Calling All S1/S2/Pre '85 S3 Owners Worldwide!

[Gis]

Chris, it’s not the bilsteins but the standard dampers that you order and modify. They are not expensive.

[Smithy111]

I’ve heard these Lotus ones were only really developed for the v8 and were just close enough for everything else just to sell a few more and aren’t really that good considering the massive price of them (in bearing in mind I’ll want to do the rear to match later)

[silverfrost]

Lotus does not cut corners when it comes to suspension and handleing imo.

They did indeed set up all the cars in the esprit series at great cost and time. 

One thing that not many companies would do for a car that has been out of production for decades. 

The expense of the items is to try and recoupe the time and money invested by group lotus that was done for the enthusiasts with little finacial reward for lotus group. 

Same goes for all the old stock factory items that they sold through the forums it was a cheap.  And not only get rid of surplus from the factory but to make sure classic lotus owners got to keep the companies heritage on the road to be seen by Joe public for years to come. 

Fantastic company and that is why the cost a fair few quid. 

Got to love hand built supercars 

[Freemason]

I have to admit I'm thoroughly confused by the sudden flurry of activity on this thread. I thought this project died a long time ago with no prospect of resurrection?

[silverfrost]

1 hour ago, Freemason said:

I have to admit I'm thoroughly confused by the sudden flurry of activity on this thread. I thought this project died a long time ago with no prospect of 

 

1 hour ago, Freemason said:

I have to admit I'm thoroughly confused by the sudden flurry of activity on this thread. I thought this project died a long time ago with no prospect of resurrection?

Think this thread has been a mixture of hope of the trunnion less conversion actually finally been signed off for am agreed upgrade for the presence 85 which sadly never happened.

And the front factory/ aftermarket adustable suspensign options for the presence 85 Which also includes removing the welded spring seat, which most folks are not to do either.

Big mixture of topics in one thread 

[Smithy111]

Something just crossed my mind looking at the new shocks (post 85) for my pre 85 car. Instead of cutting the spring platforms off could one not just use post 85 springs instead of the longer pre 85 springs or would that affect something??

[naasaa]

This is my intention. But be aware that you have to reinforce the lower a-arm, as the weight of the spring/car will rest on the damper lower mounting bolt.

Lars

[silverfrost]

Not seeing both sets in front of me and been able to measure up to ensure a correct set up. 

One thing springs to mind,  The difference in the pre 85 and post 85 is not just the fact that the lower arm is totally different. 

The top of the chassis turret is also,  The pre 85 has one hole drilled where the top shock thread pops through and a rubber bush is on either side and relies on the spring to be compressed in situ while installing the set up.

The post 85 has five holes drilled, as the spring and shock are compressed and fitted with a suspension top hat. Thus is a seperate unit. Akin to a modern mcphearson strut assembly obviously without the hub attached lol.

So you need to be careful about spring sizes.  So custom ones would be advisable. 

[Andyww]

Thats correct, it would be difficult to get the springs right first time.

Also, on the pre-85 the lower link twists as it goes up and down as its located front-rear by the ARB. So the lower shock bush, in addition to its usual rotational motion would have a twist motion, the bolt would be constantly stressed one way then the other. On the standard setup this bolt and bush are only taking damping forces but in this revised setup, as Lars mentioned, the whole corner weight would be on it. I cant see this is a very good arrangement, the bush would be destroyed quite quickly I would think.

On post-85 the lower link is triangulated and cant twist when moving up-down.

Dont really see the problem with cutting off the spring platform, so much easier and sticks with the Lotus original design!

[silverfrost]

Maybe a batch of titanium lower arm bolts to be made lol.

[Smithy111]

Think I’ll just cut the platforms off lol!

[naasaa]

On 01/07/2018 at 09:18, Andyww said:

Thats correct, it would be difficult to get the springs right first time.

Also, on the pre-85 the lower link twists as it goes up and down as its located front-rear by the ARB. So the lower shock bush, in addition to its usual rotational motion would have a twist motion, the bolt would be constantly stressed one way then the other. On the standard setup this bolt and bush are only taking damping forces but in this revised setup, as Lars mentioned, the whole corner weight would be on it. I cant see this is a very good arrangement, the bush would be destroyed quite quickly I would think.

On post-85 the lower link is triangulated and cant twist when moving up-down.

Dont really see the problem with cutting off the spring platform, so much easier and sticks with the Lotus original design!

I do not entirely agree with that.

The trunnion is not made to accomodate this twist that you a mentioning. It will actually resist. Most of it is absorbed by the ARB bushings. 

In regards to the comments to get the spring right the first time. Intention here is actually to have the ability to adjust front ride heigth. Hence less concern in having the spring right first time!

At the moment I have coil spring spacers to lift the front. But they are not road leagally in Denmark.

[Andyww]

But the outer end of the lower link must move front-rear slightly as suspension goes up and down, from simple geometry, the ARB is acting as the pivot point.

The trunnion can rotate to allow for this.

[naasaa]

This is correct.

An unfortunate herritage due to the suspension design. A good reason using rubber bushings to compensate for this.

However, doubt the significance of this negativ affect. Kind of stuck with it!

[SciroccoEV]

On 12/06/2018 at 09:03, naasaa said:

My concern is the extra load on the damper lower mounting bolt to the lower a-arm. Since this bolt has to carry not only the load from the damping, but also the weight of the car as well. Hence I want to reinforce the a-arm or fabricate a new.

I've built several kitcars/specials over the years and know the Triumph suspension parts well.

The Vitesse and GT6 are only a little lighter than an S3 Esprit, but carry an Iron block straight six right over the front suspension, so I doubt they put significantly less weight on the front. The dampers have an intergral spring platform, so all the suspension loads go through the bottom mounting bolt. The Triumph pressed lower wishbone is made from a similar thickness of steel to that of the Esprit, but it only uses a single layer, whilst the Esprit uses two. I'd say it's more than adequate to take the load from a coilover conversion.