocad drawing shows (on the LHS) ; a plan, side and end view of a bracket. It shows the two mounting bolts to the chassis rail and the one through the polybush (rubber was original and so may be substituted). Through the side view you can just about make out the yellow centre-line, equidistant from the two bolts. And from this a dimension of 9.35mm up to the centre axis of the polybush. With that offset, this bracket is a 2-notch type. Turned over, on the two bolts, and the offset to the bush would of course be down rather than up. Not illustrated, but the 1-notch type of bracket has a 3.2mm offset from the yellow centre-line, and the 3-notch type of bracket has a 15.8mm offset. These figures are very slightly different to those in the Buckeye report because I've assumed they were designed & made to imperial dimensions.. with offset of ; 3/8", 1/8" and 5/8" respectively. The two trailing-arm brackets are centred at 13-5/8" apart when mounted onto the chassis (illustrated across the top and bottom of the drawing), and the ends of each blue dashed line (each 1/4" apart), represent the bush centre with each possible bracket position (viewed square-on to the chassis rail). The brackets illustrated represent a 2-notch and a 1-notch. Drawn to scale the height of the polybush bolt is very apparent, with the ' OUTSIDE ' bracket (left) being higher than the INSIDE bracket. It looks a lot but the angle between them (seen as the green dashed line) is only 2.08-degrees from the horizontal. However in detail, the polybush (or rubber) is expected to do this . . . ^ I wasn't happy with that, because it's like hanging a door on hinges which aren't in line, so.. ^^ on my own car, I've slotted one hole (in either bracket) sideways by a millimetre. The other hole(s) were untouched, and so the bracket's position on the chassis is unchanged, but the slotted hole allows the brackets to tilt so the polybush bolt and pivot axis are in line (ie., the whole bracket now sits at that 2.08-degree angle rather than torturing the bush). Anyway back to the figures I took. . . The TR4A with standard ride height, wheels, tyres, etc., was designed with a 2-notch bracket (notches Up) on the OUTSIDE and a 1-notch bracket (notch Up) on the inside. Then, at the correct ride height / loaded according to the workshop manual's specification (a nominal 150lb / 68kg on each seat), the rear wheel's camber would be zero, +/- half a degree. ie., they would be vertical - That's easy. And so that's how I set my computer's 3d model up. I modeled what I had on my car ; with the 2u-1u brackets, and its ride height being a little high, and its +0.73 degree wheel camber ..and then rotated the 3d 'trailing arm, hub & wheel assembly' around the polybush axis until the wheel camber measured zero. This was the equivalent of lowering the suspension by almost 12mm. This gave me the as-designed Standard rear suspension geometry. Then I systematically changed the type of bracket and their orientation (up or down), and for each I rotated the back end of the trailing arm back to where it touched the bottom of the road-spring (that having a predetermined length for that load condition), and measured the consequential height and camber of the wheel. The results were as follows . . . Brackets Height Camber (degrees) ; 3d-1d +6.59 +0.83 2u-1u 0.00 mm 0.0 1d-2d - 6.53 - 0.83 1u-3u - 12.50 - 1.63 Then tilt the bushes one notch and repeat ; Brackets Height Camber 3d-2u + 11.58 + 2.30 2u-1d + 5.00 + 1.47 1d-1u - 1.50 + 0.64 1u-2d - 7.93 - 0.19 2d-3u - 14.29 - 1.02 The first thing you'll notice is that, compared with the Buckeye report's table (submitted in a previous post), there are very few results. This is because reversing the brackets (inside to outside) so the trailing-arm bush would be lower on the outside bracket, isn't (for all practical purposes) likely to happen. If that extent of camber change ..to positive, is required, then it very much points to the chassis having collapsed in the middle. Similarly, if the same type of bracket is used both on the inside as outside ..whereby the bush axis would be parallel with the (supposedly horizontal) chassis rail. Only if a car is custom-lowered might those bracket configurations be required, and those are outside the remit of my investigation. The second thing you'll note is that I've presented the figures in two parts. The first four bracket configurations are simply moving the axis up or down, from standard, with the 2.08 degree angle of the polybush axis (relative to the chassis) remaining the same. The second set has tilted the bushes one notch (one degree greater angle) and then again moving that polybush axis up and down. For those who prefer here is a graph representation of the above figures . . . ^ Mostly speaks for itself, but the grey grid lines are from the first four bracket configurations and those with the green grid lines are from the last five. Those with the blue lines are the datum (standard TR4A set up) from which the others are measured. This means that the figures are relative (..albeit hand measured). So anyone adjusting their own car's suspension (whether TR4A, TR5 or TR6, or Triumph 2000) has to firstly accurately establish what they have, and then to adjust from that datum. The graph is easy enough to read insomuch as if you were to change from the standard (blue grid lines) bracket configuration of 2u-1u (outside bracket - inside bracket) to 2d-3u (found as the lowest red dot in the bottom left hand corner), then you might expect a 14+mm (14.29mm) drop in ride height and the wheel camber angle would tilt towards the negative by 1.02 degrees. This is what I did on my car (this last weekend) and the car did indeed drop in height and the RHS rear wheel's camber is now -0.30 degrees. Starting off from +0.73 minus 1.02 = -0.29 degrees ..so what I predicted was achieved (+/- 0.01 degree). That is on the RHS of the car. The LHS of my car is sitting 10mm higher, and so has a tad little less camber (it is now negative though). I'll (hopefully this week) correct this by swapping the spring collars out for thinner ones.. The ride height will drop and so the wheels camber will tilt a little more to the negative. ^ after swapping out the trailing-arm brackets, I'm checking the camber angle of the LHS rear wheel. I have each seat loaded with approx 64kg of night storage heater bricks, and the ground has been leveled (with a piece of 1/4" plywood under the RHS rear wheel). The car was lowered, loaded up and bounced upon, and moved forward onto plastic bags (which are a poor man's slipper plate, to allow the tyres to slip sideways and otherwise settle where they will). The car was bounced upon again to allow it to settle without the tyre's wanting to scrub sideways. The spirit level is vertical and aligned to a mark on the wheel-arch (so the same place is measured from each time) and then the dimensions to the top and bottom of the wheel rim was recorded (in this instance just 1mm difference between top and bottom). With 395mm height between rim measurements, the figures were used in a drawing (on the computer) for it to tell me the camber angle was -0.15 degrees. Hey ho., getting really close to what I want. This (above) is the side which is 10mm higher, and although I'll lowering it ..it already looks much better than as the car was sitting when I collected it after the chassis swap. It then had both a higher ride height and the wheel had positive camber ..measured as 5mm difference between top and bottom (wheel rim to the spirit level) = +0.73 degrees). How much difference will lowering make ? Well, while I had the computer model open I checked. Again using the same 2u-1u brackets as a Standard setting to assess these things from, I rotated the trailing arm around the polybush axis to simulate a change in ride height (whether caused by car load, cornering load, or alternative spring length) and here's the figures . . . Brackets R/Height Camber 2u-1u +30mm + 1.94 2u-1u +20mm + 1.29 2u-1u +10mm + 0.65 2u-1u 0.00 0.00 2u-1u -10mm - 0.64 2u-1u -20mm - 1.33 2u-1u -30mm - 1.94 degrees Those same figures present in graph format . . . ^ Again self explanatory. The figures (red dots) are again from the hand manipulated computer model and were close enough to set a line through (the -20mm figure along the bottom was adjusted by 0.03 deg to fall into line). From this I can see that if I drop the suspension on the rear LHS of the car by 10mm, it will have a -0.65 degree effect on that wheel's camber. However when doing this I also have to factor-in that the tilt of the car (over a 48-1/2" track of the rear axle) is about 0.4 degrees, and so the net result will be closer to -0.25 degree. But then the camber on the RHS corner will also alter. With this information I can get it right (..with a fraction of the trial and error of spanner work under the car), or I can determine how much effort is it worth versus whether I'll actually notice the finer aspects of its adjustment. Most likely I'll drive the car a little, let the springs settle into their poly-bush collars and reassess things later on. Out of interest though . . . I was interested to assess the car itself when removing the passenger, and adding more weight into the driver's seat. I'm 105kg so I loaded 13 x8kg bricks into the driver seat and all off the passengers.. The ride height (hub centre to wheel arch) on the passenger side went up by just 6.5mm, and the camber changed by +0.15 degree ..taking that side to zero camber. The ride height (hub centre to wheel arch) on the drivers side went down by just 2mm, and its camber changed by -0.29 degree ..also taking that side to zero camber. Interesting ! These are of course static loads and the camber would change when the suspension is loaded ..around corners. Have a good evening, Pete
  8. Nice one Mathew, seen worse ..indeed I've tried to buy worse ! Surely you just need to fit a radiator and repaint the front wheels ..and she'll be good to go. Anyway very glad to see its happened.. 'the time waiting makes the gift all the sweeter' and now while you're convalescing you have something to focus your mind on. And that's good for the healing. Pete.
  9. sacrificial anodes to the god Ferrous. Did you know that a particularly famous architect designed ..and had built, a ship clad in copper. Apparently when launched in seawater the electrolysis was something to behold. Conversely, as if there wasn't enough salt at sea.. salt blocks are used to scrub the timber of decks, and are also added to water in the bilges of vessels built in timber. - - - Back on the subject of Triumph suspension. Mathew kindly shared a few images of the Triumph 2000's IRS. As the TR's IRS was derived from this it makes an interesting comparison . . . ^ Triumph 2000 IRS. The sub-frame assembly onto a monocoque body shell is pretty neat. Also of note is the telescopic damper mounted directly to the body tub, whereas the TR uses lever arm dampers which are of course assembled onto the chassis. I was particularly interested to see the angle of those sub-frames ..and their trailing-arm bush axis, relative to the axle's axis ..which from the photo appear to be 40+ degrees rather than the 32 degrees of the TR's. I presume the 2000 required more camber change (to negative) to counter the saloon car's tendency to roll. The 2000's inner and outer trailing arm bush brackets are different, ..as they are for the TR's, so I guess the selection of those is likewise used to set the saloon's rear wheel camber. For comparison, my own TR4A chassis mounted IRS (below) . . . I wonder how many, if any, components are interchangeable between the different models. ? Pete
  10. We use Stainless steel quite a lot in the marine industry, often taking some pretty impressive structural loads. Mind you we also have aluminium masts, copper wiring, lead keels and bronze tubes through the hull.. so what might that say about us ! ? ..and that's aside from the timber of the bulkheads and in hull framing, engine beds etc., and then foam or balsa wood for our structural laminate cores, and then sail cloth to propel the vessel.! ..the motor industry is just so die-in-the-wool using iron and steel all the time.
  11. ^ Those are amazingly skinny brackets, and the bolt thread looks coarse ..I too would share your concern. The brackets on the Tr4A - Tr6 are made from 3/16" (4mm) plate so possibly less of a concern. Pete
  12. The bolts through the bush and bracket would need to have a 3" long shank plus its threaded length. Possibly more readily available as 4" bolts that can be cut shorter to suit the tight fit between the bracket and the rear chassis rail. What Colin says is correct and good practice but as Peter implies ; probably unnecessary ..as when the whole assembly is bolted up tight (done while the suspension is loaded of course) then the ends of the crush tub should not move relative to the bracket and therefore neither the bracket nor the bolt's thread would wear. Thank you for your best health wishes and cautions. The operation was for "a large left inguinal hernia" which is possibly why I had a large open incision across the left groin, and then a rather tender four to five inches of Frankenstein-like sutures and a whole lot of deep bruising where no one wants it. Naturally I would have preferred key-hole surgery, but hey.. they didn't wake me up to ask my opinion.! Had I known beforehand the effects of general anesthetic on my system, then most likely I would have taken stool-softener medicine before and immediately after the op ..because five days worth of blockage pressing from within was, I feel, unnecessary and avoidable pain, distress and discomfort (..lots of each). The sister of a close friend had the same side effects after having general anesthetic., so I'm not alone. Indeed the post-op literature makes a big deal about avoiding constipation. But by then it is too late, and thereafter eating only gruel and soft fruit wasn't enough to correct the issue. Anyone facing surgery might want to heed this warning, but also to seek their doctor's advice, so as to avoid any conflict in medicine. Anyhow, once unblocked, I took to light exercise, as highly recommended ..and managing to walk about 3/4 mile (round trip) to a local shop on the Saturday (the op was late on Tuesday afternoon), and then four or five miles on the Sunday, another three or four miles on Monday ..by which time I felt I was hurting myself. So Tuesday I had a day of rest. In the meantime (Monday night, I think) we had a 3 - 4" flood on the patio where my TR is up on ramps. Once that had subsided, there was of course a whole lot of crud to sweep up and wash out . . ^ my 'light exercise' for today was to clean up this S%%t. Perhaps it doesn't look too bad in the photos but just from this space and under where the Chrysler is parked I swept and shoveled up the best part of a wheelbarrow load of crud. I'm now aching (both front and back !) more than would have liked ..but at least now the ground under the car has half-a-chance to dry out. Job done for today, I'm going to take it easy now. Wishing you a peaceful evening. Cheers, Pete.
  13. Good point Gully, I was struggling to understand why the measured change in ride height and camber was not closer to that predicted in the Buckeye-Triumph reports. Dwelling on the issue and work the car came to a halt with my having to prepare for having a minor operation. I live alone, so things like grocery shopping and house cleaning, bedding, car insurance and other bills, as well as positioning of furniture as zimmer-frame like aides to getting up n’ down etc., all had to be done / dealt with in advance of my being laid up thereafter. Then last Tuesday I was surprised to wake up from having open-surgery rather than key-hole as expected. Anyway, right now I'm on the mend again, but off physical bending, stretching & lifting exertions, including jacking up the car, crawling under it, undoing and lifting off a wheel, &/or reaching and struggling to loosen half-shaft and trailing-arm bolts. I hope to get back on with it soon but in the meantime, when able to concentrate, I've been looking again at the Buckeye-Triumph reports. I've found a number of errors in their figures. Their author’s thinking of what happens when adjustments are made has been really helpful, but in practice their measurements were a little off. Tbh., not enough in themselves to make a significant difference but possibly enough to confuse the issue ..of why actual adjustments don't result according to prediction. However, your point of my adjusting just one side and then re-measuring the effects ..on car now leaning, is inspired. Thank you. TBh., I really didn't think it would make much difference over the full width of the car (the axle's track dimension), but I've just checked.. and just 10mm lower suspension on one side, on the TR4's track width of 48.5" (1233mm), equates to the car leaning by almost half a degree (0.465 deg). This of course means the chassis, the trailing-arm brackets, and therefore the wheel-bearing's hub, being likewise tilted relative to the datum vertical spirit-level. Should anyone be looking at the same issues, of ride height &/or the rear wheel’s camber being out - In due course I’ll try to pull together a few more pointers. Pete
  14. Bfg

    Newbie ?

    Paul, without wanting to appear pedantic, your ignition warning light is coming on ..but is it staying on when you rev the engine.? I only ask because my TR's ignition warning light comes on now every time the engine drops to a slow tick-over, but I accept that as being OK because as soon as the engine revs are above 1200rpm the light goes off again. Pete.
  15. Vinyl hoods can be softened via heat from a fan-heater, or hair-drier gun, heating up the whole of the inside the car (with the windows and hood mostly closed). A hot air gun used on the outside can be too localised and generally use of its high temperature is very much more risky. Canvas, double-duck, and mohair tops tend to stretch a little more when wet. I'd recommended a good sponging the fabric down, inside and out to aide fitting. Once wet, then warming that with the aforementioned fan-heater or hair-drier from within can help with fastening new hoods. Btw., Hoods left up and carefully pulled into shape (..their interface with side windows for example) when the car is not in use will encourage their long-term shape and fit to be better when actually needed. Many mostly-dry-weather drivers who keep their car in the garage tend to have their car's hood folded down pretty much all the time, and then struggle when it is needed to be put up in short time. Hope that helps, Pete
  16. Any thoughts about a fuel cut off switch, situated by the tank, that in the event of an under-bonnet fire you could simply switch off ? And of course an additional anti-theft deterrent
  17. Yesterday was interesting, but not as productive as I hoped ..and my back now aches something rotten. Nevertheless here we go . . . Ignoring for a moment the ride height, which I hoped might be helped a little, with what I was about to do - the challenge was to adjust the rear wheel's positive camber. But firstly, I needed to ascertain where we were at. ^ eight approx 8kg night storage-heater bricks in each seat, half a tank of fuel, the spare wheel and another 15kg of weight in the boot to simulate normal load conditions. The car is on the level having been rocked and rolled forward. ^ The spirit-level is standing on the floor and leaning against the wheel-arch brow, with a piece of wood leaning against it to hold it steady while I measure to the rims top and bottom. The dimensions recorded (rear LHS) were 46.5mm top and 50.5mm bottom, so the top of the wheel was tilting out (positive camber) closer to the spirit level rather than being upright or slightly tilting in. I did a scale drawing of this (on the computer in ACAD) and the angle equated to 0.73 degrees (positive). The TR4A workshop manual tells me it should be +/- 0.5 degrees. Personally speaking I would like to see zero to -0.5 degrees negative camber. In any case the requirement is to alter the positive camber to negative by about 3/4 of a degree (have the wheel sitting vertically when the car is loaded or leaning in by about 3mm difference) or just a little more. NB. the difference on the rear RHS of the car was the same 5mm / 0.73 degree positive camber. It's reassuring when both are the same. Now, working on the rear RHS of the car, only because that was easier in my present working environment, and with the wheel off this is what we see . . . ^ Taking the chassis rail as being level, you can clearly see how the trailing-arm brackets adjust the camber of the trailing arm and therefore the wheel. It ought, by the look of things, to be negative camber (top of the wheel tilting in) as the orientation of the brackets are correct for this car. The camber does go to negative as the suspension is compressed. This is so.. when cornering - it's like putting the tyre at a very slight angle to stop it sliding sideways. As it is the tyre leans outwards and the so is scrubbed further under the side wall. This positive camber then is consistent with the car's ride height being more than it should be (the springs are not compressing enough). Looking on Buckeye Triumph's report on adjusting the camber ; I read this . . . This records three different bracket shapes, 1, 2 and 3. each marked with notches on the top edge. Type-1 has the trailing-arm pivot / axis bolt (where the rubber or poly-bush goes) just 3.2mm below the centre of the bracket (between the bracket's two mounting bolts). NB. This type-1 is what I have.. seen to the left of my photo (above). Type-2 has its pivot/axis-bolt 9.35mm above the centre of the bracket. This type of bracket is what I have (outboard by the sill) seen to the right in the photo above. Type-3 bracket doesn't concern me because I don't have those (they're sometimes used on the TR6), but for record their pivot/axis-bolt is some 16.8mm below the centre of the bracket. 3D-2D means Outside a type-3 bracket with notches Down, used in conjunction with an inside type 2 bracket, also with its notches Down. In this configuration the camber between the brackets is -4.16 degrees ..which because of the trailing arm's geometry gives -3.3 degree (negative camber) of the wheel. (it say 3.61 degrees in another table). Another row starts with 2U-3U whereby the U signifies that the bracket is orientated with its notches UP. Katie presently had the configuration I've highlighted in blue. 2U-1U ..that is type-2 brackets with their notches facing Up on the outside, and type-1 brackets, also with notches Up on the inside (nearer the centreline of the car). Editing that table into what is pertinent to me at this time .. insomuch as I only have two type-1 brackets and two type-2 brackets to play with, let's clear all the other permutations away ..and so this is what we see . . . ^ The configuration Katie has (correct according the manual) is again highlighted in blue.. Outer ; 2 with notches Up, inside type-1 bracket also with notches Up. I want more negative camber by at least 0.73 of a degree ..and the table says to reverse & invert (in red) the brackets I have. That it says would alter the camber by 0.6 degree which is very close to what I want, and the most these particular brackets will give us. However to me it doesn't make sense. Surely if you rotate the brackets 180 degrees ..the angle between them will be the same.? (Rich - it's just like rotating a cooling fan around ) I wasn't convinced ..but at the same time I remained uncertain, as this report is reputed to be accurate. Perhaps I was missing something.? So., I took the brackets off and did what it suggested . . . ^ getting those brackets out is a pain-in-the-arse when you're an old fart working under a car on axle stands. Firstly the road springs had to be removed to take the pressure off them, so driveshaft inner coupling and damper, then the spring could come out, and the trailing-arm pivot-bolts removed, and then finally the bolts holding the brackets to the chassis rail. Thankfully the corner triangulation / gusset plates I had added didn't restrict access too much but still it was working blind to get the socket in there. ^ brackets off the RHS of the car. The Left bracket with notch Up is type-1 and from the inside, and the right bracket with notches up is the type-2 (which I'm also indicating with the blue masking tape) and that was next to the sill. on the table this was designated 2U-1U ^^ RH piccie shows these reversed and inverted as suggested. On the table above this designated ID-2D. Nope., the angle didn't suddenly change as I stepped over them to take a photo from that side. But as I say, I might have been missing something so I put the car's suspension back together again with the brackets this way around. I then loaded the car up again and bounced, rocked and rolled it forward to the marked-level ground. But I do admit that I haven't yet driven the car to re-settle the suspension, but for a quick check I presumed this might give us an indication. Results ; that side's wheel has adjusted, in part the suspension appears to have dropped by 10mm (wheel centre to wheel arch) which was much more than was predicted in the Buckeye report. This change is in part due to the pivot axis (although the same 2.08 degree angle) being of a different height (as illustrated below) relative to the chassis rail / the bolts on the brackets . . . ^ Drawn to scale, the brackets -3.2mm (type-1 bracket) or +9.35mm (type-2 bracket) offset relative to the chassis rail / the mid axis of the bolts through those brackets. Top is how the car's RHS trailing arm brackets were. And across the bottom is how they now are. And yes as I thought, the pivot's axis angle is unchanged (at 2.08 degrees) and the height relative to the bolt's horizontal axis is lower (by some 6mm). According to the report this height change should have rotated the wheel, around the spring by " 10.5"/19" or 55% of the change in the bush axis height" ..which translates as lowering the ride height by 55% of 6mm = a little more than 3mm. For whatever reason my quick check suggests its lowered by around 10mm. And this is with the M&T supplied replacement road-spring fitted. The camber angle did not change by 0.6 degrees, as the table suggests (..so I've not yet gone completely nuts !) but it does appear to altered by almost 1/4 of a degree ..from 0.73 degree of positive camber to 0.51 of positive camber. Because the angle between brackets has not changed - I might only attribute this change to ; 1. the camber changing according to suspension compression (ride height), and 2. because each of the bracket bolts have been pinched up but not tightened yet, so they have self adjusted with the bushes now being in line and also with any slight slack in the chassis or bracket's holes. The looseness of fastenings, until the road-spring was refitted, probably also accounts for the noted change in ride height. - - - So that's about it. I think to further correct the camber, I'll need to buy two more type-2 brackets, and to swap them out for the type-1's that are fitted. This ought to alter the angle between the brackets by almost exactly 1 degree, which will translate through the geometry (according to that report) to -0.87 degree of the wheel. That would take the present 0.51 deg positive to -0.36 (negative) camber ..which is exactly what I want. However the ride height will go back up again be 3 or 4mm. I think only shorter / lowered springs, or less than 7mm thick collars, is going to help with that. ^ Interestingly, or not, from photos taken when I was first looking around under this car.., the brackets this way up (now inverted) are close to what we had before the chassis change. . . particularly evident with the inside bracket (top left in this photo) whose the bottom edge is almost parallel with the bottom of the adjacent chassis leg. I'm particularly grateful to the gentlemen who wrote the article for Buckeye Triumph as, although their data is in some parts wrong, they have provided a lot of useful measurements and an overall well-worthwhile insight into the geometry of these IRS components. BIG THANK YOU to them. Pete.
  18. yes., 68 kg., or thereabouts, in night storage heater bricks onto each seat
×
×
  • Create New...