stuart Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Great pictures Stuart. Am I correct that the three pieces are bolted together such that the floor and the inner wing are sandwiched between the pieces but those panels play no role in the design and in fact if you could remove the material from those panels where the pieces mate, it would not affect the operation of the bracket ? Does installation on an assembled car need the gas tank to be removed ? Stan Thats correct Stan they are in my opinion the best bracketry for this conversion and very substantial and allow the use of all types of wheel offset as well. Apparently it is possible to fit them with the gas tank in place but you would probably need to use an angle drive drill to get in their and obviously a good bit of care. I have only ever fitted them as part of a major rebuild. Stuart Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 ...if you could remove the material from those panels where the pieces mate, it would not affect the operation of the bracket ? Stan '...top mount of rear shock absorber bolted solidly to the chassis and body...' so the body should have a role, otherwise no different to the Type 2 bracket? Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 '...top mount of rear shock absorber bolted solidly to the chassis and body...' so the body should have a role, otherwise no different to the Type 2 bracket? Stan Err no the type 2 bracket doesnt have anything to do with the body and hangs out the side of the arch underneath and is the one some people have had trouble with stress cracking of shock absorber bridge. The type 3 is a totally different approach and alters the angle of the loading stress as well as stiffening up the rear centre of the shell. Stans comment was just meant as an observation that the metal of the floor and wheelarch wont have any loading unlike with the type 1. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Err no the type 2 bracket doesnt have anything to do with the body and hangs out the side of the arch underneath and is the one some people have had trouble with stress cracking of shock absorber bridge. The type 3 is a totally different approach and alters the angle of the loading stress as well as stiffening up the rear centre of the shell. Stans comment was just meant as an observation that the metal of the floor and wheelarch wont have any loading unlike with the type 1. Stuart. OK Stuart, so it's the angle. The Type 2A (TUV approved) bracket is attached to the wheelarch, however the angle would then still be an issue. I shall now give the Type 3 a go to mitigate any chassis damage. Fyi, I had the Type 1 fitted in the mid 80's (by Mr. Soden) and never had any noticeable problems with them, however I was concerned about their stress on the body so changed to Type 2 early 00's. Thanks again, Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foster461 Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 OK Stuart, so it's the angle. The Type 2A (TUV approved) bracket is attached to the wheelarch, however the angle would then still be an issue. I shall now give the Type 3 a go to mitigate any chassis damage. Fyi, I had the Type 1 fitted in the mid 80's (by Mr. Soden) and never had any noticeable problems with them, however I was concerned about their stress on the body so changed to Type 2 early 00's. Thanks again, Stan I have that cheap bracket that has occasionally been blamed for cracking the frame although touch wood I have not had any problems yet but I am concerned. I have seen several descriptions of why people speculate this style of bracket is failing including bottoming out, lateral movement etc and a similar number of possible solutions. The way I think about the bracket that Stuart is illustrating is that someone designed a bracket with the strength and geometry to get the job done properly but found that the body was in the way so they cut the bracket into three parts and re-assembled it through the body panels but the body plays little or no role in the functioning of the bracket. I notice from the Moss USA web site that they say this bracket limits tire sizes to max 185/70 or 195/60 so that would be a problem for me at the moment. Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) I notice from the Moss USA web site that they say this bracket limits tire sizes to max 185/70 or 195/60 so that would be a problem for me at the moment. Stan Thats strange as Jeff Marks (Moss London Technical director)Whos car those photos are of reckoned that they allowed the use of more tyre/wheel combos than any of the rest. Also if you check Moss USA web site their listing for 4a IRS conversion (same kit) there is no mention made of limiting tyre sizes. Stuart. Edited March 22, 2010 by stuart Quote Link to post Share on other sites
roadster Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 As the lever arm shock abosrbers on my 6 are getting a bit tired, I was thinking about coverting to telescopics. But am now a little concerned. Have there been many cases of cracked chassis from the use of Type 2 mountings, or is it the make of shocker which is the cause. Perhaps I should stick to the olde worlde lever arms. I noticed that the TR Shop are advertising a kit with Type 2 brackets and two shocks. Has anyone any views on their offering? Feeling quite chuffed after freeing the apparently seized filler plug on the gearbox, so I'm now ready for the shockers. Anthony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 As the lever arm shock abosrbers on my 6 are getting a bit tired, I was thinking about coverting to telescopics. But am now a little concerned. Have there been many cases of cracked chassis from the use of Type 2 mountings, or is it the make of shocker which is the cause. Perhaps I should stick to the olde worlde lever arms. I noticed that the TR Shop are advertising a kit with Type 2 brackets and two shocks. Has anyone any views on their offering? Feeling quite chuffed after freeing the apparently seized filler plug on the gearbox, so I'm now ready for the shockers. Anthony A lot of the cracking problems tend to be on chassis that were past their best to start and with shocks of incorrect length as well. Standard lever arms will allow the suspension to go up to hit the bump stop in extremis and down until the lever arms bump ear hits the lower bump stop on the chassis. Thats the whole idea of bump stops otherwise Triumph wouldnt have bothered fitting them. It depends on what you are doing with your car and your driving style as to what you fit.Uprated lever arms and slightly stiffer springs with poly seats will make a world of difference as well. Stuart Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 A lot of the cracking problems tend to be on chassis that were past their best to start and with shocks of incorrect length as well. Standard lever arms will allow the suspension to go up to hit the bump stop in extremis and down until the lever arms bump ear hits the lower bump stop on the chassis. Thats the whole idea of bump stops otherwise Triumph wouldnt have bothered fitting them. It depends on what you are doing with your car and your driving style as to what you fit.Uprated lever arms and slightly stiffer springs with poly seats will make a world of difference as well. Stuart I have now had an opportunity to look at my CTM Type 2 style brackets and they look more substantial with an additional attachment to the bump stop mounting on the chassis. The latter I see is not present in the images supplied by Ivor. The schocks are pretty much vertical and look to be attached at more or less the same height as the Type 3. And as I see a flat spot on the bump stops that must be due to the bottoming out of the suspension. I will be sticking with these and looking out for any signs of damage. Maybe NigelA can confirm he has these brackets I see in: http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=23226. Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobinTR6 Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Know its been said but I have the CTM brackets and Gaz shocks, went over a pothole, snapped the trailing arm where it joins the shock. Back to Levers for me as its the 2nd one to be so broken... Robin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Know its been said but I have the CTM brackets and Gaz shocks, went over a pothole, snapped the trailing arm where it joins the shock. Back to Levers for me as its the 2nd one to be so broken... Robin Robin, Was that caused by the bracket or the Gaz schock being too short? Mine are Koni supplied by CTM. Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TIMS Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Guys As has been discussed before on this topic, the fitting of shorter springs must have a significant detrimental effect. The telescopic shock absorbers supplied with Type 2 brackets will be specified for standard length springs. Shorten the springs and the telescopics are being asked to operate over a diferent set of parameters for fully extended and, more importantly, fully closed. Can I suggest that it is not the Type 2 brackets which are causing much of the strain here but the fitting of shorter springs which take the telescopics out of their specification zone. The shorter springs will cause the telescopics to hit fully closed earler and put significant strain on the mounting on the trailing arm. I had concern over this very point as I seemed to find the rear bottoming out regularly with Type 2, Spax and uprated but lowered springs. Not doing the trailing arms much good I thought. I have now moved to uprated but slightly longer than standard springs, no bottoming, Spax working well in their comfort zone, and great handling on a car set-up for touring. Can I suggest that anybody running Type 2 with shorter springs should seriously look at re specifying the telescopics they use as I suspect the ones fitted as standard supply are too long. The likes of Gaz have such a range of lengths that there will be a set that is suitable. Regards Tim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Guys As has been discussed before on this topic, the fitting of shorter springs must have a significant detrimental effect. The telescopic shock absorbers supplied with Type 2 brackets will be specified for standard length springs. Shorten the springs and the telescopics are being asked to operate over a diferent set of parameters for fully extended and, more importantly, fully closed. Can I suggest that it is not the Type 2 brackets which are causing much of the strain here but the fitting of shorter springs which take the telescopics out of their specification zone. The shorter springs will cause the telescopics to hit fully closed earler and put significant strain on the mounting on the trailing arm. I had concern over this very point as I seemed to find the rear bottoming out regularly with Type 2, Spax and uprated but lowered springs. Not doing the trailing arms much good I thought. I have now moved to uprated but slightly longer than standard springs, no bottoming, Spax working well in their comfort zone, and great handling on a car set-up for touring. Can I suggest that anybody running Type 2 with shorter springs should seriously look at re specifying the telescopics they use as I suspect the ones fitted as standard supply are too long. The likes of Gaz have such a range of lengths that there will be a set that is suitable. Regards Tim OK, Colin of CTM confirmed to me that the length of the schocks is the issue. I have had his package, including uprated springs, for around 7 years. Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobinTR6 Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Makes sense, I'll make the appropriate adjustments, after I'm back on the road as I now have the benefit of choice... Many thanks Robin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NigelA Posted April 11, 2010 Report Share Posted April 11, 2010 Hi Stan The brackets and konis (front and rear) were all supplied by Colin at CTM along with the chassis. The springs I purchased from TRGB at one of the shows They are slightly uprated and very slightly shorter I wonder know if they were such a good buy and should I get rid of them and fit standard springs Regards Nigel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted April 11, 2010 Report Share Posted April 11, 2010 Hi Nigel, ask Colin for his suggestions - he put a lot of time and effort (and money!) into developing his suspension packages. He knows better than anyone else which varieties of springs work with his brackets and shocks, and for what application - road, sprint, race, rally etc. There are several good suspension packages available for TRs, but that doesn't mean the components are interchangeable . . . more than one way to skin a cat, sure, but handling packages are designed as a system. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
smizgals Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Hi Stan The brackets and konis (front and rear) were all supplied by Colin at CTM along with the chassis. The springs I purchased from TRGB at one of the shows They are slightly uprated and very slightly shorter I wonder know if they were such a good buy and should I get rid of them and fit standard springs Regards Nigel Nigel, Like Alec says, best to ask Colin. FYI,I have dug out his invoice which states: P/N...............Description 214293x........Spring rear,U/R 25% low TR5 213165X........Spring front,U/R 25% low TR4A-6 CTM1234.......Schock Absorber Koni Rear 4a-6 CTM1234A.....Schock Absorber Koni Front 4a-6 Stan Edited April 12, 2010 by smizgals Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.