Lotus Elite: Lots of Trouble....EXCELlent news P33

[pondlive]

If you are considering modding the rear suspension this may interest you?

www.spydercars.com/pg14_elite_rs_&_dt.htm

Would give the drive shaft an easier time, but it is a lot of work admittedly.

Food for thought anyway?

Pondy.

[Mystery Machine]

Jan 4, 2012 19:47:55 GMT mdh said:

Whats the flipping gorgeous wheels? BBS's would rock IMHO.

You mean something like this??

[mdh]

Jan 4, 2012 20:12:04 GMT Mystery Machine said:

Jan 4, 2012 19:47:55 GMT mdh said:

Whats the flipping gorgeous wheels? BBS's would rock IMHO.

You mean something like this??

Oooff, they made me go weak at the knees!

Need some like that for my Alpine too.

[ChasR]

I am guessing that the BBS wheels are what you have in mind and possibly own?

Are they in 4x114.3 fitment too? If so, a jammy git you are indeed!

Loving the progress of the car, it is certainly one I am keeping my eye with the great individual and well thought out touches you have planned, such as your rectangular headlights .

[Mystery Machine]

Jan 4, 2012 20:11:24 GMT pondlive said:

If you are considering modding the rear suspension this may interest you?

Thanks Pondy,

I don't know a massive amount about suspension geometry, but something about having a CV joint one end and a UJ at the other seems a bit wrong to me. I know the body is off in the pic (meaning the suspension will be higher) but with the drivesahft making those kind of angles, I wouldn't be happy with a UJ in there. The stock set-up doesn't run anwhere near that kind of angle.

They say the kit will eliminate UJ wear & replacement but they've still got a UJ running in there?? Not sure how they can claim that one??

How can it eliminate wheel bearing failure? They haven't changed the offset of the wheels or the track of the car, or the weight of the car so the load on the bearing will be the same surely?

From what I've seen, there would have to be something drastic occurring to break one of the 1/2" pins that locates the lower arm and radius arm.

I am happy to see reasons why I am wrong for being a bit suspicious of this kit, but from what I have seen of it in the link, I wouldn't expect to be paying much for it...it doesn't seem like the amazing solution they are promising (unless I am much mistaken?)

I do have a plan for the rear suspension, but want to get the current set-up correct and measurements taken before I start making jigs and rigs

Jan 4, 2012 20:26:23 GMT mdh said:

Jan 4, 2012 20:12:04 GMT Mystery Machine said:

You mean something like this??

Oooff, they made me go weak at the knees!

Need some like that for my Alpine too.

Jan 4, 2012 21:55:03 GMT ChasR said:

I am guessing that the BBS wheels are what you have in mind and possibly own?

Oh yes, I do indeed own them. I've had them about 3 months now and I had bought them for another project which, for various reasons, won't be happening. Let's just say a Lotus took over.

Me posting them up here was actually a bit of a red-herring simply because MDH had asked if I was going to be fitting BBS wheels. I offered them up the other day, they looked good, but they certainly didn't look 'WOW' - they just didn't suit the car enough to make me want to fit them....so yesterday I put them up for sale on E38 (I think you have to be a member to view, but the advert is here with LOTS of photos: www.edition38.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=427901 )

Mark, if you are serious about wanting a set for the Alpine, now is your chance. 16" RS's aren't very common at all so give me a shout if you think you would like them?

Sorry to throw you off the scent a bit guys, but you should know by now that I'm not going to give something as important as wheel choice away at this stage. Especially when they are a lot rarer and (IMHO) a hell of a lot cooler than some 16" BBS's ;D ;D

[Good Scrap]

^ agree with you on the CV and UJ issue there,
unless the shaft is close to straight then the UJ will be pulsing the drivetrain - as it is not constant velocity,

in the original installation the two UJ's would be 90 degrees out of phase so the veolcity pulses cancel each other out.

[10mpg]

I have to disagree with you on the upper arm conversion kit, I think you are over simplifying it, drawing out an internal forces diagram will help visualise it..

The thing is it drastically reduces load on the wheel bearing because it changes how the forces act on it, the twisting forces placed on it by being used as the anchor point for the top link are huge, in this new kit the forces are sent virtually straight out front the tyre/wheel at a very acute angle and straight through the 'new' top link and the only force on the wheel bearings are the normal ones imposed by the weight of the car. The leverage exerted on them is only as much as the furthest outside point of the tyres contact to the centre of the spindle/bearing area, rather than acting directly through the bearing effectively using the driveshaft as a flipping great lever.

The UJ thing is a no brainer, instead of the whole weight of the car (on that corner) and all cornering forces being held in place by a UJ in tension or compression it is all transferred into (and through) the top link. These cars get through UJ's and wheel bearings at an alarming rate unless greased religiously with a decent top link they should last as well as any other as they are relieved of pretty much all of the offset torsional loading only having to deal with the linear torque transfer they are designed to do, if your going to fit big wheels ect i'd consider something like this to be essential.

The angle thing in that photo is completely irrelevant that is not set at an operational angle as you correctly noted the car is stripped 75% of the weight that chassis should carry isn’t there! The CV+ UJ thing is fine many cars use this setup stock including some Jeeps and they have a hard life towing and off roading ect no problems I look after many Jeeps and never had to change one yet compared to zillions of Land Rover Range Rover UJ's... In fact it about the only bit that doesn’t brake!

[sonus]

MysteryMachine - could you and Rich do me a favour and trial fit the BBS on the MGB GT and post a pic? I'd love to see how they'd look as I have thought of this combo for my MGB GT.

And I'd have to agree with 10mpg about the rear suspension mod. My only concern is; If you move the lower shock mount inwards what are you doing to the top mount? Won't alterations here conflict with the GRP shell?

[Mystery Machine]

Thanks Ed & Sonus,

I might have just sold the BBS (possibly being collected tomorrow) so I don't think I'll have chance to get them offered up to Rich's MG in time. If it all falls through then I'll be happy to offer them onto Rich's car and get some shots (the tyres are rather large for an MG!)

Ed, I am glad you posted all that info up, it's exactly why I mentioned I'm no suspension expert. Now you've said it, it all makes sense....

It did lead me to search for more info on the Spider rear suspension conversion and I found this interesting comment online:

"I installed the Spyder system when the chassis was rebuilt and ran it for three years. The problem was that I was never really satisfied with the handling of the car at the rear, and I had so little experience of the original Lotus design I had nothing to make a comparison with. It just felt wrong, so I was forever adjusting the rear wheel camber angles (the upper link allows for this), toe in etc. The car always felt twitchy and any steering change mid corner felt as though it would snap into oversteer. An Elite should be better than this.

It was Pat Thomas who finally confirmed what I had been thinking; the car suffers from roll-over oversteer, which explains why mid-corner changes were so unsettling.

If you look in the Lotus Workshop manual you will see a general layout diagram of the rear suspension. This may have been how the designer originally intended it to be as the drive shafts are parallel with the road, but production Elites are just not like this. Unless the car is heavily laden, or has sagging springs or a collapsing cross-member, the driveshafts will angle downwards. That's OK as they are still parallel with the lower link which means that the roll centre will be just above ground level. Now add in Spyders' upper link to the drawing and it is clear that as the link rises at the outboard end the roll centre rises and it goes way above ground level. (The front also has the roll centre just above ground level and should be a little lower than the rear for stability).

In my opinion this is the source of the problem: the pivot for the upper link, either inboard or outboard is in the wrong place!

The Proof

When you buy the Spyder system they take your original driveshafts and convert them to fit the new inboard CV joints by machining a spline onto the shaft. Thus, they are consumed by the conversion. Having reached my conclusion I bought a second hand set of driveshafts complete with alloy hubs ready to fit. It is easy to unbolt the Spyder system and fit the original design. Within 10 minutes of driving the car my confidence in its handling and roadholding ability at the rear just soared. Fantastic! All this time I had been missing out on the Elites legendary roadholding."

Now, I don't for one minute understand all the things about roll centre etc...but in jargon free (understandable to me) terms, the fact he says the car was transformed when returned to stock rear suspension worries me a little about the principle of changing the current design completely.

I also found this comment:

"the drive shaft UJ's will need rebuilding every 25,000 miles and the diff will eventually leak oil over the inboard drum brakes, thereby necessitating new diff seals and new brake shoes."

I know it's not ideal when comparing it to the mileage that other cars can acheive, but I personally don't have a problem if the rebuild rate is as 'low' as 25,000 miles. I reckon it would take a good few years for me to do that kind of mileage (probably 6-8 years if my estimations are correct?) - that's a kind of figure I can live with in the context of how much I'll be using the car.

I'm certainly not going to be making any final decisions or changes for a while, more just plotting through ideas in my head at the moment.

[fannywhacker]

..

[TurboDieselWeasel]

I'm relieved you'r not putting BBS RS on it! I think they'r one of the most overrated wheels ever period, and rarely look realy good on anything but some BMWs. Same for the Elite; I couldn't picture it with BBS... There it is, I came out. I hate BBS RS ;D

[Del]

Deleted - I'm being thick!

[VIP]

Jan 5, 2012 16:59:58 GMT TurboDieselWeasel said:

I'm relieved you'r not putting BBS RS on it! I think they'r one of the most overrated wheels ever period, and rarely look realy good on anything but some BMWs. Same for the Elite; I couldn't picture it with BBS... There it is, I came out. I hate BBS RS ;D

You're not the only one. Although they look good in most applications, I don't like them because they are an 'easy choice', and often show no imagination on behalf of the owner.

[RobinJI]

I like the idea of removing the axial loads from the drive shaft by adding a proper top arm, as Ed says, it's definitely something worth doing from an engineering viewpoint, but I wouldn't be looking to do it with that kit. Without measurements I couldn't say 100% what the geometry's going to do, but it really doesn't look like what it'll do will be good. You could do the fabrication work your self easily enough. If you want any advice or help with the geometry side let me know, it's something I've looked into quite a lot for the mini and I'd like to think I've got a pretty decent grasp of what would be needed. Even if you're not worried about the service intervals, I'd expect to be able to see an improvement in handling from a well made set-up.

We'll have to get the tape measure out next weekend and see what can be done.

Edit, also, if you're reevaluating the geometry to add a separate top link, then it'd be an ideal chance to play with the track width however you want while making sure you don't mess things up.

[Rich]

Jan 2, 2012 13:43:39 GMT sonus said:

And keep the updates on the split rims for the MGB coming too, I might just convert my MGB GT from Knock offs.

Thread is now here ;)

Was hoping to see the BBS's make it to the Lotus for real, but alas, needs must! Good updates so far dude

[PHUQ]

This is awesome Bruce, I can't wait to see it. Really like the sound of your plans for it as well- not 100% convinced by the headlights but I don't have your ability to picture a car in my mind's eye- I'm sure I'll be more convinced once you've done it! Glad you are keeping the vacuum though, it's one of those features that makes a car like this what it is.

As for the engine, well, there are some cars that are crying out for an engine swap to something modern- all too often in my opinion that means the car ends up with a "mutton dressed as lamb" look with modern alloys etc but that's personal choice, done well it is a thing of excellence though. But with a Lotus- any Lotus- to remove the original engine without it being anything less than totally FUBAR would be a sin. The same applies to the styling- this car is the 70's, attempts to make it look anything other than that are doomed to failure.

Please paint it brown with gold detailing...

I think this is going to be something very special when it is released on the World

[mdh]

[/quote]

Mark, if you are serious about wanting a set for the Alpine, now is your chance. 16" RS's aren't very common at all so give me a shout if you think you would like them?

Sorry to throw you off the scent a bit guys, but you should know by now that I'm not going to give something as important as wheel choice away at this stage. Especially when they are a lot rarer and (IMHO) a hell of a lot cooler than some 16" BBS's ;D ;D
[/quote]

Tease! 😝

The Alpine is 4x100 though and needs some crazy stagger.

[mdh]

Progress report required!! 😄

[callumaspinall]

update needed!!!

[Mystery Machine]

Sorry for the lack of updates but I've been a bit busy with other things.

Due to space/time issues, I won't be able to do much on the car until late Jan at the earliest because I can't tie up the ramp until then, so I need to keep the car rolling at the moment. As soon as my Peugeot is collected by its new owner I'll have some more space which means a proper strip down can begin.

One thing that came to light the other day was the spreader plates. They support the car perfectly with no undue noises coming from the floorpan when the car is lifted....however, when I was working on the front suspension recently, whilst trying to compress the spring enough to pop the anti-roll bar back in, the whole car 'slewed' on the spreader plates!! Basically the smooth metal plates against the smooth GRP floor tub enable the car to effectively 'slide' sideways if any significant lateral force is used. Not good!

Luckily the car only slid about 3" but it could have been a lot worse and maybe even damaged the floor or even slid off the ramp

Without further ado I put the car back on the floor and removed the spreader plates and gave the top surface a rub down with some scotchbrite


I then cut some rubber sheet into oversized patches and placed everything in a large box


A liberal dose of heavy duty carpet adhesive on the plates....


....and the same on the rubber sheeting then leave fro 20 mins


Mate together and trim the excess sheeting off then leave overnight to 'cure' and I now have something which is hopefully a bit more grippy for the underside of the car:


Only time will tell if this is an effective solution, but suffice to say, I am now a lot more concsious of the cars stability when it's on the ramp!

Coming shortly...wheel trial fitment.