Took me 30 minutes to make this. If I had the use of a lathe, it would have taken 10 minutes. I prefer brazing to welding on things like this!
Interesting Dave - I started work on one of these a while back, placing an insert inside a tube & welding. The insert I drilled in a post drill, then tapped, but I still managed to make it off-centre! How did you go about it? Could be the makings of 2 threads here, but it's all good!
Chris. You can buy pre-tapped hex bar off the shelf. This is an example of bar with LH and RH threads. So easy to buy the bar, and the tube. Cut the ends off the bar. File them round to fit in the tube. Braze into position. For this type of item, brazing is far better than welding! ps. People only weld cos. they don't know how to braze!
I was pointing out that SCCH might have done it like that because it was faster to develop and more cost efficient to produce, we can take our time to make it just right, if its not ready in time, or ends up 10x more expensive than it should there is no problem
Thanks Dave, I must start stripping an axle this winter and getting some rod length measurements decided. Inserts would be makeable straight off I guess. Just tube size to decide. The tube I have is probably over-specced, very heavy. Any thoughts on that? The rose joints are M12, which dictates min tube dia by inference.
VWM were using tie rods in different wall ticknes to adjust deflection also welding a U profile against the tubes with no tie rods/ turrets makes a solid beam ( as golf 4 vwm parts) on the beam relocators i see not that much benefit If running a lot lower than oem then the beam is at an angle that all decent geometry is lost. IMO you would like the the beam angle as oem , so you need to go up , not down. maybe making new mounting brackets to move the mounting point up more wheelbase can be gained on drop plates too , or to have less wheel droop on too long shock absorbers in itself a good idea, but would like to see some facility to adjust toe in and camber
I agree - they are just cosmetic, for the show cars, but there is wheel base to be gained. This in conjunction with the drop plates will double the gain in wheelbase, the wheel being moved back twice. On a short car (Mk1) this could be beneficial? At a cost though, since the wheel arches may need to be remodelled.
you bet, that's very nice fabrication going on there only improvements I could think of: 1-make everything lighter, in this case, the towers could have some weight come off and keep all the strength. (also, there are tubular ARBs that save a lot of weight) 2-nut on top should be welded to be perpendicular to the rosejoints to minimize stress 3-its on the wrong car, it should have been done to a mk2 axle and stuffed on my ride (thread printed and on the TO-DO list )
Drop plates are a good compromise, couldn't be any worse than two mates in the back?? For non motorsport use of course.
To me the drop plates look like they are just there too allow for a lower ride height while still maintaining moderate suspension travel.
I have same prob with the wheel been moved forward after lowering. Do the drop plates really help in relocate the wheel in oem arch position? Will it affect bump-rebound travel so i will need to re-define damping of rear shock absorbers?
If its on coilovers/bags it will need raising a bit, otherwise the wheel will be even closer to the body. They can be done to re position in a more central location. The dampers won't need to be altered and you will benefit from the travel that would be available.
facts, darling you need the facts. Yes you did your homework. That was has a rear engine mount notch, two drive shaft notches, two tie rod notches, two wishbone notches and raised turrets but you last image [ the one of the subframe ] was taken before any of that work has occurred hence the reason for all the additional work. bad from.
I was having a bit of a think over this subject mid journey the other night I've actually worked out how simple this mod is, why it was an issue looking for a fix and of course how simple the fix is !! it's really related to the rear steering geometry which results in lowering the back end, it fixes the resulting toe in which alters as it progressed in to the camber angles! don't ask me to do the maths! or how it sits in regs books
The toe/camber geometry is fixable using EZ Camber shims - no plates required for that IMO. This is all about beam position and how the beam reacts when the car's weight shifts forward under braking (I think). Not suggesting I've got my head around it yet though!
