roulli Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 (edited) Hi, does anybody have experience with the rear telescop. shockabsorber brackets type 3 from Rimmer Bros? These are made out of 3 sturdy pieces and are supposed to reinforce additionally the rear part. Any share of experience would be highly appreciated Cheers Patrick Edited December 10, 2006 by roulli Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jean Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Patrick, I hav'nt seen the Rimmer brackets, but on my 6 I have fitted the 3 piece layout, this since 96. I know some people are against it, but IMHO they allow by far for the best fixing and positioning of the shock absorbers. The down side is that you will have to drill a considerable amount of holes in the body, and lacking an angle drill you will have to remove the fuel tank. If you plan to use the car for hard work you are advised to add a cross bar between the top triangles inside the car, but for normal use there is no problem. The big advantage on other brackets is that, at the top, they do not allow for any longitudinal displacement, what with other brackets very often creates cracks around the chassis mounts Jean Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I fitted a set to a TR5 earlier this year, as the car was a bare shell they were easy to fit but on a built car you would really have to take the tank out. I think that they are the best and most unobtrusive fitting for telescopics as they intrude very little into the wheel arches. Also they stiffen up the rear of the shell quite considerably, even better for 4a cars as they dont have the extra body mount on the rear spring bridge and consequently crack at the front of the rear arches at the edges of the rear seat base. I am about to fit the type 3 to a 6 that someone had used the early type 1 brackets on, they are just a bracket screwed through the arch with a plate behind. The arch had been severely distorted by this and there were cracks everywhere!!! Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EricTR6 Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Hi, I went for the conversion which mount to the original shock mount points. ( see: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/TRIUMPH-TR6...sspagenameZWDVW ) Very solid, no drilling, no cracks. Good ride !! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jean Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Eric, I have no problems about the ride as this is up to the shock absorbers. The problem with the brackets is that they flex forwards and rearwards at the top under suspension travel, this after some time is leading to cracks in the chassis area. Best is to add a strut backwards to the chassis so that a triangle is formed. The next option is to bolt them with a backplate to the body, depending on the clearance you might add some spacers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EricTR6 Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 In my humble opinion the brackets are much stronger than the shocks, so the movement is on the shocks. Thats one of the reasons I've used rubbers bushes instead of poly (more flex.). The standard shocks mount point also didn't crack with the standard lever arms with the same movement. I think because some movement was allowed in the lever arms / linkage. If the type 3 brackets are mounted, will the movement not crack the body then ? Also, if the car is jacked up the TR6 is not very stiff in the chassis and there will be a lot of stress on the body mounted shock points. My 2 cents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jean Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Fair enough Eric, just wonder why I have seen so many of those that have been modified or removed because they produced cracks on the chassis around the mountings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EricTR6 Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Fair enough Eric, just wonder why I have seen so many of those that have been modified or removed because they produced cracks on the chassis around the mountings Good point. Conclusion must be that both (and other) conversions have there pro and con's. I've seen type 3 brackets removed because of cracks in the body. I think the TR's are just getting old ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
roulli Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Good evening gentlemen, When I bought the car, I thought it was equipped with the type1 brackets, that are only fixed to the wheelarches. I planned to replace them with the CTM brackets, as CTM is said to be chassis expert. It's only lately, that I found out , that I have the type 3 brackets fixed to the car. I never thought about these brackets as an alternative before, but now that I see them on my car, I do not think it's worthwhile to replace them with CTM brackets. The reinforcing factor of the weak TR back is even an attractive plus. Thanks for confirming, it's not a rubbish construction. cheers Patrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnC Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 (edited) I must say I find it hard to go past the Revington conversion - shocks mounted concentric with the springs, with a mounting welded to the spring turret (?) at the top and a custom bracket fitted to the trailing arm at the bottom. The spring mounting at the top is strengthened as well. My 2¢... John Edited December 14, 2006 by JohnC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marvmul Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 I must say I find it hard to go past the Revington conversion - shocks mounted concentric with the springs, with a mounting welded to the spring turret (?) at the top and a custom bracket fitted to the trailing arm at the bottom. The spring mounting at the top is strengthened as well.My 2¢... John With the Revington layout, the leverage on the shock absorber is much shorter (only half that of the other conversion systems where the shocks are fitted to the rear end of the trailing arms) : this means that the rate of the shockers needs to be four times higher on the Revington conversion(yes x4, not x2 because you have to take the square of the ratio of the leverages) and the time to react is double too : the shocks react slower. Another drawback is that the load of the shocks and springs is located at one point of the trailing arms. With a Revington conversion, the rear ends of the trailing arms are empty and seem to beg for a anti-roll bar : Revington sells this (but it's useless on a TR6...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
roulli Posted December 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 anti-roll bar : Revington sells this (but it's useless on a TR6...) Why is it useless? I thought one would use it to fine tune oversteer, after one has fit a stronger front anti-roll bar? Patrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marvmul Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Why is it useless? I thought one would use it to fine tune oversteer, after one has fit a stronger front anti-roll bar? Patrick You are right, a rear anti roll bar can be necessary if you want a car that is cornering flat. Revington has a lot of interesting parts to improve the TR's, but I think that some people are too readily believing that the Revington parts are always the best . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CONCRETE24 Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 I had the Revington brackets fitted earlier this year, (having bought the car with the horrible bolt through wheel arch type a couple of years ago). They have completely transformed the car. I am running it on standard springs all round and it sticks like glue to the road! It may be a slightly more harsh ride - but I don't mind that. Admittedly, I am comparing it with the wibbly wobbly world of before, but can't see a downside yet! Michael. 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.