----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete & Aprille Chadwell" <pandachadwell@mac.com>
To: "Triumphs Mailing List" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 5:19 PM
Subject: TR6 Fulcrum Pin Orientation
> the upper fulcrum pin "
> should be fitted so that its middle section
> (which is curved) curves towards the engine. It is possible to fit it
> the opposite way, so take care."
>
> This was interesting because I've currently got my front end torn
> apart in order to repair the support structure for the upper fulcrum
> pin on the passenger's side and when I read the caption I instantly
> recognized that the upper fulcrum pins on my TR6 are fitted the
> 'wrong' way.
Mine were the same way in a recent rebuild.
The
> chassis shows no sign of past damage of ANY kind or anything that
> would indicate that there was ever any major repair or restoration
> work done prior to when I rebuilt the suspension in 1989 (but I
> didn't remove the pins then). After that suspension rebuild I had a
> 4-wheel alignment done on the car and everything was aligned to specs.
I also had a 4 wheel alignment done when I first purchased the car. The
camber was "spot on". During my complete rebuild this summer, I bolted the
fulcrum pins the right way according to Practical Classics. I installed
uprated springs and poly-bushings at all 4 corners. Took it to the alignment
guy and the result was more camber in the front than the previous setup. The
left front was 1.2 degrees and right front was 1.3 degrees. Positive on both
sides. / \ The specs call for 0.8 to1.3 degrees positive camber. My
previous setup must've been toward the 0.8 degree mark (I don't have the
print out from that alignment) or closer to 0 degrees | |
>
> I figure one of 3 things is going on here:
>
> 1. A DPO had some suspension work done at some point, for some reason
> had to remove the pins and then installed them incorrectly.
> 2. The Practical Classics book is wrong about the correct orientation.
> 3. The Practical Classics book is wrong about the orientation being
> important
> perhaps the alignment is the same regardless of the
> orientation of the pins.
>
> It's important to note that I've been driving this car since 1986
> with the pins installed incorrectly (according to Practical Classics,
> anyway) so the orientation must not be THAT important. I'm going
> with number 3 above.
>
Number 3 obviously works, however it does effect the geometry of the front
end. It could ,potentially, put you within specs either way you orient it.
If you place the fulcrum pin on the bench and trace the outline, then flip
it end for end, you will find about 3/8" difference at the pins end. It is
an assymetrical part. One way will give you more negative camber \ / (the
way you have had it oriented). If you flip it around and install it the
"Practical Classic" way it will give you more camber / \. There are other
factors at play geometrically speaking, such as toe-in/out, as well as
caster (here goes that thread again). Spring height and rate can also be a
factor. Typically the more positive the camber, the better the car will
handle. There is a point of having too much camber, but I will leave that
thread to someone else to expound upon.I am very pleased with the results of
my rebuild and my fulcrum pin the "Practical" way. I am still not sure which
way is "correct" but it is nice to have some adjustment options.
Tim Hutchisen
71 TR6 w/ new beefy suspension
80 TR7 Spider (no fulcrum pins here)
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|