A warning !

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:10 am

I know I've covered this before but it was years ago and there are now a lot of cars out there , built or being built , that still have Pete Powells original spec shocks/springs.( I was the first one to suffer bent arms front and rear .)
This was due to incorrect spring rate which allowed total compression of the springs --- leading to the '' spring/shock '' becoming a solid mass SO the arms had no option BUT to bend . Compounding this , the shock length and rear arm is also incorrect for the Stylus's average weight.
This is really simply historic , as Jeremy Phillip's very first design for the Stylus copied the spring rate on his Striker plus shocks were SPAX not AVO or any other make. The SPAX had a different stroke travel than AVO for similar body length too .
SO WHAT WERE the original springs/shocks

AVO 13'' shocks with 180lbs 9'' front springs and 130lbs 9'' rear springs.
This tended to set the car very high compared with the demo car(Spax onto JP's rockers/arms) SO when I tried to lower my car to match Pete's demo = bent arms

My first solution , in ignorance , (I already had 12'' shocks on 8'' springs) was to put 200lbs springs up front and 180lbs on the rear. This helped but was not the complete answer . A further temporary move to save cash was = I drew up a cardboard pattern for a bracket to fit between the front lower shock pick ups. This gave me' lower shock mountings' closer together so I could then lower the car and still have more shock travel . This worked well but was frowned on by a few people

Neville Powell actually made up this bracket for me from the pattern(still got it in the shed

)

The point of this post is to say that Tim's answer to the problem was to redesign the suspension to suit the requirements of the Stylus and acheive a lower ride height but still have good all round shock travel

I.E. greater angle or any angle you choose for the front rocking arms = good travel/lower car
Concave rear arms plus longer shocks = good travel/lower car

The result of this is a better stance and roadholding/handling/comfort of your car . They are in stock now because I've just bought some for the 'green' Stylus I'm renovating so Tim's just made up a few sets.
Pic' attached of the rear arms/suspension on my 'green' Stylus

and it's been driven like this before I bought it with the spring seats wound up to the limit to keep the tyres off the arches ----------- BUT didn't appear to notice the arms

Pete&Matt · Post by **Pete&Matt** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:34 am

jesus! i wouldnt even sit in it with them like that! the new arms that Tim does, which we have seem to be very good and well thought out, as is the whole suspension really!

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:41 pm

Pete&Matt wrote:jesus! i wouldnt even sit in it with them like that! the new arms that Tim does, which we have seem to be very good and well thought out, as is the whole suspension really!

Don't forget that this car had a full years MOT

So even if you forgave the ignorant owners --------- WHAT

does this say about the motor trade in general

The shocks thread is rusted tight and the knob would snap if you forced it

How many cars are out there like this aye

Rob.

alecmartin19 · Post by **alecmartin19** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:01 pm

Hmm! worrying!

just shows how poor maintenance and a lack of understanding can be dangerous. i wonder how long it has been like this? has it maybe gone through more than 1 mot like that?

does make you wonder what they actually did charge the money for on the mot doesn't it!

got any more pics of the rest of the bad bits rob?

anton · Post by **anton** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:14 pm

Hmmm instersting but worrying reading - so as i have the avo shocks and don't intend to change them due to funds it looks like i'd better get the welder out and rework the front end - that's fairly easy. What to do about the back end, i've got the tubular style rear trailing arms i think (haizy memory!) and i'd prefer not to die when i finally buld this!

Pete&Matt · Post by **Pete&Matt** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:15 pm

depends on how well you know the MOT tester!

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:26 pm

anton wrote:Hmmm instersting but worrying reading - so as i have the avo shocks and don't intend to change them due to funds it looks like i'd better get the welder out and rework the front end - that's fairly easy. What to do about the back end, i've got the tubular style rear trailing arms i think (haizy memory!) and i'd prefer not to die when i finally buld this!

Well the best solution for the rear , if you haven't got concave arms , is new concave arms x 2 plus longer shocks/springs = around £300 then sell the shorter shocks/springs for £150

= £150 outlay(I assume your shocks/springs are new

)
The front , well you have the RT don't you

so maybe the front set up on them is ok as they are a more recent developement. Perhaps the rocker angle is such that the car can be lowered without problems. Ask Tim what angle his rockers are and what length shock/springs are on his. To check angle I made up a simple gauge from two bits of metal pivoted by bolting through one end of each. Then push it accurately underneath the rocker to pattern the angle ----- remove and check against a protractor (in my case a school one

)
You may find , if you chat with Alec (his car looks ok in the photo) that RT's aren't a problem . Not sure when Tim developed concave arms. Either 2003 or 2004

Don't panic , it's mainly a Classic , potential problem . The arms are easy to see whether concave or not and the shocks are marked at the bottom with a number stamped into the metal . Like 12085 which says it's a 12 inch open length and 8.5inch closed length.Springs are marked on the flat area at the top stamped into it.Normally length first then pounds.

Rob.

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:34 pm

alecmartin19 wrote:Hmm! worrying!

just shows how poor maintenance and a lack of understanding can be dangerous. i wonder how long it has been like this? has it maybe gone through more than 1 mot like that?

does make you wonder what they actually did charge the money for on the mot doesn't it!

got any more pics of the rest of the bad bits rob?

Yep

I'll put them on the before and after when it's ready for sale

Come and have a look if you like. Rob

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:38 pm

Pete&Matt wrote:depends on how well you know the MOT tester!

H'mmmmmmmmm , that's exactly what came to my mind ---- I wouldn't have passed it and I'm no engineer

Rob.(I service my own road vehicle and equipment)

alecmartin19 · Post by **alecmartin19** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:06 pm

hey rob!

thanks for the invite! i might just take you up on that. maybe in a couple of weeks when mine is back on the road after its service and a few bits being changed.

as for suspension on the RT, mine being the first RT chassis that came from tim, the front is fine and the back is ok too!

the back on mine consists of tubular leading and trailing arms with the leading arms being formed into a slight bend.. I remember tim saying when i got my chassis that this was a new development from tubular leading arms with no bend in. using these bent arms also meant i was provided with longer shocks as part of the development!

not sure whether this was also carried over to the classic style.

maybe worth checking that i think.

hope this helps a bit!

if you need any more help don't be afraid to ask. i'm usually in the garage anyway so i can always take a few minutes to check things for people!

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:56 pm

When you're ready . Look forward to it.
Rob

[/b]

Post by **Werner Van Loock** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:34 pm

ok, just added concave trailing arms and new shocks to my buy list

Should I be doing somehting up front too? Stiffer springs? Rob?

I'm off for the weekend to the Ardennes = no internet = no mobile phone = nothing at all

= relaxing

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:56 pm

Werner Van Loock wrote:ok, just added concave trailing arms and new shocks to my buy list

Should I be doing somehting up front too? Stiffer springs? Rob?

I'm off for the weekend to the Ardennes = no internet = no mobile phone = nothing at all

= relaxing

225lbs springs front for road , not sure what your shocks are ? If the front springs are 180lbs now you could use them at the rear ? then just sell the 130's to a bike powered car man.

alecmartin19 · Post by **alecmartin19** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:55 pm

rob,

are there any markings on the springs so you can tell what they are? i'm not sure what mine are. i just got them from tim as part of the kit!

stylussprinter · Post by **stylussprinter** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:35 pm

alecmartin19 wrote:rob,

are there any markings on the springs so you can tell what they are? i'm not sure what mine are. i just got them from tim as part of the kit!

If you remove the spring and look at the top flat area or the bottom --- there will be a spring length then a poundage etched into the surface. ---- say --- 8/225 or similar . Shocks are also etched at the base --- 12 / 85 or similar (meaning 12 inch open length/8.5 closed), sometimes with naughts in between.

Rob.

clubstylus

A warning !

A warning !

quite !

What to do ?

bad bits

tester ?

Invite

up front

spring markings