wg_mulholland

So what's the real difference between a motorbike helmet and a race car lid? And what standard do motorbike helmets need to be to (and whats sn2000)? Anyone know

I'm getting a motorbike and need to get a helmet. I like trackdays and may want to sprint the old cat in the future. Anyone know of a suitable lid (and where to get it) to kill two birds with one 200 quid ish stone

Colin...............Chapman! Surely there is no more worthy a person to own a seven? E. Presley

I'm interested in the pedal box cover- What kind of condition is it in/ will it fit a '99 de- dion? Bill

I've got this problem too. What was the website address?

Ignore all that last lot- I think I've got it! When you went widetrack you hasd to replace the springs with stiffer ones to keep the same effective wheel rate. So one inch wheel travel meant X ponds resistance in both cases. But when you went widetrack, you reduced the effect the dampers had on the wheel too as one inch wheel travel/second now means less resistance as the shock will have travelled less far in the same time (ther reason for the stiffer springs- remember). So the car will be less damped! This means that all cars changed to widetrack that kept their origional shocks will be less damnped. Has anyone else noticed this effect? Sort of ruins caterhams claim to having bespoke bilstein shocks- they'd be bespoke for narrowtrack but not for wide surely? Bill

Absolutely. You want as much shock movement per mm of wheel travel as possible (look at the Nik link on a radical!) and replacing rubber with rose joints will do this. I just struggle to understand why the origional shocks were wrong. As far as I understand, rubber bushes have little damping effect and so replacing with rosejoints should have stiffened the front damping. Perhaps it is something to do with the nose over force of the dampers? With the rose joints every little ripple would have the shocks in motion and so already have overcome the initial resistance force- whereas the rubber bushes may have been absorbing these before and so the shock stays stationary- and hence when the bump/corner comes it still has to overcome the nose over force. Or is it something to do with resistance to movement- The rosejoints move freely and unrestricted whereas the bushes must be compressed and deflected and so have a higher amount of stiction- so by removeing them you effectively reduce the effective level of damping? So replacing the stiction with nicely extra damped dampers should overwhelmingly improve things? Does it? Has anyone got any better theories- I'm struggling!

ehhh, didn't actually check the i.d. size (whoops)- but I did (try to) order just standard rear cones- didn't mention size- I'll just go and check though.. Bill

I need a new rear spring retaining cone on the standard rear bilstein coil over on my 99 de-dion (2 inch I>D> standard progressive springs)- But where can I get one quickly? Caterham simply say they dont/never had them stocked- 2 weeks and they'll see if they can order them in (i.e. not get them in in two weeks!). Bilstein wont sell them to me (an exclusive supply deal with caterham!), Help! Any ideas? Bill

Bu**er! Out with the water then.

Cheers lads, the picture, some fairy liquid and brute ignorance has solved the prob! Thanks, Bill

Not wanting to shoot myself in the foot or anything (I've cycle wings myself), But....... Has anyone else noticed that the wing stays are really heavy? Add on the wing+silkaflex and thats a fair old bit extra unsprung weight. Does it effectively make our cars handle worse? Just a thought.

O.K. then, I have a new rear lower arb, and the blocks, and some orange bushes (which can't possibly fit over the arb ends- do I have to cut them?), two gold coloured extenders which can fit over the de-dion/ hub holding on bolts (but top or bottom ones?) and two little double jointed rods. How does all this hold together? the manual I got with my car doesn't mention any of it, and neither does tony weals book. Anyone Know? Cheers, Bill

(I know- wrong forum, but do as many people read wanted?) Anyone gone for carbon fibre cones and/or have a surplus set of plastic ones lying around for purchase? Thanks, Bill.

Aaaaah- so power is torque x angular velocity, So peak torque is simply the point where the force of the explosion in the cylinder is at its maximum- but the power is not as increacing the revs more than compensates for the reduction in efficiency and force of this explosion to give more power up to the maximum power point- after which efficiency falls away? So what is more important for acceleration- to be at max torque or max power? Initially I think max torque as Angular acceleration= torque/moment of inertia. But I suppose you should really think of it as a change in kinetic energy- in which case max power would give the best acceleration. Am I right?