Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reducing camber of rear springs
#1
 I would like to lower the back of my GE Cup by a few inches as it sits a bit high at the moment and I think this will improve the appearance and handling. Doing this would reduce the available suspension travel but I’m not planning to do any trials so I think I can live with that.
 
The question is whether to have some early type springs made up with reduced camber (say 3”), or just to use Ruby springs which I think have a 2½” camber as standard.

I imagine Ruby springs would make the suspension quite stiff which might be good if there is limited travel. Does anyone have experience of using the later springs on a relatively light early car? Will they fit into the ends of the chassis rails without modification? Are there any other issues watch out for (like the axle oil pouring out of the front of the torque tube due to the change in angle?)...
Reply
#2
Hi Tom

I had a set of later springs on my car. For whatever reason, the springs foul the sidemembers at the back of the body - but a bigger problem is that the brake cables also foul the body. In the end, I bought some new chummy pattern springs from Mr Dunford Snr.

I also had to cut some material away on the seat base to stop the torque anchor grease nipple from fouling. You are welcome to try the later springs if you like as I still have them.

Peter

   
Reply
#3
I have had Ruby springs on my 1930 short chassis pretend Ulster for 25 years without any issues.
Reply
#4
Tom, have you considered having your existing springs re-set at a lower ride height?
Reply
#5
You can get new Nippy / Type 65 springs. which might suit. In the good old days springs were reset to change camber.
Ian Dunford I think.
Reply
#6
Peter.

I am intrigued by the rear view of your car, which looks good. May I ask what it is?

Regards,

Jamie.
Reply
#7
(09-07-2018, 10:55 PM)Jamie Wrote: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]

Cheers, Tony.
Reply
#8
(09-07-2018, 01:34 PM)Peter Johnson Wrote: Hi Tom

I had a set of later springs on my car. For whatever reason, the springs foul the sidemembers at the back of the body - but a bigger problem is that the brake cables also foul the body. In the end, I bought some new chummy pattern springs from Mr Dunford Snr.

I also had to cut some material away on the seat base to stop the torque anchor grease nipple from fouling. You are welcome to try the later springs if you like as I still have them.

Peter


Peter, thanks that is interesting - do you think they foul because the springs are bulkier or because of their camber? There seems to be quite a lot of variation in shape and detailing between bodies so I'll have to look at this carefully on mine. I was more worried about the axle hitting the body on bumps which happened when the car was previously fitted with rather soft springs. Do you have a picture of the side profile of your car?

I know that David Cochrane has lowered his car and doesn't seem to have had any problems, although I haven't seen it in the flesh.
Reply
#9
   

With original (late model) springs

   

With chummy springs

   

These are the Chummy springs. The top leaf of the later springs is much flatter and fouls on the inside of the body. Like you say, there is much variation in the body construction so you may not have any issues. 

Peter
Reply
#10
(09-07-2018, 11:12 AM)Tom Coates Wrote:  I would like to lower the back of my GE Cup by a few inches as it sits a bit high at the moment and I think this will improve the appearance and handling. Doing this would reduce the available suspension travel but I’m not planning to do any trials so I think I can live with that.
 
The question is whether to have some early type springs made up with reduced camber (say 3”), or just to use Ruby springs which I think have a 2½” camber as standard.

I imagine Ruby springs would make the suspension quite stiff which might be good if there is limited travel. Does anyone have experience of using the later springs on a relatively light early car? Will they fit into the ends of the chassis rails without modification? Are there any other issues watch out for (like the axle oil pouring out of the front of the torque tube due to the change in angle?)...

I found using Nippy springs on my 1937 Opal gave the right clearance and excellent ride. If memory serves me right these have a 2.5 inch camber ( think standard Ruby is more) and fewer leaves than Ruby.

Charles
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)