Click here to return to the home page.
Image of a road.
Who's Online
18 registered (Michael H, CooperMan, Sir Percival, John07, VinMogger, A11OGE, Woodster, griffo, Richard Wood, Wirewheel, HJP, Paulxj, MOG 615, mph, stevemag, Phil Bleazey, brownbaker, JCD), 44 Guests and 13 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Turbo Plus 4 - final report
Sunny Shropshire!
As Ordered
Spring in Norway
Vehicle Lifts
Newest Topics
Garage Lift double stack Morgan cars
by BuyBritish
24/04/19 06:47 AM
Fairbourne Screen Update
by Michael H
23/04/19 09:22 PM
PSA - 1.6 Sigma - copper adapter is a weak link
by PerryP
23/04/19 06:32 PM
Turbo Plus 4 Plus -- final report
by griffo
23/04/19 04:44 PM
Dimension needed -Plus 8
by Culminator
23/04/19 04:29 PM
Tesla (your car will go moonlighting!)
by Alistair
23/04/19 02:02 PM
good new toy for smartphone photography
by Alistair
23/04/19 01:21 PM
Newest Members
Andy Hatch, Toyracer59, Roxy Plus4, RobCol, Rsglush
6471 Registered Users
Shout Box

Forum Stats
6,471 Registered Members
33 Forums
34,857 Topics
562,571 Posts

Most users ever online: 341 @ 11/02/18 10:30 PM
Today's Birthdays
ianc
Topic Options
#558428 - 07/02/19 01:28 PM Anti-tramp bars - technical question
griffo Online   happy
Learner Plates Off!

Registered: 31/07/14
Posts: 435
Loc: Cornwall
We plan to fit anti-tramps bars to Possum to complement the panhard rod and LSD and limit spring windup in the light of the extra power and torque of the Ecoboost engine. The questions is: is there any reason the bars cannot be reversed and connected to the rear spring hangers rather than the front ones? Superficial examination would suggest this would be easier and avoid having to cut the floor away to achieve clearance. Is there any technical reason why the bars would not operate properly this way round? Grateful your views.


Edited by griffo (07/02/19 01:29 PM)
_________________________
www.griffopix.com

Top
#558431 - 07/02/19 02:11 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
DaveW Offline
Roadster Guru
Member of the Inner Circle

Registered: 11/12/08
Posts: 17256
Loc: South Yorkshire
All I can say is that with the conventional mount, the bar will be compressed under load as the axle rotates backwards against the forward rotation of the wheels.

So with a rear mount the bar will be under tension. Not sure how easy it would be to mount to the rear hangers?
_________________________
DaveW
2005 Corsa Red Roadster S1
2016 Saffron Yellow (Narrow) Plus 4

Top
#558443 - 07/02/19 03:18 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
Richard Wood Online   NoMood
Talk Morgan Enthusiast

Registered: 03/02/16
Posts: 1631
Loc: East Harling, Norfolk UK
Some useful stuff from Lorne here particularly the comments about further limiting suspension movement.

Although most reaction arms (brake or transmission) are designed to be under tension when needed (which seems instinctively right), the five link coil over system on latest Roadsters creates both.



Sorry this doesn't answer your query but given all the other work you have done on Posum, would it be reasonable to suggest going straight for the SSL 5 link system
_________________________
Richard

2018 Roadster - Red/Magnolia - "Morton"
1967 Land Rover series 2a SWB
1960 Velocette Venom

Top
#558450 - 07/02/19 03:58 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
Rog Offline

Talk Morgan Regular

Registered: 31/05/12
Posts: 862
Loc: Sumerset
Originally Posted By griffo
Is there any technical reason why the bars would not operate properly this way round? Grateful your views.

Umm…. two scenarios depending on where it was fixed maybe thinking

If the tramp bar was fixed to the rear spring eye then might the shackle bracket rotation still allow the axle to tramp or twist should the front portion of the leaf spring “winds up” under acceleration or braking?

Or

If the tramp bar was fixed to the rear chassis eye then the leaf spring might become much stiffer as the tramp bar would prevent the shackle bracket rotating and preventing the leaf spring from extending in length as the spring was loaded vertically?
_________________________
Roger
2006 4/4 Duratec

Top
#558458 - 07/02/19 04:30 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
griffo Online   happy
Learner Plates Off!

Registered: 31/07/14
Posts: 435
Loc: Cornwall
Ah Roger,
I think you may be right. Thanks for those thoughts. The SSL system would actually be the answer - it's just a question of money.
P
_________________________
www.griffopix.com

Top
#558506 - 07/02/19 08:02 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
Gambalunga Offline

Member of the Inner Circle

Registered: 03/09/11
Posts: 11137
Loc: Mandello del Lario, Lake Como,...
What the heck! It's only money. spend drive
_________________________
Peter


Top
#558526 - 07/02/19 10:08 PM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
Heinz Offline

Talk Morgan Addict

Registered: 07/09/09
Posts: 3725
Loc: Cologne, Germany
I think the front parts of the leaf spring should be calmed down because there the force of the cardan shaft there twists the spring to an S.

Have a look at this two videos, without and with anti tramp bars. Filmed from underneath at the leaf spring.

https://youtu.be/otP5xU8qvYY

https://youtu.be/yaVDqJEEKR8

Top
#558571 - 08/02/19 07:56 AM Re: Anti-tramp bars - technical question [Re: griffo]
Soleng Offline
Talk Morgan Regular

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 531
Loc: Norway
Look at the Mogvette rear suspension.

Harald
_________________________
+4 4-seater 2008 Squadron Blue


Top

Moderator:  Aeroman, Boshly, Simon