Ron_F

Guys, Thanks for your feedback, maybe I'm a bit thick 😳 but how/why would reduced braking effort cause the osf to lock up earlier? Surely, if the braking effort was reduced as a result of a mechanical problem (sticking piston etc), then the osf brake would not be able to lock the wheel at all. Currently it locks it than sooner than the nsf. Is this a case where the application of common sense doesn't work Ron

Not sure if I want to re-open this debate but I do have another "silly question" about my big brakes During a recent MOT, both myself and the tester noticed that the off-side front brake locked up much earlier that the near side front, i.e the osf brake gave less braking than the nsf brake. The car was well within the permitted limits (so it passed) but neither of us could understand why one side gave significantly less braking than the other. When the brake balance was tested, both rollers going, the dials progressed at an equal pace, but it was always the osf that locked first. When tested individually, the nsf gave about 1.5 times the braking force of the osf. The car is an SV140 with the uprated Caterham big brakes, 7800 miles since new, still plenty of pads I had previously noted that the osf tyre was always the first to lock when pressing on, I put this down to uneven weight distribution. On the Brake test rollers, both wheels would have the same mechanical grip, so what would cause the osf to lock first?

OK, stupidity completely exposed Adrian and Brent had it right......drill set to reverse In my defence....it is easily moved by accident AND I don't use reverse often AND my bits are old .... I'll shut up now and just accept that I look an 🙆🏻

Thanks for all the kind suggestions, especially jingars Haven't had time to investigate further today but promise to report back when my full stupidity has been thoroughly exposed

I'm having lots of problems trying to drill a couple of small holes (2mm) in the Ali floor of my SV. Tried normal (black) and titanium (yellow) HSS drill bits but they don't want to "bite" into the metal, on both slow and high speed settings. End up with nice polished dimples in the floor Thought it would be easy, aluminium is soft isn't it? Am I missing something Are there special bits for aluminium? Any advice would be appreciated.

Chris, Thanks for your input. Yes, I should have said "below the Top of the plates". It didn't need too much demineralised water to get the level above the plates, so it can't have been too low. As you say, we'll see over the next month or so, depending upon the weather ☹️ cheers Ron

Chris W Like you, I have a Draper Conditioner, used it continously all last winter with no problems. However, this autumn due to circumstances beyond my control (age and forgetfulness 😳 ) , the water level in the battery fell below the plates. last weekend I topped it up and put back on the Draper. Do you think the battery will recover its ability to retain charge or is it likely to be permanently damaged? I'm hoping my mistake won't be too expensive cheers Ron

Jon, I hope your wife knows that you're "making enquiries" If you don't tell her, I will *biggrin* sorry Tony Edited by - Ron_F on 6 Oct 2005 13:50:10

All, CC have clearly received many complaints from new owners about the quality of their differentials. What is most disturbing is that they are still willing to say TADTS, and seem to get away with it ❗ Although after two years I have sort of got used to it, but I still feel let-down and disappointed by this blot on my "dream-car" Anyone driven or ridden in a CSR? Perhaps the problem has been solved?

MAK, I had a new diff fitted by Caterham Midlands at my Post Build Check in June 2003. Still making dreadful noises, especially on a light or trailing throttle, so the car went down to Dartford for a 2nd new diff, apparently one of a new batch from the supplier, Mitchell Cotts. Two years later I have accepted TADTS, but I'm still not happy with the noise it makes. Interesting comment, Brent. I thought LSDs were supposed to be noisier?

Franky, I routed the coolant pipe through the eye. However, I too thought the edge a bit sharp so used a short piece of the same pipe, split down the length and slid over through the metal eye as protection. Fits very neatly. cheers Ron

Simple trigonometry

Well, I suppose it is a relief to know that I'm not alone with my problem *eek* However, it's also a bit disappointing to hear that a rebuild by such a respected organisation as R&R still didn't solve it. I know that plate LSDs are noisier, does a Quaife ATB also make the same ugly noises?

My SV140 has made those sort of noises from new, despite a number of diff replacements under warranty. The worst bit is the metallic growling on a light or trailing throttle. I have been given the "they all do that, sir" line, but am still not happy. Any suggestions for differential rebuilders in the Midlands?

Found it Covered the end with a small piece of tape Blissful silence Steve, Thanks a lot for your description which led me straight to it. Ron

Steve, Thanks a lot for the description, I'll probably have another go this evening (depending on how we do in Portugal!). Jan, I've had my SV just over a year, and the beeper gets more annoying not less ☹️ cheers Ron

OK, give up I've just spent 20 minutes upside down with my head in first the passenger and then the driver's footwell. Despite hearing that da*mn beep from apparently everywhere, I still can't find the said "little black thing" *mad* In order to save my poor bent back from any more punishment, could I request a little more descriptive information? What colour wires go to it and which instrument/switch is nearest? Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated. still slightly dizzy Ron

Thanks to Millwood Motors for the great day out. My 18.K SV with big brakes, 5 x R300 wheels with CR500s, leather seats, heater and carpets, full sidescreens, FIA Roll bar, but no tools and less than a quarter tank of fuel ..... 563.5 Kg Those tools must be heavy

Well the power's back on and this Internet thingy is still working all across the big wide world! Yes, as Jingars said , the car has R300 wheels and Avon CR500s. I;m a bit confused now as Steve-B suggested that 0-4-0 would help. I was thinking of going the other way!, i.e 3-1-3. My confusion could be that increasing cASTER (US spelling!) angle could be either +ve or =ve. Also it would depend on how moving the Lower wishbone forward would move it relation to the Axle centre, i.e where is it starting, in front or behind it? Does anyone have a definitive guide to setting up caterham front suspensions, or recommend some one at CC or elsewhere who knows their stuff? Thanks Stunt Ron,

Jingars, you leave my toes alone 😳 You could be right, I do need to check the toe-in set by caterham Midlands at the PBC. I am coming to the conclusion that a bit more castor would help the "nervousness" at the front end. Driving along a uneven road at some pace with another vehicle coming the other way could be described as *eek* !!

After some research (thanks, Jingars ), my understanding is that the physical effects of caster on steering feel and handling are caused by the gyroscopic forces of the rotating wheel/tyres acting fore (or aft) of the line of the axle. Now the size of these gyroscopic forces are determined by the rotating mass. This would indicate that a very light wheel/tyre combination (such as the R300/CR500) would produce less caster "effect" at a given caster angle (i.e washer positioning in build terms). It follows that a greater caster angle is needed with a light wheel/tyre to produce the same steering feel, all other things being equal. If this logic is correct, does the difference in rotating mass of different wheel/tyre combinations have a significant effect on the actual effects felt? Is there anyone with any relevent experience (or engineering maths !) that could quantify this difference? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Hoopy, where is the note that suggests wide-track should be 0-4? I don't believe it is in the current build manual. Perhaps CC have taken it out, or as perhaps as Richard suggests it has been left out by mistake!

All, Thanks for the advice and guidance. It seems clear that the recommendation (0-4-0) from the PBC would decrease the caster angle, making the car more "responsive" or "twitchy" depending on you point of view. Mr Locust's suggestion of 3-1-3 would seem a good next step. Has anyone changed these washers "in situ", i.e without stripping off the uprights and spring/shocks? With the car on stands and the weight of the suspension supported on a jack, do these bolts have any tension on them? Tony C, a check of the toe-in set at the PBC would also seem to be a good idea. Thanks again

Following the Build manual very carefully, I fitted the lower front wishbone to my SV with the spacer washers aranged in a 2-2-2 pattern, i.e 2 under the front bolt and two each side of the rear arm. However, the PBC report from Caterham Midlands says that the wide-track on my SV should be setup with washers as 0-4-0, i.e none under the front, 4 at the front of the rear bolt and none at the back of the rear bolt. This would move the lower wishbone rearwards by the thickness of two washers, and presumably increase the Castor angle by a small amount. Does this sound correct? If so, any handling experts willing to take a shot at the likely effect on steering feel, handling etc? Will such an effect be noticeable? The car has 15 inch R300 wheels with CR500s so it does like to "follow the white lines" a bit too much. I'm not ready yet to strip down the front suspension, I've only down 700 miles!

My apologies if I'm being a bit thick. Doesn't the clutch cable adjustment (at either end) make a difference to the position of the CRB in relation to the clutch, and therefore the pre-load? The adjustment moves the carrier lever inside the bell-housing so surely it must affect the amount of pre-load?