Topic

G0RSQ wrote: wrote:

Surely if you alter both lower arms (rods) the long and short, an equal amount, and as the top is not adjustable and stays the same length, you will be adjusting the camber without affecting the toe-in or toe-out???

If either of the lower arms is adjusted more or less than the other then both camber and toe-in/toe-out are adjusted.

Its only if the lower arm the OP is talking about is fixed length that you will not be able to adjust camber!

Just questioning from geometry knowledge not practical experience

The camber is determined by the hub and the top arm(not adjustable). The hub position is fixed by the main rear lower arm(non-adjustable), the other smaller lower arms- track control arm and trailing arm - only determine direction angle around the fixed hub pivot.

From eBay got two MGTF latest fog-lights @ £7.95 each ! in excellent condition and located H11plug sockets ( ex BMW for £15.00). Nealy as the price of the fogs. But they fit!

Next job to sort out wiring and install.

Robert

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

]
The camber is determined by the hub and the top arm (not adjustable). The hub position is fixed by the main rear lower arm (non-adjustable), the other smaller lower arms- track control arm and trailing arm - only determine direction angle around the fixed hub pivot.

Looking at the enclosed picture i do not see your argument!


The main trailing arm is atached to the front of the subframe with the "compliance bush". This is a ball joint, allowing limited movement in all rotations about the joint.

If the two lower track control arms (Arrowed in picture) are adjustable, then adjusting them both the same will alter the camber.

The bottom of the hub will be pulled in, or pushed out, as the top track control arm is a fixed length and does not change. (The compliance bush at the front of the trailing arm allows this).

Adjusting them individualy will alter the toe in/out as well as a small camber change. (the radius arm attaches to the hub via rubber bushes and vertical mounting bolts (hinges!) allowing this movement)


Neither of the two small arms (both adjustable) are trailing arms. They are both track control arms

As the two lower track control arms are different lengths, the toe in/out and camber to a lesser extent, will alter slightly as the suspension moves!

The forward lower track contol arm is available (and was fitted to different model years) in both adjustable and non adjustable versions.

I follow your reasoning and I'm happy to be proved wrong. It won't be the first time. I freely admit that I have no practical knowledge of the TF suspension.

The main suspension arm is attached by the compliance bush as you say, however it isn't a ball joint it is a bush, but the upper arm is attached to the hub by a ball joint.

On the Rimmers site diagram, you can see it is a bush.
On nomenclature, both lower rods are called trailing link assemblies on that site but what's in a name?



Unless you can adjust the length of the upper arm to counteract the change in length of the bottom rods wouldn't you then need drive shafts of adjustable length? As shortening the lower rods would push the drive shaft into the gearbox?

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

The main suspension arm is attached by the compliance bush as you say, however it isn't a ball joint it is a bush, but the upper arm is attached to the hub by a ball joint.

On the Rimmers site diagram, you can see it is a bush.

Sorry. I didnt know the construction, but knew it has the effect of a ball joint, allowing movement in all directions, but still located positionwise !

I have had the rear suspension in pieces, but never removed a trailing arm!

Unless you can adjust the length of the upper arm to counteract the change in length of the bottom rods wouldn't you then need drive shafts of adjustable length? As shortening the lower rods would push the drive shaft into the gearbox?

As the suspension moves up and down the driveshaft naturally needs to lengthen and shorten (the drive shaft is a different length to any of the track control arms, so will prescribe a different radius arc (triganomatery )), and this is accomadated by the sliding section in the inner CV joint.

Therfore the drive shaft is variable length.

On nomenclature, both lower rods are called trailing link assemblies on that site but what's in a name?

Just checked rimmers, and you are correct. They are both (incorrectly ) called trailing arms.

In my books they are definatly not trailing arms, but track control arms, but that is probably an opinion, and not really relevant

It’s that time of year again folks!
Cleaned and polished the bodywork, then
YES, stuck the hardtop on. Beautiful, lovely and warm, nice and quiet.

Just sitting back ready for the abuse!!

David

G0RSQ wrote: wrote:

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

The main suspension arm is attached by the compliance bush as you say, however it isn't a ball joint it is a bush, but the upper arm is attached to the hub by a ball joint.

On the Rimmers site diagram, you can see it is a bush.

Sorry. I didnt know the construction, but knew it has the effect of a ball joint, allowing movement in all directions, but still located positionwise !

I have had the rear suspension in pieces, but never removed a trailing arm!

Unless you can adjust the length of the upper arm to counteract the change in length of the bottom rods wouldn't you then need drive shafts of adjustable length? As shortening the lower rods would push the drive shaft into the gearbox?

As the suspension moves up and down the driveshaft naturally needs to lengthen and shorten (the drive shaft is a different length to any of the track control arms, so will prescribe a different radius arc (triganomatery )), and this is accomadated by the sliding section in the inner CV joint.

Therfore the drive shaft is variable length.

On nomenclature, both lower rods are called trailing link assemblies on that site but what's in a name?

Just checked rimmers, and you are correct. They are both (incorrectly ) called trailing arms.

In my books they are definatly not trailing arms, but track control arms, but that is probably an opinion, and not really relevant

Rather than speculating, I have done some actual research and the conclusion is that you are correct.
You can adjust the rear camber on a TF if you fit that adjustable track control arm!
Not only that but Mike Satur has a piece of kit enabling you to adjust Front camber too!

Declared sorn

Driven it !!!

Was having some starting issues and with a recent receipt for a new battery with the car when I bought it, got myself a new starter. Then did some research and found it was more than likely the battery even though it was apparently quite new.

So - popped to Halfords, battery out and charged it for 24hrs, back in, started first time. Happy days. Bit p1ssed off that the battery installed in the car is not the one on the receipt ... Grrr. Anyway - will fit the new starter when I do a service soon with a service pack off the bay of E.

Drove into an early shift through the forest at 6am and as I am a subscriber to the "wipers off, roof off" brigade, it was certainly a refreshing drive !! Thick leather flying jacket and trapper hat out the loft for next time ....

Finally got around to fitting my exhaust downpipes - sounds much better now

I also changed the Tuning parameters using pscan so that Ignition Advance is now +2degrees and Open Loop fuelling is set to -20. This is slightly less than that suggested by Rob Bell in the pscan post but the car felt a bit lumpy at tickover when I made it leaner than this. Haven't given it a good run yet but does seem a bit more urgent and smoother overall.

Gave Shadow a good jetwash off especially under the arches, proper deep clean and waxing ready for the winter.
Also a good interior valet and wheel scrub.

Sundance

I got to the point where I'm considering scrappage, still can't find the cause of no signal from the lambda probe.