|
|
|
andyowl
Sr. Member
   
Posts: 456

New exhaust "straight through" - good sound!
Email
|
 |
« Reply #78 on: July 28, 2009, 08:37:40 am » |
|
For the moment I have decided to concentrate on improving the suspension. Looking at the professional pictures taken at the Longcross Sprint (a "National B" status event 10 days ago) see... http://www.rallygallery.com/2009_SCORPION2.aspx?Page=12...it is clear that Baggy Joe is rolling far too much. More power is needed but the ability to go round corners quickly is just as important and I think more power should come after going around corners quickly, if I have to set priorities! Possible changes include: - Lowered suspension (I have made some progress on the leftside rear, more work needed. Front should be easier) - Stiffer anti roll bars, front and rear (we already have the 19mm rear ARB) - stiffer suspension bushes all round (change to Superflex/Proflex Polyurethane bushes) - adjustable shock absorbers (although I don't think the rolling is caused by poor shock absorbers) - wider wheels and tyres (I bought 7J x 15" rims from a forum member last week) - or wheel spacers and the existing wheels and tyres (which already feel superb with good control and powerful braking) If you have any thoughts or experience on any of the above please let me know. Especially alternative anti roll bar supliers. I have found EPM Ltd in UK who can make "special" ARBs. Andy
|
|
|
Logged
|
Back in business for fun!
|
|
|
Spyros
Sr. Member
   
Posts: 325
I'm a real donkey!
WWW
Email
|
 |
« Reply #79 on: July 28, 2009, 09:47:42 pm » |
|
2 additional things for the suspension.
a) Front antiroll bar still. After June 78, another shape of the end of the torsion bar is adopted and this allowed shorter vertical links (7mm) without interference. It is possible to reshape the ends andthen play with the lenght of the vertical links. I cannot say what the effect will be, nor if you need shorters or longers links. The lenght is determined by a piece of tube.
b) Torsion bars. No need to look at the rear. Your bagheera being a serie 2 has slightly ticker rear torsion bar than the serie 1 But, if the rears are Bagheera specifics, thefront where shared with other models of Simca. First, within the Bagheera range, the diameter was higher on the serie 1 ( 17,5 mm versus 17,2) But if you then expand the range, if I'm not wrong, the suspension is identical to the simca 1100. (not the later 130X models) Then there were other models 1100 & Rancho had 18 mm diameters torsion bar. But even better, there was ( hope to find this...) a heavy duty suspension for the 1100, with 20,3 mm diameter torsion bar.
My hypothesis is that the torsion bar has more effect than the shock absorbers.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
    
Posts: 3226

Email
|
 |
« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2009, 02:18:30 pm » |
|
Interesting photos, Andy.
Rather than two anti roll bars, how about cutting a metal plate with threaded holes in different places, and welding this on the trailing arms? With your adjustable length joints, you will then be able to move the attachment point upper joint on the trailing arm, thereby adjusting the effect of the anti roll bar.
This is just a random idea, and I don't know if it will give you the stiffness you need, but I'm afraid the double arms will be too much... after all, you probably don't need much more grip at the front to cure your bit of understeer.
/Anders
|
|
|
Logged
|
1982 Talbot Matra Murena 2.2 prep 142 (under restoration)
Used to own: 2001 Renault Matra Grand Espace "The Race" V6 24v 1997 Renault Matra Espace 2.0 8V 1987 Renault Matra Espace J11 2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|