1967 Renault R10

In reply to MarshHoltRacing :

I'm probably restating some stuff in an attempt to be clear, so forgive me if there's some wading...

The stock arrangement has the lower "control arm" (leaf spring) mounted to the chassis 9 degrees from horizontal, and the upper control arm's inner mount axis is the same/parallel (as it would have to given that the spindle pivots on pins, not ball joints)

The new subframe which mounts the lower control arms holds their inner pivot axis 3 degrees up at the front from horizontal (or 6 degrees down at the front from the original orientation of the leaf). The upper arm is at the same angle as stock.

I'm not sure what's meant by "bring the pivot up"... The new front subframe is so different from a leaf spring mount that it's hard to compare; that's where we took inspiration from the Abarth subframe as a starting point (roughly), and then started moving things around in Susprog. The Abarth subframe assumed kingpins, and held the lower control arms at the matching 9 degrees from horizontal, same as the original leaf.

Oh! It dawns on me that the annotation on the linked picture might not be helping... It makes it sound like the anti-dive comes from the raised angle of the upper control arm, but that's only contributing because of its relationship to the lower arm; the angle itself is actually contributing also to pro-dive, inasmuch as it adds rearward motion to the wheel's trajectory. There are two kinds of geometric things going on with the forces:

1. There's a linear aspect, just like the forks of a motorcycle. In stock form, the wheels' direction of bump travel is mostly up, and 9 degrees back. If you push the wheel up, it goes back. Conversely, if you push the wheel back, it goes up. The forces are proportional to the distances; 9 degrees gives us a trajectory that goes up a bit more than 6 units for every unit it goes back. But if you push it back (like under braking), it will push upward against the spring with a force of a bit more than 1/6 of that force; 500 lbs braking force becomes ~83 pounds of force adding to the forward weight transfer trying to compress the suspension. This is the only one acting with our stock parallel control arms, and it's not helping!
2. There's a torque-based aspect: When you apply the brake, of course the caliper wants to rotate with the disc, but can't, because it's attached to the spindle. The spindle can't rotate because it's braced by the arms, at the ball joint of the upper arm, and the ball joint of the lower arm. That torque tries to drive the upper arm forward and the lower arm rearward. If the arms' pivots are parallel, then the torque is resisted without generating any anti-dive, but if the arms are mounted so that the the forward ends of their pivots are further apart than the rear, then the torque will be acting at an angle to the arms' pivot axes, and just like with the linear aspect above, part of the force will be translated into a motion upward or downward. In the case of anti-dive, pushing forward on the upper arm makes it want to push down, and pushing rearward on the lower arm makes *it* want to push down. I believe the direction of the force applied at each ball joint is actually perpendicular to a line through the ball joints, because each end of that twisting force has to be reacted against something or else it would simply orbit the ball joint; each ball joint provides that anchor for its opposite joint.

So it's not that any arm is aimed up, or down, as such; it's that the pivots are arranged such that they're closer together at the rear than the front. Or more to the point, so that if you push forward on one and rearward on the other, relatively speaking, they both push *down* as a result.

Here's what a side view of our geometry looks like; you can see the beginnings of the instant center lines Susprog drew, as well as the relative angles of the arms:

It seems like the books talk about torque reaction, then mostly use that "instant center" visualization of the virtual arm, but don't really get into how the torque becomes that other force. I have an idea about how to create a better visual aid and model, but I've also got quite a to-do list (Gah! Bark mulch!) so I'm not sure when I'll get to that...  Hopefully this A) made things clearer and not muddier, and B) is accurate. Not necessarily in that order. 

In reply to Ransom :

Thanks Ransom, you've given me something to chew on.

So are you guys going to still use the king pin arrangement? Are you concerned about binding with the 2 a-arms no longer having parallel pivot axes? Or are the bushes enough to soak up the misalignment?

We have gone ball joint. If we are fixing things we might as well do it right. 

And you're absolutely correct: This wouldn't work at all with kingpings.

MarshHoltRacing said:

 

I also sewed up a tool roll out of some duck canvas and an old leather belt to keep in the trunk:

 

 

You should go into the tool roll business! I'd certainly buy one of those.

In reply to Woody :

Thanks! Your better off buying a nice one off Bespoke Post. My stitching wanders like a drunken sailor.

I grabbed a spare motor for the supercharger. 688 1108cc motor from a boat. Need to see if the cam is reverse rotation

This thread is making me want a rear engined French car.  This, despite my profound dislike for French cars.

APEowner said:

This thread is making me want a rear engined French car.  This, despite my profound dislike for French cars.

French cars were just a white flag away from being German cars.

Never would have guessed there were Renault marine engines.

In reply to stuart in mn :

http://www.oldmarineengine.com/discus/messages/3454/6640.html

Apperently they were in Mercruiser drive packages.

I guess it made sense; cheap light watercooled 4 cyl.

Not too many engines back then that fit the bill and were mass-produced in the same qtys as the Renault.

PM me if you need a cam.

stuart in mn said:

Never would have guessed there were Renault marine engines.

Renault made marine engines so the French could surrender at sea if necessary.

In reply to Woody :

If that's the case, then they also could surrender in a Case 1830 skid steer.

RossD said:

In reply to Woody :

If that's the case, then they also could surrender in a Case 1830 skid steer.

Yeah it seems like they put this motor in everything. 

I also read the Mercruiser 90 kit used the r16 1.6L Hemi engine from 1970-1972. That might be easier to find in the states than a motor from an r16.

I noticed my pedal wasn't engaging the brakes as soon on the pedal and the car wasn't rolling backwards off a stoplight in neutral. I jacked the car up and found the piston was stuck near the bottom of the bore. Im looking at buying a Mecaparts one from France or sourcing a Wilwood so I can get parts state-side.  If I buy from France, I might as well get a fresh set of brake pads.

I also discovered that I was only getting about 2/3s of throttle opening on the carb with the linkage I built. I might just pull the stock cable out all together and replace it with a more standard VW bus throttle cable. They are a bit more flexible in their mounting as well.  

Also, I had a few beers and accidentally bought an AMR500 supercharger from Japan on Ebay. I need to grab the gear puller from work so I can pull the magneto off the front of the boat motor. I currently have the motor sitting in the back of my Tacoma as a sort of mobile engine workshop. I want to see what the crank looks like to see what I need for a supercharger drive pulley and how I'll set it up the accessory drive and get around the cooling fan. 

Bah!

You have never really driven French cars until you get behind the wheels of a Dyna-Panhard, Citroen DS, and Renault Caravelle.

My Caravelle had an R8 Gordini engine and updated disc brakes.

Looked great but still slow. Somewhat miss it now.

If I knew where to find another Caravelle body I would be looking at putting a superbike engine into it.

Slow? When I graduated from H.S. I was given my sisters old 4CV Renault. 26 booming horsepower through 3 forward gears. Coming off the line uphill kids on bikes would take me. Fast forward to the early seventies & for a while I hab an ancient 2CV Citroen. If possible that was even slower.

I bet a 2CV is a proper snail! 

Doodling on the BART ride home. Im thinking of running a single serpentine belt instead of a second belt. I dont have any real estate nor can i get around the fan...i really want to keep the mech fan for now.

So, i would first need to make or buy a crank pulley, water pump pulley(might be a later model renault option), alternator pulley(easy since denso still makes them for OEMs), and source a fixed idler and a tensioning idler. Probably some easy off the shelf options. Anyone have input?

for the manifold, i might fabricate one or cast one. An elbow would turn 90 for a DNCF or IDA. 

can you just use a single VW manifold to mount the DCNF , IDF , or IDA ? 

and then mount that manifold  to the supercharger and then to the Renault intake manifold?

look at one from a Type 4 - 914 motor it has the most vertical mounting base , 

and my 425cc 2CV was much slower than my 750cc  4CV ,  but the 2CV was much cooler to drive around town  :)

Bump. Any update?

In reply to Indy-Guy :

Not as much of an update as Id like, since Ive been traveling for work a lot. 

Found some french spec Amber side markers. Also shaving the fenders and bumper

Machined a new crank spud.

Had to make a custom broaching guide for the 5mm key, which was kinda fun. The keyed section is 12L14 and bolts to the accessory pulley. The accessory pulley has a register for the ford 36-1 wheel.

Here It is on my mockup motor. I am using the Mercury Marine timing cover because its is thick enough to directly tap for the Ford crank sensor, and it has a larger diameter lipseal for the crank. The stock crank pulley looked really thin near the keyway, and since I am supercharging, I felt comfortable with a little more margin.

I still need to turn a new waterpump pulley, and then I can get everything back together. I am going to hold off on the supercharger until after I have it running. 

Grm - where people build obscure French cars in apartments. 

This thing looks awesome. Hope to see some more updates in the future! 

Did you ever get brake parts? Want some?

In reply to MarshHoltRacing :

Old school, the standard solution on MGBs is half of a washer of the appropriate thickness welded to the original washer.

Your mockup motor is so pretty. Nice work on the tone wheel - looks well integrated.

Work travel is the bain of all my projects too. I feel you.