Lotus Elan and Lotus Elan Plus 2 Forums

Hi Rob

Look forward to the update photos.

The length of the bolt/stud doesn't change the fact that the bolt is in single shear where it is attached to the chassis. In my book (and Carroll Smith's many books) this is bad practice as no bolt under shear stress should be in single shear. It will probably be fine but, if it was mine, I would be converting it to double shear just to be on the safe side

Regards

Steve

Here are few more pic's of my project + 2 car

Rob

Just a few questions if I may, You say this is an early chassis, My Spyder chassis is also early and I was told will need modifying to fit a zetec and 5 speed box. Have you had these mods done or did you do them yourself, How easy were they and what troubles have you come across.

Ill also ask the question on the rear setup,it looks to me, and this is without calclations, that you may loose travel. So in that case do you run harder springs?

lastly its the brakes, What are you running.

It looks fantastic and to be truely honest its exactly the way I wanted to go untill I was told things wouldnt fit,except the rear diff but thats because it cost a lot for the 3.54 I now have and Sue's drive shafts.thats life though.Cantwait to see the progress

Paul

Hi Paul,
You are correct in saying the early chassis need modifying to accept the Zetec, MT75 gearbox, Cossie rear diff set up. I used the standard Spyder Zetec engine mounts, gearbox mounts, gearbox rear flange, prop shaft and gear linkage. This gives you the basic layout of everything. The front cross member needs to be modified to clear the crank shaft pulley.
The chassis around the rear of the gearbox needs to be modified to clear the prop mounting flange and the rear upper deck needed to be modified to accept the cosie diff. New mounting plates and flanges were made to mount the rear diff using rubberised bushes and locom mounts. The drive shafts ae modified cossie units.

The mods have been done by a guy called Hywel of Spot on control cables (ex NASCAR race engineer), THis guy is a magician, If he can't make it work nobody can.

As I have said in earlier posts, the rear damper set up is exactly as Sypder made it in the first place. All I have done is replace the old shocks with new GAZ adjustable shocks with i think 200 lb springs. So i'm hopeing Spyder did there homework before producing this set up in the first place. If it doesn't work I'll revert back to the Lotus struts.

The Rear brake set up uses Wilwood powerlite 4 pot calipers with a built in handbrake + there cables. I had to make alloy mounting brackets to fit them to the hub carriers. The front hub/Brake set up uses alloy GT6 hubs, Capri 245mm x 20mm vented discs and wilwood Dynalite 4 pot calipers with modifid brackets. The GT6 hubs needed to be machined to compensate for the 20mm discs.

Other problem bits are modifying the front anti roll bar and drop links to clear the rear sump and exhaust manifold. The bolt on cross member under the rear of the engine is also a pain to modify, but needs to be done for the same reason

Regards

Rob

Do you have any detail shots of the hand-brake lever set-up? I don't think this has been covered on here before with detail photos.

Have Spyder done the rear damper/spring set-up like this to many cars? I have their normal RSC twinny kit and, when fitting it, wondered if it was possible to do something like wot you've got.

I think the brake balance adjustment will be a good idea, it looks a bit over-braked at the rear to me (although I don't know squiddly about those large +2 cars ).

I have been looking at your rear damper setup and realised it would allow me to fit wider wheels. So I showed it to my chassis guru (Graham Hatherway for those who may know him) who said, yes, that would work. However, he then dropped a bombshell by suggesting that I go the whole hog and fit them inboard!

The advantages are, apart from allowing wider wheeels, are less unsprung weight and lighter/smaller dampers. It also removes the compromise of adjusting corner weights via the springs allowing the spring rate to be adjusted without altering corner weights.

I will be looking at this today. As I have yet to buy dampers there is little additional cost involved as I can make most of the parts myself.

Thanks for sowing the seed Rob, I think

Steve

stevebroad wrote:I have been looking at your rear damper setup and realised it would allow me to fit wider wheels. So I showed it to my chassis guru (Graham Hatherway for those who may know him) who said, yes, that would work. However, he then dropped a bombshell by suggesting that I go the whole hog and fit them inboard!

The advantages are, apart from allowing wider wheeels, are less unsprung weight and lighter/smaller dampers. It also removes the compromise of adjusting corner weights via the springs allowing the spring rate to be adjusted without altering corner weights.

I will be looking at this today. As I have yet to buy dampers there is little additional cost involved as I can make most of the parts myself.

Thanks for sowing the seed Rob, I think

Steve

Steve,
Inboard dampers sounds vey high tech, where would you locate the shocks ?

Rob

Not that complicated Rob :



They will run behind seats and roll cage and will be enclosed in a removable cover. The remote canisters will be in the boot.

Steve

stevebroad wrote:Not that complicated Rob :



They will run behind seats and roll cage and will be enclosed in a removable cover. The remote canisters will be in the boot.

Steve

Steve,

Interesting set-up.
Not sure you will be able to get the the vertical links past the discs / drive shaft and keep the shocks within the confines of the turrets ,or will they be fitted forward of the turrets.?

Rob

Hi Rob

Tie rod is well away from the discs and whole set up sits in front of the turrets. The tie rod will be attached to the bottom front wishbone bolt as this location is not far from the centre of the wishbone chassis mounting points. The tie rod (or whatever it is called) also just slides past the anti-roll bar vertical link

Steve