stainless steel rear wishbones

[F1 LOTUS]

[RayD]

Out of interest... does anyone know the difference between 2½º and 5º wishbones... try to avoid the temptation to say 2½º.

[theelanman]

Out of interest... does anyone know the difference between 2½º and 5º wishbones... try to avoid the temptation to say 2½º.

I cant....coz that is it.....
its all to do with the mountin points on the chassis and the reduction in 'droop'.....
cheers
g

[dapinky]

If you use the 5 deg 'bones (which are the same as the 2.5 deg ones!) on a 2.5 deg chassis, then you need to use the S2 upper arms, or there is a 'conversion' kit you will need which consists of a spacer and a longer bolt to allow the angles to be set up correvtly.

Basically, the lower bones are the same, the chassis mounting points are set differently, and it needs a different top bone to line it up again.

[Specky]

What Dave said...

I changed mine the other year and everything went straight forward...

But I didn't use the longer bolt or washer...I couldn't see any reason why that justifies my decision at the moment... I do know Monty ran for a while without the washer but now has now fitted them.

The only thing I can think of is that our upper chassis mount is 8.5mm further back as well as a different angle of lift or the lower wishbones are different from an early to a late...but who knows...

My logic says:-

1) Lotus gave them different part No's, (so they are different...but was it only galvanising).

2) And if the above is true....what was used as the pattern for the replacements..(mine are SWL)

3) When it comes to it the upper links are just bars...

Oh well

TTFN

[theelanman]

i had 2 sets to make up jigs for....one from a very early car and one from an s2.......the jig fitted both exactly the same

[RayD]

Thank you for that...

With the manual saying they were different, I was just curious as to what it might be.

Tilting the wishbones forward I wondered if they had turned the inner sleeve backwards so the ends were still vertical.

A good point about the change of part number for galvanising but the later chassis they refer to seemed to come out before the galvanising started.

Which year did the chassis change take place? Mine's a 1992 with the later type fixings.

Ray

[dapinky]

Ray,

If i understand your drawings, then i see where the confusion may come from.

Of course, it could be my understanding which is wrong, but here is what i believe to be the case.......

The 2.5 deg and 5 deg refers to a vertical 'lift', not a horizontal 'yaw' of the wishbone, as such, the angle of the bushes remains unchanged in relation to its position on the road/car (i think).

The different length of top wishbone link means that the vertical plane of the wheel remains as intended

[Specky]

Yep what Dave said again....

My new top links lengths are set up exactly the same as the old ones... (Cos I used the old C-channel ones as a trammel...)

I can't feel the difference between the old stuff and the new...

Ray the difference is defined by the VIN... it's in yee old manual...

But the easiest way is to have a look behind the bumper at the chassis ....(level or canted down)

TTFN

[theelanman]

UK
1. paulwatkins ......chq rec'd
2. Woody ......chq rec'd
3. dodders ......chq rec'd
4. Andy_J ......chq rec'd
5. Router ......chq rec'd
6. Stef ......chq rec'd
7. Elantastic ......chq rec'd

ROW...I will sort a method of payment and let you know later so please dont worry
1. Matt RI (USA)
2. Cesare (France)
3. Ronald Ringma (Netherlands)

[theelanman]

pms sent to ROW.....

just bringin this to the top too.....

should have them completed very soon so we will need to sort distribution....
basically coz I can only fit about 3 sets in the car for hethel....
there are the gold cup (which I will get you free tickets for Aug 24th~25th), stoneleigh, hethel....or possibly dico shipping.....

just trying to avoid additional costs in shipping

[theelanman]

ROW...I will sort a method of payment and let you know later so please dont worry
1. Matt RI (USA)
2. Cesare (France)
3. Ronald Ringma (Netherlands)

I have sorted a payment method.....can you get in touch with your mailing addresses so that I can confirm your postage costs (Ive got Cesares info so thats cool).....
Matt I should know yours.....
Ronald....not got a clue other than Netherlands....

cheers
G

[WillB]

Hi Gareth

Have you got any spare sets available?

I might have a guy who'd like me to source him a pair

Let me know

Will

[theelanman]

will
yes theyre still available.......
just in the process of finishing the last list off....
cheers
g

[tweetdriver63]

Gareth,

I may have missed it, but did you have a price with shipping to the states?

[theelanman]

tweet
is was looking like about £80 tio send to the US
cheers
gareth

[Freelander]

Having read this thread with some interest, I researched the Rights in the Protection of Designs and the EEC Legislation.

The EEC has considered the impact of Protection of Designs - Directive 98/71/EC amendment SEC(2004) 1097. - 'The proposal concerns design protection of spare parts intended to restore the appearance of complex products such as motor vehicles ... so as to increase competition and offer consumers greater choice as to the source of spare parts used for repair purposes and .... it maintains the overall incentive for investment in design as it does not affect design protection for new parts incorporated at the manufacturing stage of a complex product.'

And concluded that ' The main purpose of design protection is to grant exclusive rights to the appearance of a product, but not a monopoly over the product as such. However, protecting designs in the aftermarket for spare parts for which there is no practical alternative would lead to a product monopoly. Design protection should allow obtaining a fair return on the investment made and fostering innovation through competition, which is achieved in the production of new products. If third parties are allowed to produce and distribute spare parts, competition is maintained. If design protection is extended to spare parts, such third parties would infringe those rights, competition would be eliminated and the holder of the design right would de facto be given a product monopoly.

Consequently, Lotus cannot restrict the manufacture of 'spare parts' for use in the repair of our cars. It is common practice for third party manufacturers to supply spare parts (white box) which are equal to the original equipment - this is often but not essentially with the agreement of the original design holder. The challenge is therefore commercial rather than legal and the supplier should be 'free' to sell to any buyer.

Sorry that this is so long-winded but the content is essential to full understanding - any other opinions?

[theelanman]

[Monty]

That was a good read ok what other parts should we mass produce

Just out of interest did anyone take any pic`s with the new SS wishbones fitted?

[theelanman]

UK
1. paulwatkins ......chq rec'd
2. Woody ......chq rec'd .......collected
3. dodders ......chq rec'd
4. Andy_J ......chq rec'd
5. Router ......chq rec'd
6. Stef ......chq rec'd
7. Elantastic ......chq rec'd

ROW...I will sort a method of payment and let you know later so please dont worry
1. Matt RI (USA)
2. Cesare (France)
3. Ronald Ringma (Netherlands)


I have 5 of the next 6 ready now.....(woody collected his the other day )

anyone in a mad rush??......
need to sort out delivery......
cheers
G