Canley Classics upright

[Andy8421]

Does anyone have experience of the Canley Classics upright that replaces the lower 'nut and bolt' trunion with a ball joint on the Triumph Herald uprights?

https://www.canleyclassics.com/?product=trunnionless-front-suspension-kit

I have finally bitten the bullet and ordered a new garage, and I am collecting bits for that rebuild I planned in 1986...

I had a look at the Canley design, but at first sight it seems to move the lower wishbone / upright pivot point outward from where the bolt currently goes through the wishbone and trunion, to the middle of their new ball joint. I would have thought that this will increase the effective length of the lower wishbone, adversely impacting the suspension geometry - bump steer will be all over the place and camber change under bump and droop will be very different to Chapman's intentions.

Am I missing something?

[bitsobrits]

Interesting observation. It does appear that the effective lower arm length is increased due to the pivot point now being at the ball rather than the trunion bolt. And the ball pivot point is raised relative to the trunion bolt, which effectively angles the lower arm up which will impact the bump steer geometry as well, probably negating the effective longer arm. But in the absence of actual dimensional data or information from Canley though, I wouldn't assume this creates bump steer issues as they may have worked all that out during their development phase.

[Frogelan]

Interesting question. The photo on the CC website does not really help in replying as the lower part has been cut out.

I had a quick look at the Rimmer website and there is a better picture (or at least one that I could understand):

https://rimmerbros.com/Item--i-RL1685

I was amused by the following phrase "Developed in conjunction with the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) to a specialist car manufacturer who uses a similiar set up on their top of the range high performance model. These kits have been designed to withstand loadings much greater than a Triumph is ever expected to see."

This led me naturally to have a look at a firm making cars in Dartford. Are these the same parts ?

https://caterhamparts.co.uk/vertical-li ... -link.html

Caterham use trunnions or have a trunnionless solution neatly incorporated in the lower wishbone

[Donels]

I suspect you’re correct and this does extend the lower wishbone length. Whether this is detrimental or not is more difficult to ascertain. It really needs someone with suspension analysis software to investigate. The Triumph upright was used extensively in motorsport so it may have been analysed. Maybe someone can tell us........

[Frogelan]

Extending the lower wishbone will set the car up with more camber, unless the upper is modified as well.

This a fairly routine change for track use. It will modify the set up need TLC to correct the bump steer.

Why not ask the vendor ?

[paddy]

The lower part (with the rose joint) needs to attach to the lower wishbone via the sole bolt and you can see that it is machined (so the wishbone fits into a recess) so that it cannot rotate relative to the wishbone. However, given that this is designed for the Triumph wishbone, there's also a question as to whether or not the Lotus wishbone is the same width - if it is wider than the Triumph one then it won't fit; and if it's narrower then there's a risk that the part will be able to rotate relative to the wishbone.

Paddy

[Andy8421]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

You have confirmed my suspicion that the lower wishbone does indeed have its effective length extended by using this product. The lower ball joint carrier fixes solidly to the bolt hole that used to be the pivot point of the original trunion, and the new design has the upright pivoting around the ball joint which looks to be an inch or so further out.

Although the static camber can remain the same, the change in camber in droop and bump will be different to a standard Elan setup. If my mental gymnastics are up to it, buy changing the effective arc of the bottom pivot, it will also effect bump steer.

On this basis, I am not going to use this product - although I will contact Canley to see if I have missed something.

Andy.

[denicholls2]

I think that asking the vendor specifically what they designed for is important. As noted already, use of the Herald/Spitfire upright is common, but the upright does not define the suspension parameters or Chapman would likely have used Herald/Spitfire wishbones as well (to save money) which he clearly did not. And we also know (or should) that is the reason why people do not cherish the handling characteristics of their Spitfires as they do their Elans and Europas.

I suspect the mod works pretty well in a Spitfire and a GT6, whose front ends can be compromised quite a bit before they become as technically awful as the rear. But unless the vendor is specifically claiming suitability for Lotus, I would recommend more engineering input.

Still, as the originals become scarce it is nice to have something workable that hasn't absorbed 50 years of fatigue. Adjustable or modified wishbones are still an option.

[Peter +2]

I looked at the CC uprights a few years back but was put off by the lack of a rubber boot to protect the 'Ball Joint", though apparently not needed.

The Rimmer Bros one looks different to the CC one and I note the bearing is sealed so may be a better product.

The RB upright does look like the Caterham upright, but the uprights themselves are not the same as those used on the +2 as they include calliper and steering fixings.

Peter

[vstibbard]

I've been considering using these, or making something like it using unibazl and machining a housing that both trunnion and shock bolts, it will most likely mean using unibazl lower shock mount as well to allow it to be narrowed. Definetely interested in how the Canley setup is locked in position relative to the wishbone. If you get an answer please share it.

If it's of concern, you can readily purchase seals for top/bottom of the uniball.

V

[nmauduit]

I think that asking the vendor specifically what they designed for is important. As noted already, use of the Herald/Spitfire upright is common, but the upright does not define the suspension parameters or Chapman would likely have used Herald/Spitfire wishbones as well (to save money) which he clearly did not. And we also know (or should) that is the reason why people do not cherish the handling characteristics of their Spitfires as they do their Elans and Europas.

I suspect the mod works pretty well in a Spitfire and a GT6, whose front ends can be compromised quite a bit before they become as technically awful as the rear. But unless the vendor is specifically claiming suitability for Lotus, I would recommend more engineering input.

Still, as the originals become scarce it is nice to have something workable that hasn't absorbed 50 years of fatigue. Adjustable or modified wishbones are still an option.

I would think if the parts are GT6 compatible, they would be compatible with S4/Sprint KO suspension geometry.

This setup seem interesting to me, not FIA compliant but for my street S4 maybe... please post a follow up if you proceed.

[TomR]

Hi. I am using the Canley conversion on my S4 Cosworth as I really like the intent. It does in fact change bump steer. I spent quite a while fussing with it and got an acceptable bump steer curve but not as good as I could get with a standard trunnion. I don't track the car and the setup (once adjusted) is fine on the street and I like the ball joint. But I'm meticulous and bothered by the inability to tune out bump steer and may switch back at some point.

I never asked Canley but I do wonder why the changed the geometry. Perhaps the intent was to work with other suspension components they sell but I saw no indication of this on their website.

Tom

[nmauduit]

Hi. I am using the Canley conversion on my S4 Cosworth as I really like the intent. It does in fact change bump steer. I spent quite a while fussing with it and got an acceptable bump steer curve but not as good as I could get with a standard trunnion. I don't track the car and the setup (once adjusted) is fine on the street and I like the ball joint. But I'm meticulous and bothered by the inability to tune out bump steer and may switch back at some point.

I never asked Canley but I do wonder why the changed the geometry. Perhaps the intent was to work with other suspension components they sell but I saw no indication of this on their website.

Tom

quite interesting : when you get a chance, would you be able to measure the amount of effective change in geometry (added length to the bottom triangle as mentioned above?)

It indeed would be bothering if the bump steer sensitivity was greatly increased (I understand you've set again the bump steer accurately, that is to maximize the bump steer circle and locate it so that it is vertical around rest position of the loaded car)...

the next question would be whether one could revert to the initial bump steer sensitivity with adjustable front arms, and/or modified steering links... that should be possible if the change is not huge, which it should not be to remain GT6 compatible, but short of actually seeing and measuring the part I easily can be mistaken.

[vstibbard]

Is it the height of the uniball relative to the upright that is causing the bump steer issue? Is it possible to space the uniball down? Or is simple wider track, in which case I'd have expected you could dial the bump steer out.

V

[vxah]

I fitted a pair of cc uprights to a +2 about 3 years ago and I seem to recall that there were worrying issues I had to address.
The ball joint is held onto the lower arms by the through bolt that the trunion pivoted on and it is stopped from pivoting by “wings” that are against the top face of the arms. I think The problem was that Lotus arms are somewhat smaller than Triumph arms, this causes the ball joint to sit at the wrong angle and with full suspension travel allows the vertical pin of the new upright to bind up in the ball housing, a situation that could cause the Bottom pin of the upright to snap off!
I had to make up and fit packing to correct the angle of the joint.
By chance I also found that the “unknown origin” but new top ball joints had insufficient pin angle at full suspension bump which could cause them to break! I seem to recall that I filed out the bolt holes in the joints to re-angle them so they didn’t bind!