Click here to return to the home page.
Classic Morgans
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Phil T, Georgetoad), 251 guests, and 36 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
+8Rich 182
John V6 144
Hamwich 103
Newest Topics
Dave W. - looking forward for a second book!
by xc68anc. 17/11/19 08:47 PM
Windscreen Washer Tubing Under-Dash
by DaveW. 17/11/19 02:31 PM
spares
by rockabilly john. 17/11/19 01:18 PM
5 speeder parts wanted
by Phil Bleazey. 17/11/19 11:50 AM
New Roadster Spec at last.
by Quicksilver. 17/11/19 08:49 AM
One for Gary?
by Graham, G4FUJ. 17/11/19 08:44 AM
Morganeers at reifen.com Mainz
by xc68anc. 17/11/19 08:15 AM
Latest Photos
TM at Haynes
Keith's 4/4 resto
New 1913 Runabout replica in progress
Alloy spare wheel Cover
Williams teasing me
Newest Members
Farmer Giles, Mike pomfrett, JanBirger, esomann66, Hdnut
6760 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums34
Topics36,623
Posts591,708
Members6,760
Most Online596
Nov 6th, 2019
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: CooperMan] #594567
11/09/19 12:40 PM
11/09/19 12:40 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Richard Wood Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert
Richard Wood  Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Originally Posted by CooperMan
Despite my 3.7 being equipped with the 5 link, after only a couple of months I just had to swop the front to SSL, I had obviously become used to the front end feel of SSL for 5 years on the previous Roadster


Following on from my post above, have just ordered the front RS kit from Dan who already has them in the post to me. He did a deal minus shocks and steering bearings as I have them already.


Richard

2018 Roadster - Red/Magnolia - "Morton"
1967 Land Rover series 2a SWB
1960 Velocette Venom
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #594988
14/09/19 05:36 AM
14/09/19 05:36 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
P
PJB Offline
Learner Plates Off!
PJB  Offline
Learner Plates Off!
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
Reminder. The initial harshness of the original front suspension setup is due to the rebound spring and main spring being compressed together at ride height, their stiffnesses add together resulting in a very stiff initial spring rate. That is what causes the nose of the cars to bob up and down, that is the car bouncing on the front tyres at around 3 Hz.
To get rid of that initial stiffness and resulting harshness to thus get the front suspension to actually work the rebound spring must be only just kissing the slider/hub at ride height, you must be able to turn it by hand. This requires a shorter main spring and/or a shorter rebound spring or go for a main spring supported on adjustable spring seats.
Declared interest - Director of SSL, product range includes the SSL 5L rear suspension, SSL RS front suspension and alterative springs and dampers.
Regards Peter J Ballard. http://www.suspensionsupplies.co.uk/


Buckland B3 Mk2 (Development of F Type Morgan)
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595040
14/09/19 01:34 PM
14/09/19 01:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,327
Somerset, UK
P
PaulJ Offline
Talk Morgan Addict
PaulJ  Offline
Talk Morgan Addict
P

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,327
Somerset, UK
What Peter says re. the rebound spring compressing the main spring, on the front suspension, makes perfect sense. In fact I can't help but wonder why MMC decided to put the two springs into contention with each other in the first place, or maybe it wasn't an actual design decision, rather something that just happened?


Paul
[Beginning to get the best out of the ARP4]
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595043
14/09/19 01:58 PM
14/09/19 01:58 PM
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 11,762
Salisbury, UK
Peter J Offline
Formerly known as Aldermog
Peter J  Offline
Formerly known as Aldermog
Member of the Inner Circle

Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 11,762
Salisbury, UK
I had an extended ride across Salisbury plain in Peter Ballard car, "Molly", now in the ownership of my pal Ian.
With SSL's front and rear ends the ride was remarkable: no "Morgan nod", no crashing in and out or ruts: just composed.
Ian said that other than a slight tendency to follow longitudinal ruts, such as where a cable tench has been laid and badly repaired, it is remarkably good.

I had a long chat with Peter about the suspension on my Plus 8, which he and Dan drove extensively, in early 2014 and have some very good pointers as to the best way to refine the ride, without harming the roadholding. It seems my car had Koni/Erbach suspension later cars have non adjustable SPAX coil-over units. As the suspension is now 41000 miles run and upgrade is due, Peter agreed to recommend SPAX adjustable units, probably with progressive springs.

The service this November will be costly as the front upright road joints also need replacing.....

Still cheaper than a new Plus Six! exting


Peter,
Tarka the 'Otter Mog
2014 Plus 8


Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: PaulJ] #595067
14/09/19 05:00 PM
14/09/19 05:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Richard Wood Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert
Richard Wood  Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Originally Posted by PaulJ
What Peter says re. the rebound spring compressing the main spring, on the front suspension, makes perfect sense. In fact I can't help but wonder why MMC decided to put the two springs into contention with each other in the first place, or maybe it wasn't an actual design decision, rather something that just happened?


Ironic that in preparation to fitting my SSL RS kit I measured the length of rebound springs yesterday as best I could static with Wolf gaiters on. I then realised I could turn the nearside one just. When I checked the offside not only could I turn it easily, but found 2-3mm of vertical movement. This despite have Wolf lower steering bearings which take up an extra 3mm! I guess the main springs have settled although only 8000 miles covered. Maybe as I drive mainly solo it explains the difference as well.

This discovery threw out the window the premise that compressed rebound springs accounted for harsh front ride. Nevertheless expect a comfort improvement when kit is fitted.


Richard

2018 Roadster - Red/Magnolia - "Morton"
1967 Land Rover series 2a SWB
1960 Velocette Venom
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595127
15/09/19 08:35 AM
15/09/19 08:35 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
P
PJB Offline
Learner Plates Off!
PJB  Offline
Learner Plates Off!
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
Thanks to you all adding your observations for us all to share.
Additional tech. for those new to the Traditional Morgan front suspension...….

1. If one has "zero droop" on a suspension, rather than allowing droop as well as bump from static ride height, the roll stiffness is doubled. But zero droop causes the occasional knock as the suspension tries to droop after a compression. Thus some compliance in droop softens that, hence a rebound spring.

2. By controlling droop the front instantaneous roll centre moves from below ground to ground level. That lifting of the roll centre, reduces the 'roll moment' and thus increases roll stiffness.

3. If you have a gap between the slider/hub and the rebound spring you loose that initial high roll stiffness. If you have the rebound spring compressed you not only get harsh initial ride but the roll centre moves as you enter a corner so the balance of the car changes, not nice. Read http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Morgan-Plus-8-Road-Test.htm "...……..and by the front-end suddenly going softish.." That is the slider/hub coming off the rebound spring! You need a main spring that can be preloaded to balance the corner weight and set the rebound spring contact.

4. MMC do know the effect of the rebound spring and do try to get the main springs the right length but there are so many weight variants they prefer the compressed rebound spring option, rather than a gap - playing on the safe side. But of course Morgan supply the RS as an option on new builds anyway.

5. Morgan have relied for decades on that high initial spring rate to get the car to turn in quickly by loading the outside front. However also for decades all other cars (saloon & sports) have softened the front suspension springs to get better ride comfort but then have increased the low velocity bump force provided by the damper to get turn in. Many Morgan dampers on production cars have very little bump damping so still rely on the high initial spring rate with compressed rebound spring, but then having to accept consequential the poor ride. However when one goes for a softer initial spring rate one must add low velocity bump force in the damper. So not any old damper off the shelf but a damper valved to give that specific required low velocity force to get the car to turn in but then the valves must open to give good ride - at the same time! This is what damper tuning is so much about. Fit a damper designed for a different spring rate and car weight and it will not be optimum degrading both ride and handling.

6. Many other makes of cars are now using dampers with internal rebound springs to give increased roll stiffness and better ride BUT with much smaller anti roll bars. The current Merc E Class is the best example. The first dozen or so M3W (& the demo cars) is another example with the SUPLEX coil overs, that is before production went to SPAX without any internal rebound springs and hence more roll. The early 5 door 'Mini's (also the BMW X3 etc) are among the worst; come off a full width speed bump and the suspension feels quite soft, drive along a country lane with undulations on the near side and your head is continuously nodded side to side, uncomfortable - ARB 'too' big! BMW are too going to internal damper rebound springs - Morgan were first!

A lot of ride and handling is indeed subjective, but there is a book full of 'rules of thumb' that gets one quite close to the required ride and handling characteristics before the detailed spring and damper tuning to suit the character of the car and the customers.

If you are still awake, thanks for your attention. Regards Peter.
Declared interest Director SSL.
Current SSL suspension projects include; Porsche 356C & 911S, Jensen CV8, FIA ACCobras, FIA MGB, off road rapid response 4x4 truck etc. as well as Morgans of course for road and track.


Buckland B3 Mk2 (Development of F Type Morgan)
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595186
15/09/19 04:46 PM
15/09/19 04:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,901
Seattle, USA
B
Button Offline
Talk Morgan Enthusiast
Button  Offline
Talk Morgan Enthusiast
B

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,901
Seattle, USA
So for us that think We understand Morgan Suspension, do I source Front Shocks with adjustments for both Bump and ????? - Both Up and Down?


Button
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595216
15/09/19 07:27 PM
15/09/19 07:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
P
PJB Offline
Learner Plates Off!
PJB  Offline
Learner Plates Off!
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
You can source dampers with one two or three (or more) adjustments.
1. Low speed bump up to around 2" per second that controls turn in, control over hard braking, long undulations etc.
2. High speed bump above 2" per second that is the ability to absorb road surface irregularities such as a very coarser surface.
3. Rebound.
OR set them in ratios.
Typically the ratio of low speed bump to rebound is around 1:3 for a road car to minimise bump forces but control oscillations, or 1:2 for a sports car to create more ability to turn in, or 1:1 for a race car where turn in rules over comfort.
The high velocity bump should be as close to flat as possible (so force not increasing much with velocity), some trick dampers can actually reduce force over say 2" per second.
The 2" per second is typical for a road car, maybe up to 3" or 4" per second for a race car as you hit bumps faster so the damper velocity is higher.

For critical damping so any oscillation dies in one cycle the Force:Velocity slope is 2xsqrt(mass x spring rate). For a road car use 30% critical, a sports car 70% and for a race car around 100%.

Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong -- look what they can do to a Weber carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver.


Buckland B3 Mk2 (Development of F Type Morgan)
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595217
15/09/19 07:35 PM
15/09/19 07:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
P
PJB Offline
Learner Plates Off!
PJB  Offline
Learner Plates Off!
P

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 331
Cotswolds
Sorry I hit send too early...……...
Then you need to consider damper types: twin tubes gas pressurised or atmospheric, monotubes gas pressurised or atmospheric & specials where the damping is also dependent on stroke etc. They all have different responses with respect to rate of change of velocity, ie how fast they give force for a velocity input. For a road car you want them to respond relatively slowly to give good ride over rough surfaces but for a race car respond quickly as you are going faster. Difficulty is to make a responsive damper like a gas pressurised monotube Bilstein give good ride but then work well when driven hard - it is done!
Any of the above damper types can give the same force;vel curves, but it is the transients and change in characteristic with heat that are the differences. Pays your money, takes your choice and do the road testing for the spring rate and car weight in mind. Hours of fun and many hundreds/thousands of miles of testing.

Cheers Peter.
SSL Director.


Buckland B3 Mk2 (Development of F Type Morgan)
Re: Roadster 5 link rear suspension re-visited [Re: Richard Wood] #595690
18/09/19 08:35 PM
18/09/19 08:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Richard Wood Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert
Richard Wood  Offline OP
Talk Morgan Expert

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,035
East Harling, Norfolk UK
Originally Posted by Richard Wood

Following on from my post above, have just ordered the front RS kit from Dan who already has them in the post to me. He did a deal minus shocks and steering bearings as I have them already.


Following Peter's convincing arguments ended up ordering the matching Spax adjustables. Finished the fit late this afternoon with just enough time for a short test drive. Still need to tune them to the worst of Norfolk roads but gratifying to find in the short run that front now matches the back in ironing out most bumps. Car seems more chuckable as well with super sensitive steering.

Needless to say the second side was stripped and rebuilt in half the time of first although I did release spring tension with a jack. Would suggest it's ideally a two man job to replace using same method though. Bizarre that I did find a kingpin bump stop on second (offside). Left it out of rebuild for symmetry as definately not present on other side. Bump stop's on dampers with RS kit anyway.

Anyone want a pair of front adjustable AVO's, only 6000 miles from new innocent

Last edited by Richard Wood; 18/09/19 08:39 PM.

Richard

2018 Roadster - Red/Magnolia - "Morton"
1967 Land Rover series 2a SWB
1960 Velocette Venom
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Aeroman, Simon 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1