

 |
| Blooze Own: An F355 Six Speed N* Build Thread (Page 63/126) |
|
RCR
|
FEB 09, 10:25 AM
|
|
I won't pretend to know all of your reasons behind moving to Ari's (yes I still refer to it as Ari's), but i hope you reconsider.
I like MM, but there seems to be a much larger talent pool here to run your ideas across. And, with Cliff's new trending bar, trolls are less likely to interfere with our hobby.
Either way, I will be following your progress...Good luck.
Bob
|
|
|
ITALGT
|
FEB 09, 11:49 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by RCR:
I won't pretend to know all of your reasons behind moving to Ari's (yes I still refer to it as Ari's), but i hope you reconsider.
I like MM, but there seems to be a much larger talent pool here to run your ideas across. And, with Cliff's new trending bar, trolls are less likely to interfere with our hobby.
Either way, I will be following your progress...Good luck.
Bob |
|
x2![This message has been edited by ITALGT (edited 02-09-2013).]
|
|
|
Bloozberry
|
FEB 09, 02:53 PM
|
|
|
Thanks for your support guys. The most recent changes to the forum have given me reason to consider staying on. Kudos go to Cliff for making a simple, but much needed change regarding how the forum is moderated... I hope it lasts. I'll update my thread in a couple days.
|
|
|
motoracer838
|
FEB 10, 12:33 PM
|
|
Blooz, getting back to the topic at hand, once upon a time, I used to consider myself very ocd and anal retentive, you've convinced me I'm no such thing, j/k , I doubt anybody has put near as much effort into Fiero suspension as you, now "put down the pencil" and build the thing. 
Joe
|
|
|
Bloozberry
|
FEB 15, 04:53 PM
|
|
Thanks Joe... (at least I think it was a compliment) 
I've finally completed the schematics of what I plan to build for the rear suspension, well, at least as far as I'm going to develop them in electronic format. They aren't 100% complete because I've reached a point of diminishing returns (and I'm starting to get cabin fever). Before I describe the important aspects of the design, I want to mention that I've strayed from my original goal of making this an easily retrofittable modification. I apologize to anyone who might have been hoping to duplicate my design, but I ultimately had to choose between either a relatively simple modification that would not work very well, or a more involved project that would give good performance. Since I am primarily building this for myself and had no plans to market any kits, I chose the latter. Now, onto the final configuration...
As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I had a breakthrough in the design process when I finally ditched the idea of keeping the extended Held/HT Motorsports lateral links I had bought earlier. Their length meant that any new upper link mounts would have needed to protrude into the engine bay if I wanted decent suspension performance. With that constraint removed, I shortened the lower lateral links considerably in my drawings until the inboards mounts cleared the overhanging F40 transmission on the LH side. That then allowed me to raise their mounting points as well. The rest of the geometry was a piece of cake from that point. With the geometry set in stone the first thing I needed to do was design a new cradle to tie the new lower link mounts to a framework that included the front and rear cradle mounts:
THE CRADLE
Since my OEM cradle was rusted out anyways, I started a clean sheet design by placing everything I had (engine, transmission, raised cradle mounting points, and new lower lateral link locations) on a 3-view drawing, then drew a set of four 2" X 3" X 1/8" beams to attach all the known points together. I chose this size tubing to maintain a cross sectional area that was at least as large as the OEM for greater strength. While the design of the cradle side rails is basically complete, the shapes and locations of the cradle cross members aren't. They're just "fill-ins" until I have the time to design mounts for the Northstar, the F40, and the exhaust layout. Here is the top view with the new cradle in blue compared to the OEM cradle outlined in red:

From this view you can see that I moved the forward lower lateral link mounts outboard by 96 mm and the aft link mounts 123 mm further outboard, per side, than stock. Two neat things followed: the first was that both link mounts now lined up perfectly with the front cradle mounting point, eliminating any need to joggle the cradle side rails inward like the OEM cradle (I believe this will make the cradle stiffer); the second was that it added some wiggle room at either end of the engine/transmission. One side effect however was that with the new side rails being further apart, the rear cradle mounts would have to be offset inwards to meet up with the lower frame rail of the car. At first this concerned me knowing that I would have to create offset rear cradle mounts until I realized that the OEM mounts are offset by an equal amount outwards. That meant they could be swapped sides and all would be well again. I also shortened them to raise the cradle 25 mm. Here's the rear view showing what I mean... again, the blue is new, red is OEM:

I'll evaluate the need for gusseting the rear mounts better once I get into the actual fabrication of the cradle.
Finally, here's the RH side view showing the profile of the cradle side rails.

The important features to note are that:
1. the cradle mounting points have been lowered 25 mm from stock, which will result in the cradle being raised up into the chassis;
2. the lower lateral link mounts have been raised an additional 70 mm from the stock location as well as having been moved outboard;
3. the cradle bottom extends 10 mm below the oil pan allowing a skid plate or other oil pan protection to be installed; and
4. the rear cradle kicks up at the rear allowing for such features as exhaust system clearances, a marginally better ramp angle, and/or the installation of towing hooks.
Up next, the whole schemozzle installed in the chassis along with the new upper links.
(edited to update drawings to "as built" configuration)[This message has been edited by Bloozberry (edited 07-26-2013).]
|
|
|
RCR
|
FEB 16, 05:28 PM
|
|

Bob
|
|
|
Bloozberry
|
FEB 16, 07:51 PM
|
|
Patience Bob, patience!
Here's the side view of the final configuration (well at least until I start actually building it!). You always see a better way of doing things when you're actually sitting in an empty engine bay:

Starting from the bottom left of the image, the important things to take from this view are the following:
1. the purple piece that extends and meets the front cradle mount is a 4" square tube that was welded into place by the previous owner as a means to extend the cradle mount back for the 3" frame stretch. If I had my druthers, I would have just made the new cradle longer but this 4 X 4 is very securely welded in place and I have no intention of trying to get it out, so I'm working with it;
2. the forward end of the trailing link will now be captured on both sides with mounting ears (dark green) that drop down from the lower frame rail. This is different from OEM where the trailing link is pinned to the side rails of the cradle. The trailing link is what transmits the accelerative and decelerative forces to the chassis so with the wider tires and greater torque of the V8, I wanted the trailing link captured on both sides. Notice how I plan to add a few extra mounting holes above the stock angle to allow easy changes to anti-squat;
3. the upper and lower lateral links are in light purple. From the side view it's obvious the lower links are nearly horizontal (though it's even more evident from the rear view). The new upper links are attached to the knuckle with a pair of custom brackets (in blue) in-line with the old upper strut mounting hole. The aft bracket is just a flat plate of steel and is really only necessary to locate the lower end of the shock pushrod. The forward bracket is more complicated since it serves to locate the lower end of the shock pushrod AND provide the correct angle for the upper forward link. I wanted the forward upper link to triangulate the top of the knuckle for better knuckle control under various loads. The angles are too large for hemispherical joints to make up the difference by themselves so the bracket is needed to keep the joints within their design limits.
4. the upper links are attached to the top surface of the lower frame rail with custom brackets (dark green). These brackets are clearer in the rear view.
5. above the knuckle you'll see the pushrod bell crank that's attached to a cutaway beam (in red). I haven't completed the bell crank mount yet because I haven't decided exactly what will work best. One idea is to use a beam as shown welding the aft end to the old strut tower wall, and the forward end to the new pink transverse beam.
6. The forward shock mount is going to be anchored onto a custom-shaped 3" X 3-1/2" transverse beam (in pink) that will also act as decklid hinge mount, and Northstar torque strut mount. Tearing a page from (PFF member) Yarmouth Fiero's book of design, I'll remove the lower half of the stock transverse beam under the rear window to raise the new beam high enough to solidly anchor it to the two OEM upper frame rails. The stock upper rails are only attached to the sheet metal of the B-pillar so this should add some rigidity. The new transverse beam will also be tied into the lower frame rail with at least one vertical 3" X 1" rectangular tube per side.
Here's the rear view:

Some of the more important points in this view are:
1. the angles and lengths of the upper and lower links. Starting with the lowers, the forward ones were shortened 14 mm and the aft ones 43 mm over stock, despite the overall track width increase. The added track width is now accomplished through the widening of the cradle. Those paying attention to details will also notice that the overall track width increase was dropped from 6" to 5". As for the upper links, the aft one is shown in this view while the forward one is shown in the drawing below. Their inner pivot points are in line with each other both transversally and vertically.
2. the static angle of the axle is 7.4 degrees which is not bad at all considering tripot joints need a minimum of a degree or so to maintain proper lubrication. At 76 mm jounce the axle is at 18.4 degrees and at full rebound -3.9 degrees, which are within a typical CV joint's maximum operating angle of 24 degrees, though I doubt I will allow that much travel. As for compression and extension, the axle length changes by 20 mm from full jounce to full rebound, easily within the safe operating range of the tripot. Now I can start planning the source for my axles.
3. the bell crank mount beam is clearer in this view as is the firewall transverse beam and it's link to the lower frame rail. I'm pretty confident I will be able to come up with a satisfactory bell crank mounting system. I've superimposed the wheel and tire at 76 mm jounce (in light grey) to show how the bell crank mount must be on the inboard side of the bell crank, otherwise it would likely interfere with wheel travel. If all else fails, I have left enough room above the knuckle to replace the pushrod with a coil over shock absorber (not a strut), mounting the upper end to a custom bracket at the top of the strut tower. On the other hand, if the pushrod system does work out, the strut towers will sectioned and greatly reduced in size.
Here's the rear view of how the upper forward lateral link mounts to the lower frame rail:

Finally, here's the top view.

This wraps things up showing the final details of the custom bracketry for the upper links,. Again, notice how they don't impede into the engine bay making the loaded cradle installation much easier than if they had.
As always, I'm open to constructive advice so don't be shy to point something out if you think there may be a better way of doing things. Keep in mind that the locations of the links can not be changed, though the way they are mounted can be. The entire pushrod shock system is not subject to the same constraints, so if you see an alternate approach to orienting, mounting, or strengthening an area, don't be shy to discuss it.
|
|
|
RCR
|
FEB 16, 09:41 PM
|
|
Very informative and looks very impressive, but I'd like to point out that you need to get started building it... 
Bob
|
|
|
Yarmouth Fiero
|
FEB 17, 08:21 AM
|
|
Great job on the drawings Blooz. I know how much work it is to get those drawings so accurate. I have been measuring and drawing.... and remeasuring and redrawing all winter and I haven't progressed half as far as you. I think your design is well thoughtout and I, like many others are waiting to see your execution of the fabrication.
I see that you are going to run your transverse frame to the outer edges of the upper frame rails which will put it inside the B pillars; do you see yourself opening the pillar up to secure the end of the frame? I may have better access as I'm cutting my B pillar off at that point.
Also, thank you for adding the cross section of the 355 body as I have been just going on a wing and a prayer ( and a few photos from your shop) that my rocker reinforcements would be well inside the final body shape in the vacinity of the firewall and wheel well.
Again, great job all around.
|
|
|
Bloozberry
|
FEB 17, 09:30 AM
|
|
Thanks Bob and Graham... I too am looking forward to gettin' goin'.
| quote | Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: I see that you are going to run your transverse frame to the outer edges of the upper frame rails which will put it inside the B pillars; do you see yourself opening the pillar up to secure the end of the frame? |
|
My job was made easier when the previous owner cut away the B-pillar as well, then welded in a tubular brace running from the rear edge of the roof down to the upper frame rail in line with the strut tower. Here's a picture of what it looks like now, only the hole where the B-pillar was is covered with bondo. I'm sure there are surprises under there... 
|
|

 |
|