Re: Front Shock absorbers
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:28 pm
Couple of alloy spacers 1/2" tall dropped on the shocks first will take care of the shorter spring length.
The complete information source for Lotus Elan sportscars.
https://lotuselan.net/forums/
cobraboy wrote:Couple of alloy spacers 1/2" tall dropped on the shocks first will take care of the shorter spring length.
alanr wrote:To continue this...
I have now fitted to my car Spax adjustables with 14.59inch,110lb springs which, according to Paul Matty, are the standard springs for my car. However like others have mentioned in this thread I have found that even with the shock absorber platforms at their lowest the wishbones are not horizontal and the car sits about an 1.25inches too high.
In hindsight I am thinking that I should have gone with my original gut instinct which was to fit 13inch 125lb springs which I can get direct from a spring company. My calculations sort of say in theory it should do the trick and lower the car by about 1inch whilst maintaining more or less the correct spring preload.
I will have to do something, I can't leave it like it is, it will handle horribly. Any ideas anyone?
Alan.
alanr wrote:Thank you for input. It has put another light on the situation.
Re - Spring raising from the bottom.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that even if all other lengths of the shock absorber are the same if I refit the original springs the ride height of the car will be higher than before because the bottom platform of the adjustable shock absorber is higher than the original Armstrong unit therefore changing the operational axis of the whole shock/spring assembly.
Thanks,
Alan.
alanr wrote:After measuring the operational length ( wishbone eye hole to top chassis mount plate)it is the same as the original shock absorber as is the distance between the bottom and top plates on both units. The bottom platform though due to the adjuster mechanism is 1inch higher than the original unit so this is what needs to be compensated for ( axis change) it seems in any new spring.
The learning curve continues....
Alan
alanr wrote:What are your your thoughts on the number of coils for the same length/rate spring, 15.6 original versus 17.5 for a given spring length/rate that everyone now seems to want to sell me. Assuming that it doesn't produce a binding issue I can't see it making a difference but am I correct?
Thanks for the input..appreciated.
Alan.
nmauduit wrote:alanr wrote:What are your your thoughts on the number of coils for the same length/rate spring, 15.6 original versus 17.5 for a given spring length/rate that everyone now seems to want to sell me. Assuming that it doesn't produce a binding issue I can't see it making a difference but am I correct?
Thanks for the input..appreciated.
Alan.
no coil number does not play a role as long as they do not bind. The manufacturers has a certain choice of wire diameter and strength to make their springs, and they also have to play on coil number to make the various rates they offer since the wire diameter does not come in continuously varying values.
The manufacturer makes his calculation and provides a spring that has the only 2 parameters that count : free length and rate, no matter the number of coils (that is for linear coil springs - i.e. constant rate - like on elans, for variable rate springs it is more complicated).