Skip to main content

Rather than cutting the outer bushing end and retro-fitting a HEIM joint, wouldn't it be a better idea to find one pre-made to replace it with and bag-n-tag the original for posterity?

Something like this would seem to be a bolt-on solution:

https://f1-fabrication.myshopi...-300e-e320-400e-500e

image_2a64fdcc-06cb-446d-b3aa-1734e0972903_1024x1024@2x

There are of course MANY other companies that make them for custom chassis builders.



Thoughts?

MH

Attachments

Images (1)
  • image_2a64fdcc-06cb-446d-b3aa-1734e0972903_1024x1024@2x
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

When we were originally racing our car the guy preparing car did just that and I think he told me he used one clockwise and one counter clockwise joint so it was easy to adjust at track.  I’m seeing him tomorrow so will try to find out more.

as you say, lots of people providing the parts, not something you say often on a Mangusta!

No, Sci-fi. A few years ago England's Johnny Woods noticed that the rear top link had only one heim joint. The other end of the link was a welded t-shaped tube with a bushing. Which bound up during suspension travel, producing rear bump-steer and seems to be the source of the oft-noticed "strange" handling. All the rest of the 'Goose rear suspension is a virtual copy of the 1964 GT-40 racer except for that link-end.

@scifi posted:

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, seems like a good idea. You save the original component and depending on your fab skills it may be the cheaper/easier route.

Now can you come up with an easy way to fix the rear top cross link?

The one that's soft mounted instead of welded and allows the chassis to hinge side to side.

I'm still thinking on that (Frame Bridge design)...  I recently pulled my engine and am restoring the engine bay & rear suspension while it's out...  which is why I'm looking at upgrades and such...  if I come up with a solution I'll be sure to post it for comments.

MH

I am no expert. The double heim would make adjustments certainly easier.  Later production Mangusta had gussets linking the bridge to the body. In my opinion preventing the body flex to over sway on brisk turns make the body & frame a whole.IMG_1994IMG_2039

Attachments

Images (2)
  • IMG_1994
  • IMG_2039
Last edited by denisc

When I was talking with Dick Ruzzin about changes we could make to our Mangusta (we originally planned to race it, but now have come to our senses and restoring as road car!) he was emphatic about the benefit of changes he made to the rear bridge that holds the ZF trans.  Basically the bridge was originally soft mounted via bushes to each side rail and the ZF is then solidly mounted.  This is round the wrong way.  So he decided to solidly mount the bridge and soft mount the trans.

Dick told me he could feel difference in a few hundred yards of driving the car. The bridge is removable to take the engine out.

He wrote an article on it which I will try and dig out but he definitely felt that the comments  the Mangusta received when released were down to this fundamental design flaw.  Combine that stiffness with the double Heim / Rose joint on the arms would improve everything while keeping the suspension settings constant.  When we did race our car for a short period of time (before we had a chance to do the mods, it was VERY lively at the back and often jin sideways over bumps under braking as you came on and off the power - very unpredictable!



hope that helps

Dick sent me an article but it's also published here (with comments / feedback from others).  

I can't seem to paste the weblink, but if you search the Forum for Mangusta Handling Mystery by Dick it's all there including photos.  

If you are into upgrades I had a quicker steering rack made here in UK by a race company to fit (with a tiny bit of fabrication) which provides much faster response without making steering too heavy . About 2.5 turns lock to lock but they can make it to any ration you want.  I own the design drawing but your welcome to use it if you want.  I paid £500 plus shipping.  

Cheers

Larry  

M!ke, seems like a pretty simple way to try the "full heim" solution. At least, its probably smart to avoid cutting the originals, but also anybody that would decide to cut the original and weld in an insert will probably be smarter to buy 2 inserts and new metal tubing to make them completely from scratch).

  The gusset that Denis points to was added in quite late, somewhere between 8ma1046 (that didn't have these, but coincidentally still had aluminum calipers) and 8ma1074 at least (that were on cast iron brake calipers and had the gusset)...Lee

ps. see this earlier thread by Dick, just noting to replace the bushings themselves in the bridge https://pantera.infopop.cc/top...ruzzindesign-aol-com

Last edited by leea

In my opinion put the rear bridge re-design on hold. A lower cost option would be to clone the rear uppers with double ended heim joints (use identical size and brand and materials and make one end LH thread) and add the frame to body gussets and repace the tired / worn bridge bushings. 99.9% of car guys and 99% of car show judges wont know the difference (maybe 6 of us here on this forum may notice...after 10 minutes)

The bridge re-design will definately cost more and stand-out as a modification and I personnaly am not sure you will see a difference.

I have driven over 17,250 km (10,000 miles) not often at low speeds and cannot say I have experienced simutaneaous over under/oversteer as in the original Sports Car Graphic article.

Last edited by denisc

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×