L.a.p 1302

[evilC]

Originally Posted by Wally

Thanks Bruce, that is EXACTLY what i meant! Not sure if possible with new arms from Lee, but if there would be a way to incorporate the extension, then that would make it an extra selling point and I would want a set now as I am contemplating extension possibilities at the moment.

The higher up mounting on the inside is theoretically a sound alternative, but the arm is already on the high hole of the mounting (as original) with '74-> suspension and higher is fysically not possible there..

Whats the weight difference with stock arms Lee? Seems like it would be hard to shed weight on the original design, but would be happy to be proven wrong of course! It would be nice if the extra weight of the extension(s) - which would be heavy - could be made up some by lighter arms!

Originally Posted by thomas07056

A pic from my first front suspension

Originally Posted by typ4boy

Right o iam with you all now wally you cant believe the weight difference between the two moly is so light . so what we need is higher ball joint end ????

I agree with all of that and Rob's compression strut. But just to add my 2p worth; I don't feel comfortable with the butt joints either side of the anti-roll bar bush housing that will be weaker than the plain tube. The TCA has really only an axial load (horizontal for most of the time) so the tube can be light. But the antiroll bar exerts a bending moment at the point of the bush within the bar. Add in the fatigue factor of many load applications and it does seem weak although no figures have been applied. The solution would be to take the bush out of the centreline of the TCA - put it above or below with a speader to prevent local distortion. Put it below and it realigns the anti-roll bar towards a standard geometry. However, put it above the TCA and you have reduced the pitch forward, creating more anti-dive. Classically, you would have done this by dropping the pivots down on a strut car but there is nothing stopping the other end going up instead. You can't drop the anti-roll bar bushes down because of ground clearance issues on a lowered car.

Is that logic correct?

Clive