Jump to content

Trgb parts


Recommended Posts

Had a great day at the NEC today, finally signed to the register properly so soon to be a full member

 

Spent a good time talking to the chap on the TRGB stand any I'm thinking of their rear telescopic conversion and large bore single exhaust (possibly with their tubular manifold)

 

Any experience with these parts and opinions would be most welcome

 

Cheers all

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the TRGB single exhaust but a Racetorations one, it sounds great but the problem is the upswept tail pipe gives fumes in the car when stationary or reversing so if I had to replace the exhaust I would go back to a standard one, they still sound great. Also if you do get a stainless manifold wrap it with insulating exhaust wrap as it gives off a lot of under bonnet heat.

Also I have tried a few different rear shock setups and at present have the rear shock set up from TRGB, it does negate the rear end squat on acceleration but I still cant understand why all these telescopic set ups have brackets that are vertical when the trailing arms rotate through an arc!

Its always good to try these things but are they worth it?

Oh and welcome to TR's and the club !

Edited by Damson6
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can't understand why all these telescopic conversions use brackets that are vertical when the trailing arms rotate through an arc "

 

Neither could Triumph when they designed the trailing arms, that's why they used lever arm shock absorbers that worked in a sympathetic arc to that of the trailing arms. Some of the heavy duty rally competition lads make the tele conversions work well but if that's not your bag are they worth fitting.

 

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and thanks for the comments, they are the first comments I've heard on here against upgrading (downgrading?) to telescopics. My lever arms seem to be working ok but the rear end is so soft compared to previously owned MBGs and Stags I'm interested in the adjustability that the telescopic conversion will provide

 

More than happy to listen to wiser folk than I though, TR6s are relatively new to me, not interested in a go kart racer just something a little more confident round the twisty bits

 

Gary

 

Ps thanks for the welcome, I think I'll be here for a while!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,

 

Mick isn't the only one with a jaundiced view of IRS telescopic conversions . . . . . yes they can be made to work well, but more often from a competition than a touring viewpoint.

 

Some of the conversion kits that have been offered over the years might be summarised as total cr*p, others work a good deal better, but I wouldn't get wildly excited about any of them - especially at the price of the better assemblies.

 

There's a lot to be said for slightly uprated rear springs and lever arms reconditioned and uprated by Stevson Motors

 

http://www.stevsonmotors.co.uk/Stevson%20Motors%20-%20Homepage.html

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got rid of my Remington tele shock conversion, it came with the car and was new. No doubt the car rode flatter round bends but it was too hard and uncomfortable on our pot holed roads. So sent my old levers to Stevson for rebuild and upgrade by 25% and what a difference. Car handles very well and now rides over uneven surfaces with some give, a lot more usable in my view, better ride as well, and no more crashing when riding over pot holes.Had the TRGB conversion on previous cars , can't claim and real improvement over current setup and the GAZ shocks don't last long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,

the original lever arms did work and can work but if yours are allowing the back to be 'soft' then they are worn out.

Either replace with new lever arms or do as Alec states and send them to Stevson for rebuild.

 

The comment about the struts not working through the TA radius is interesting - none of the dampers do.

The lever arms work vertically and the link/rubber takes the bending.

The strut works vertically and the strut/rubber takes the bending.

And the Revington 'Strut in Coil' has a joint in the base that follows the arc but the top is a rubber joint that takes the bending.

 

So none of the usually available set-ups are perfect. But!!! do you want perfection, or simply and effective improvement.

The lever arms are certainly a convenient way to go - they do everything you want - when in good order.

 

The struts are as you say adjustable - I wonder how many struts out there are adjusted properly!!!!

How many TA's have snapped because of bad strut geometry.

 

Having said that I have Koni's on the back of the car with a bracket attached to the original lever arm attachment and a third chassis position and they work well for my application - far better than the worn out lever arms (have never experienced new ones) and the 'strut in coil' assembly.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

My last TR6 (VUX) had uprated lever arms, springs and front shocks (Koni), was lowered by 20mm and had polybushes all round. It sat on the road and drove very nicely.

 

Mates who have had telescopic conversions complained of the vertical pounding at the rear (steady Tiger! :D) of their cars and preferred the ride and stance of VUX:

 

385323_4521608633492_635018429_n.jpg?oh=

 

Cheers

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mick isn't the only one with a jaundiced view of IRS telescopic conversions . . . . . yes they can be made to work well, but more often from a competition than a touring viewpoint.

 

 

From my viewpoint telescopic dampers are far superior to lever ones

and that is the reason why they can be found in nearly every modern car.

 

The good idea must be followed by a good layout and work.

I could read a lot about wrong length and poor quality of telescopic dampers.

That is the reason why a good new lever, or upgraded to individual preferences,

sometimes is better than the conversion.

 

The principle itself can be made a very good solution

because it has a lot of advantages over levers.

 

Not only on sport but especially on touring where a fine setup of

damper rate can be established make it stick on the road

without bouncing but also comfotable on long travel.

Edited by TriumphV8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and thanks for the comments, they are the first comments I've heard on here against upgrading (downgrading?) to telescopics. My lever arms seem to be working ok but the rear end is so soft compared to previously owned MBGs and Stags I'm interested in the adjustability that the telescopic conversion will provide

 

More than happy to listen to wiser folk than I though, TR6s are relatively new to me, not interested in a go kart racer just something a little more confident round the twisty bits

 

Gary

 

Ps thanks for the welcome, I think I'll be here for a while!

A rear antiroll bar will help stiffen the rear end in the twsity bits without giving a jarring ride. Nor will it alter the ride height.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Triumph tended to use lever arms on the rear axle of separate chassis cars, whereas the monocoque (unitary) bodies were more often given telescopics - the Mayflower was something of an innovator in that respect.

 

Back in the day, teles were significantly more expensive than levers, perhaps why the more upmarket Mayflower got them whereas small Standards did not . . . .

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Triumph tended to use lever arms on the rear axle of separate chassis cars, whereas the monocoque (unitary) bodies were more often given telescopics - the Mayflower was something of an innovator in that respect.

 

Back in the day, teles were significantly more expensive than levers, perhaps why the more upmarket Mayflower got them whereas small Standards did not . . . .

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Interesting point in the costs Alec

I also think Peter has a good point on the fitting of rear ARB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can 't help help thinking that an element of misunderstanding might have crept in here in respect of what does what in a rear suspension set up!

My feeble memory seems to indicate that S-T specified a rear spring rate on early TR6 at 320lbs or thereabouts. If you have a soft rear end (qv. Kim Kaardashian!!) then perhaps you need to address the spring rate. There are plenty of outlets around who will gladly sell you their take on uprated springs so if you're too soft then surely uprated springs must be part of the solution??

The other part of the equation on a conventonal set up would be the dampers. S-T weren't exactly strapped for cash at the time (if ever) and they had to specify rates for bump and rebound on the dampers; typically it would be higher on the latter, otherwise very rapid damper valve wear would result. They specified lever arms on all TR's because they offered a decent compromise between comfort and safety and to be fair the result actually wasn't that bad on a new standard set up. The cars handled reasonably well and were generally pretty comfortable by the standards of the day.

For most current owners using their cars on the road, going on rallies plus the occasional fast squirt (passenger approval nothwithstanding!) it is my humble opinion that a set-up comprising sensibly uprated rear springs combined with PROPERLY rebuilt lever arms are entirely sufficient for most people.

I know lots will disagree, some vehemently, and I would add that I DO NOT belong to the 'standard is best' brigade but there is a lot of trash and many ill thought-out solutions out there.

The major problem today is that most lever arms have been 'rebuilt' so many times before that many units are effectively scrap

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I bought my TR6 new and I had 6 sets of lever arms from new in my first 5 years of ownership, most were supplied under warranty. Working in the motor industry on the OEM side, I complained to Armstrong who were the manufactures of these units and after a bit of harassment from me. They admitted that they produced 2 types, one type for OEM Production and the other type for Competition/After Market, but at a higher price. Needless to say the competition ones were to a heavy duty design with better seals and bushing etc. Therefore my confidence factor in ordinary lever arms is zero. Switching to a Spax Shocks 35 years ago I have had no complaints. First set lasted over 30 years! I am now on my second set of Spax! they should out live me.

 

Rear Springs

 

Triumph modified the spring ratings 3 times that I know of, as already stated starting at 320lbs. I have run my car on 390lbs for over 30 years, to me this gives a very good ride with the Spax set on 3 clicks from the minimum setting. These 2 mods did away with, the front pointing skywards. Noting that my car is a 1973 model with last mod by Triumph to the mounting angles of the Radius Arms, this also make a difference.

 

Regards,

 

Bruce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.