Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New rear shocks and springs - standard or otherwise?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I have the progressive rate springs fitted to both my stags, one has standard shocks and the other has the kyb fitted.
    I find the standard ones slightly too soft on the front on certain road surfaces but not enough to bother sorting until I have to dismantle the front suspension.
    my first set of springs came from tony hart with the brackets to correct the camber, the second set from Chris witor without the brackets but I was able to use the left over set from the first stag to correct the camber. I was just able to get away with standard length shocks by cutting the bushes in half on the inside so the shock was effectively shortened at full extension on the rear.
    Neil
    TV8, efi, fast road cams and home built manifolds. 246bhp 220lbft torque

    Comment


      #17
      Hi Neil - correct the camber?

      Can you elaborate when you have chance please?
      Sometimes you just need the 2 wheels!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Mark Serj View Post
        Hi Neil - correct the camber?

        Can you elaborate when you have chance please?
        To correct the camber , when you've fitted lowered springs you change one of the brackets on the rear subframe arms, think it's the outside one

        Dave
        73 mk 1/2 now gone to the dark side BLUE

        Comment


          #19
          From Tony Hart's Ebay ad'

          Triumph Stag lowering kit, lowers by approximately 1 inches, kit comes with two front springs, progressive rated at 205/400LB, two rear springs rated at 457LB, two inner trailing arm brackets to correct the camber and full fitting instructions.

          Mike

          Comment


            #20
            From what I have read it is only Monarch that advocate the use of progressive rate springs on the rear. Given that the progressive rate springs help with roll control they sound like a good idea. Any downsides?

            Thanks
            Matt

            Comment


              #21
              The important thing is that the front and rear springs are matched.

              If one end of the car is stiffer than the other in roll, it will transfer more weight to the most heavily loaded tyre at the stiffer end making that tyre break traction sooner due to being over loaded.

              The basic rule seems to be that too stiff at the front will make the car understeer (through the hedge forwards), and too stiff at the rear will make the car oversteer (through the hedge backwards)

              i found fitting a front anti roll bar to my TR5 made it understeer as badly as my TR6 as it made the front end too stiff in roll compared to the rear. i took it off again until I fitted the Stag engine when I found that the lower centre of gravity of the stag engine reduced the tendency of the front end to roll, and found I could usefully refit the bar again.

              When I fitted its current progressive rate springs, I fitted the rears first and it understeered badly due to the non progressive uprated springs still fitted up front. When I fitted the matching progressive front springs handling returned to its normal perfect balance, but I now have a comfortable ride compared to the last 25 years of tooth rattling hardness!

              In conclusion i would suspect that if Monarch are using progressive rear springs, the fronts must be of a different rate to the Tony Hart ones, or they specify a different front anti roll bar.

              Neil
              Neil
              TV8, efi, fast road cams and home built manifolds. 246bhp 220lbft torque

              Comment

              Working...
              X