What camber, castor and toe-in settings do you run on your Track Mk2 Golf?

Be careful and double check outer CV joint clearance against the bottom of the front strut if attempting this.
15mm may be possible before contact occurs.
I used this method when I made my own front struts.

 

Thanks Danster; will do

 

Since I first posted this:





I have been toying with ripping the beam off the PB, and measuring the beam components, and working out the relative stiffnesses. This will give indications of proportions of loads carried in the beam centre section, the tube to stub, and ARB.

The above has got me in the mood. Beam will be off this weekend and measuring will commence. Calculations to follow. Premisses to be published.

LcT: Don't hold your breath!

 

You made my day! I will be waiting for your news. Will it be on a Mk2 GTi beam and corresponding parts (e.g. MK2 GTi OEM ARB)?

 

Yes, it's a 1987 PB.

 

Well the beam is off!



Bit of a doddle really.

Took almost as long to upload to photobucket! That site has become really slow recently!

 

I thought they did not put salt on the roads in Ireland? That beam looks like it has been chronologically lightened.

That beam does not have the extra bits welded along the outer trailing arms that I have seen on others. The extra bits on the beams I have seen are presumably to resist torsional flex of the trailing arm.

 

Danny, you pillock, this is the 1987 PB. Mrs daved bought it, a demo car, from Gilders, Sheff., in 1988. It has done 200,000 miles, on UK roads.

It was stolen, and recovered, in a field, the underside is really bent. The sump shows the shape of the crank in it. The windscreen is cracked top to bottom.

Only post 1990 Mk2 rear beams have the stiffening.

EDIT. It got lighter and lighter as I carried it up the field. It will make a great lightweight rear beam for the EV!

 

Daved , you wazzock, I was merely making an observation.

And Mk3 beams too.

 

I have not as yet measured all of the parameters of the beam. I have been thinking about how the loads, seen by the beam, from the road, are transferred into the body.

I make the following observations:

A- The type of mount used, will have an affect the way the beam works.

1 - Standard mounts will carry torsional loads in all directions. They will also carry direct loads in all directions, front to back - top to bottom - side to side. Their stiffness will affect how much the beam distorts to carry load into the chassis.

2 - Polymounts will carry no torsional loads around the axis of the fixing bolt, they spin, or axial loads along the bolt, they slide. (How are they restrainted within the bracket?)

3 - Unibals will carry not torsional loads in any plane. They will take direct loads in all directions.

B - The stiffness of the body between the rear turrets will have an affect on the way the beam works.

1 - Unbraced: The body is weak, and will distort, and take a small proportion of the loads.

2 - Braced at the top of the mount: The top is stiffer, but the vertical part of the turret and base remain the same. So a proportion of the loads will dissipate into the sides and floor.

3 - Fully Cross Braced: The smallest possible proportion of the loads will dissipate into the body.

C - The stiffness of the body between the mounting brackets will have an affect on the way the beam works.

1, 2 and 3 - As B above.

Stiffening between/across the bracket mounts, makes sense to me!

D- The Spring Rate will have an affect on the way the beam works.

 

If anyone is interested in fitting Unibals?

This is my take on how they are fitted in the Mk2 VWMS cars!



I believe a much better design could be made using SSA 16 .50 Unibals!

If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll sketch it up!