Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Double Wishbone IFS for Classic Morgan's

Had a quick look at Librands version. Looks clunky , and very un- Morgan . Its also expensive and looks like it weighs a ton. Morgan is about form following function; about finding elegant solutions even if they don't always work that well . Personally I would rather fix Morgans dopey lubrication system first to see if this had a transforming effect before considering anything else. More on this - maybe - later.

A torsion bar like the Morris Minor might also be viable with a lower wishbone. Although the chassis would need bracing to take the the load.In fact IRS at the rear might work with torsion bars, which don't take up much room. Probably an expensive solution though.

Ok I feel I should put in my tuppence worth at this point

As the Chap who spent countless hundreds of hours designing and running computer simulations of the wishbone conversion, and also now spends the 60 odd hours fabricating all the parts for it, I'd like to know what your basis for comment is?

The kit was designed to use the morgan stub axle assembly this forces very significant design compromises in terms of scrub axis and unsprung weight

However it allows customers to keep there original wheels, hubs, and brakes (or our upgrade brakes should they have already chosen that route)

I did consider a mcpherson strut arrangement, I have the fully worked up drawings to that end, however after running many suspension kinematics simulations the double wishbone proved superior

for example- it has less than 1mm of toe change throughout the entire suspension travel

The morgan sliding pillar suspension, can be made to work, sort of, however it has massive toe change in bump, the track width varies dramatically with wheel travel, and the kingpins bend and deflect under side and brake loadings (as do mcpherson struts)
Lubrication is the least of its issues

Clunky?
Im sorry if it is un- Morgan should we have made it from 1/4" steel plate like the wing stays?

Elegant?
more like fit for purpose- Morgan factory is all about doing it the cheapest way possible

Weighs a ton?
actually the entire kit weighs little more than the stock suspension with vastly improved levels of comfort, ride quality and handling

Expensive
like I say- I spend 60 hours making this conversion,all the parts are carefully fabricated, TIG welded and then it needs to be fitted to the car
which is a wings off job

I await your reply with interest....

I think it looks fantastic and if Morgan had offered it as an option I think I would have ordered it. I can't justify fitting the wishbone system to a new car but I can justify fitting the rising rate spring system which does not alter the basic structure and costs much less.

In another thread i listed a wish for a future trad that included a fully independent suspension system. I still think it would be a good way to go.

Thanks for that Simon. It's good to hear from the experts. I've always been pretty vocal about keeping with tradition with the Classic range of cars but the photo you have just posted has made me have a rethink. It is a pretty classical design and in my eyes looks elegant in a purposeful way rather than clunky. I've always believed that twin wishbones were the best solution compared to McPherson struts etc in keeping everything under control.

Hi Simon, if I had the money it would be on my list of developments!
Why would you not want to improve the suspension if you could? The point of a Morgan is it is lightweight, high power to weight ratio and open top and looks traditional. We put up with bump steer and having to regularly replace kingpins because it is a Morgan. If you figure cost of regular king pin replacement in over lifetime of Morgan plus labour it doesn't seem so expensive.
Anything designed by Mulfab is not clunky.
Their work is fantastic.

John

I'm not sure what MMC would have to do to get such a set up 'type approved' but even if it was a several thousand pound option I'm sure there would be many (myself included) who would spec it on a new build.

As MMC have started to fit power steering as standard on the 3.7 Roadster why not fit a more modern front suspension as well, or at least have it as an option? It would be no less a Morgan IMHO and by the sounds of things a more enjoyable ride (to some people)

Owch. How did I know someone was going to say something like that? Sorry; I wasn’t being entirely serious. Just wanted to flush out some issues. I am sure your suspension design is brilliant and that the work you have done will be hugely appreciated and of benefit to many owners. I also realize that Mc Pherson struts are not the weapon of choice for sports car suspension designers. I was pointing out that for owners who just wanted a more contemporary feel to the car struts were a logical development of Morgans original design and might be compatible with the existing cross head.

However, my real point was perhaps sentimental rather than practical. I guess people buy and drive Morgan’s because they like the vitagey feel of the thing and appreciate its historical continuity. Otherwise they would just buy something else, which as we all know is going to drive a lot better. Morgan is in a very peculiar position producing a car, which is literally a relic from a bygone age but has a genuine integrity about it. Its not a reproduction or replica of something. Its just the same car. So you can appreciate the dilemma. The classic Morgan (I hate that term) is either something that they are going to have to go on producing indefinitely, assuming their is a continuing demand ,or bite the bullet and admit that the inverted sliding pillar is well past its sell by date, in which case the suspension you have designed would undoubtedly make it a better car.

You have also answered my original point which was to question whether some of the less lovely characteristics of Morgan suspension was to do with lubrication issues or whether they were inherent to the design. Since you have tested it I am sure that your conclusion that it is to do with the basic geometry is correct. So it looks like the end of the road for the inverted sliding pillar. Shame but their you go … I am surprised its lasted this long.

Having looked at your photograph I would have to say it looks remarkably similar to my 61 MGA, minus of course the dreaded Armstrong lever dampers. Which since I have racked up around 500, 000 miles in it I can confirm has very predicable handling and been thoroughly tested!
Again apologies for any offence.

Morgan will no doubt face a dilemma at some stage in the future about their traditional suspension. Holden are probably the only producer of live back axles...unless the Chinese make something....that fit the Morgan and if that supply dries up Morgan will be faced with introducing an independent rear suspension. If that happens, I suspect that'll be the time to replace the sliding pillar front with something akin to Mulfabs design.

What's wrong with the current front suspension