cliff.b
-
Posts
1,475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Posts posted by cliff.b
-
-
2 minutes ago, johny said:
yes thats non standard and the way the fixings are different suggests a PO has done it quite carefully. How does the car drive and what does tyre wear look like? I would have though more negative camber at the front would increase grip and make oversteer more likely....
As I explained previously, the car does need steering input in a straight line, especially on a poor road surface, but lower tyre pressure reduces this. I haven't noticed any tyre issues so far but only done a couple of thousand miles on them.
The grip in corners is very good. I've yet to have a modern car keep up when following me down a bendy B road.
Never had a hint of oversteer but I only push it on dry roads, so can't really comment on performance in the wet.
-
I read on a US Triumph site of someone stroking a 1500 engine to over 1700cc by using small bearing con rods and an off centre grind of the big ends to accept them.
Said it was incredibly torquey but a bit rough. He used it in a Courier and claimed it was ideal for that.
-
I have had a chance to look at my car again and this is a picture of the O/S rear lower wishbone attachment showing 1 shim and a thick piece of metal.
The front attachment is the same, but no shims. The N/S attachment points both have the thick metal & 3 shims.
Am I right in thinking the thick metal plates are not standard and explain the negative camber? If so, I presume it has been done intentionally so why might this be?
-
1 hour ago, chrishawley said:
I only got a working knowledge of this a year ago (with a lot of hand-holding) so my experience is not that great. But here goes......
An excellent read around all these issue is three articles entitled Suspension Secrets Sussed in the Aug, Sept, Oct 1993 issues of the Courier. Go to 'Courier' icon on main club website and search by year. The attached screen grab spells out the process of caster adjustment.
Caster can't be measured directly; it has to be calculated from the change in the camber angle as the road wheel is turned in and out by steering. Formula attached. It then goes like this:
• Initially settle vehicle in level, straight ahead condition
• Turn wheel to be adjusted 20 degrees off straight ahead (T1) and measure camber (C1)
• Turn wheel 20 degrees in the opposite direction (T2) and measure camber (C2)
The formula then gives K, caster, for the wheel in question. Or, as Clive pointed out, since 20in 20 out is the standardd for measuring caster the equation simplies to Caster angle = 1.5 x camber angle change.
A digital inclinometer makes measuring the camber change easier but old fashioned trig works too.
OR
You get a outfit that has a laser alignment bed to measure/adjust it all for you. But apart from ££s that can have the pitfall that young operators may not be familiar with the particulars on a classic.
I hope I've got that all right, but I'm open to correction.
Many thanks. I will have a read 👍
-
2 minutes ago, chrishawley said:
Puts me in mind of the woes I had with my GT6. To simplify a long story: After rebuild, I had the suspension shimming set up by 'competant professionals'. But at any reasonable speed the road behaviour was twitchy with poor directional stability. And worse with increased tyre pressures. Much investigation (and Forumizing) later eventually nailed that down to castor not only being wrong (too little) but unequal between the sides. Now fixed.
How likely is it that PO diligently assesed every aspect of steering and suspension geometry? And including in that, the rear? Perhaps not very.
As an aside: I recently got given a copy of David Bastow's 1970s book on suspension design. I reckon I understand about 5% of it at best, given the complicated maths involved. But it's made made much more respectful of adherance to OE specifications and much less respectful of glib simplifications in wwwland.
Very interesting, as pretty much what I am experiencing.
Just to clarify, I am inclined (lol) to go back to spec camber but trying to understand what effect that might have before doing it and then deciding I preferred the car the way it was before I went to the trouble of changing it.
Also, how was the castor adjusted on your car? I can't think how to go about doing that at the moment.
-
15 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:
more likely this is down to incorrect rear wheel toe in
especially if it does bunny hops and a twitch on bumps and pot holes
Pete
I don't get those sorts of issues anymore since I removed a shim and now have very slight rear toe in.
Perhaps "twitchy" is the wrong word. What I meant was making constant small steering corrections which I don't need to do on my modern cars. I have got used to doing it now, but still conscious of the difference. I sort of assumed it was normal but maybe not.
-
58 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:
well the basics of camber are to counteract the profile of the road
if there is difference side to side it doesnt matter too much as the chasis will sit where it sits on the road
neg camber my feel better probably more for racing set ups but for general road use and tyre footprint contact some positive is obviously better
camber will wear a tyre but it takes thousands of miles incorrect Toe will scrub off rubber at an alarming rate as you are dragging the tyre sideways
Pete
Did some reading about it last night. Couldn't find anything specific to our cars but there was discussion about other classic, RWD vehicles.
Said cars used to have positive camber because road profiles were different in the past, it makes steering lighter and provides more directional stability on rough roads which used to be more prevalent. But nowadays, only tends to be used on off road vehicles.
Negative camber, on the other hand, greatly improves front wheel grip in corners but less stable in a straight line. In modern cars, any disadvantages tend to be hidden by power steering & other suspension design.
This would tie in with what I find with my car, which seems to go around corners very well but can be a bit "twitchy" in a straight line, although this can be reduced by lowering tyre pressure. But that leads to heavier low speed steering.
So I still can't decide if it was deliberately built this way or not 🙄
-
3 minutes ago, Gully said:
It takes a lot of shims to get to negative camber and they should be immediately obvious when looking at the lower wishbone mounts - is the top part of the suspension re-built correctly?
Gully
I am planning to see how many shims are fitted, but will have to wait until tomorrow.
In what way could the upper suspension be incorrect? I can't think what could have been done wrong at the moment 🤔
-
3 minutes ago, Badwolf said:
Cliff - On no account assume that it was put back together correctly. I watched my pro mechanic brother in law put mine back together after he took it apart and I am still finding things wrong...and don't get me started on 'professionals' in garages..least said, ask PeteL & Doug (leaf spring)
Indeed. I have given up assuming anything after all the other things I have found that weren't right, but unlike physically assembling something which is either right or wrong, I know people have a variety of opinions about this sort of adjustment.
So if it was done deliberately, I'm wondering why and what, if anything, might change if I put it back to a standard.
Also interested to know if anyone else runs their car with negative camber and if so, why?
-
1 minute ago, Pete Lewis said:
needs the camber shims adding/removing its all adjustable with shims under the wishbone pivot brackets
many ways to measure with bits of timber a set square and spirit level
and its normal to add both sides and halve the result
Pete
Yes, I can see how it would be adjusted but this car was stripped to the chassis and rebuilt before I got it, so I presume it was deliberately set like this on rebuild.
So wondering if that was a mistake or if there could have been a reason for it.
-
My Haines manual specifies the front wheels camber as 2 to 4 Deg positive but my Spit appears to have noticeable negative camber.
Is this just plain wrong or is it different with modern, wider tyres? Or is there some other reasonable explanation?
-
If I need complete under car access, I use standard ramps on the rear wheels then trolley jack to lift the front and place axle stands.
Reversing on to the ramps also has the advantage that they are pulled under the tyres instead of the tyre trying to push them away
-
49 minutes ago, Peter Truman said:
requirement here tyres on same axel must be the same.
Is there a dispensation for temporary spare tyre use?
-
1 hour ago, Pete Lewis said:
Nah we're not having that !!!!!!!!!!!
Pete
Just been out for a good test drive on scenic back roads.
I'm not worrying now 😁
-
6 minutes ago, Chris A said:
I've thought about fitting one but don't want to scare the life out of anybody nearby when it is in use, just loud enough to be heard above the other background noises, birds twittering, rivers running, bits dropping of the Triumph . . .
How about something in the seat that vibrates 🤔
-
2 minutes ago, johny said:
I wouldnt worry about it Cliff, the inner seal is a beefy double and can be quite tight - air can escape but when grease gets to it pressure can build up and tend to push it out of the other conventional seal. Also remember, as Pete said, the maintenance schedule requires a few shots of grease not pumping until it comes out....
Ok, I will stop worrying 😱
-
15 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:
i said happy motoring for now
its a Triumph something somewhere just has to leak
Pete
Just a thought, if grease is escaping through the outer seal more easily than it should, does that mean there's a risk the inner needle bearing may not be adequately greased?
-
35 minutes ago, johny said:
Cliff, dont dismantle a hub just to replace the outer oil seal - wait and do it when something else in there has failed😁
I can live with that lol
-
2 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:
the oil seal behind the back plate should containt the grease until it starts to fail so if it exuded grease via the drain hole the main seal could be looking for replacement soon
it should ooze out the drive shaft seal
on service it recomends 4 pumps to re lube it ( 4 pumps from what is not given)
but for now happy motoring for a while
Pete
😒
-
Ok, to get back to the original thread, I have now inspected the RHS rear assembly and all looks good. Also, it is correctly assembled with the seal housing on the inside of the back plate and the grease trap on the outside. I greased it and eventually, old grease came out of the hole in the lower back plate, as expected.
Thinking back to last year, the LHS, which had the grease trap fitted incorrectly, dumped the grease I was pumping into the brake hub. So now I understand why. There was nowhere else for it to go.
Also, having seen that happen I was careful not to put too much in the RHS which is possibly why it needed quite a lot now 🤔
Hopefully, both sides now happy, for a while at least 🤞
-
9 minutes ago, Colin Lindsay said:
I've also got a vacuum kit but don't really trust it.
I'm sure there were adverts for them in certain magazines when I was a young man 🤔
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, PeteH said:
You could giver her a ring, that would "test" the suspension!😂
Poor Spitty 😱
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Paul H said:
Can you advise details please
Paul
Just suck until you get a nasty taste 🤮
-
12 minutes ago, PeteH said:
Having no choice of assistants these days, as they are now distributed across the planet. I indulged myself in a vaccuum self bleed kit👍. The main advantage being it does not argue back. Unlike 14 year old female assistants, with "attitude" and i-phone in one hand!.
Pete
Yes, this one is only 9 so still interested and keen to help. I'm sure it won't last but she has a younger brother who may be trainable 🤔
Camber conundrum
in Chassis, Suspension & Steering
Posted
That was going to be my next question as it seemed to me it would probably cause toe out if they are removed.