Sunday, 10 July 2005

suspension mounts?

The recent MCC warning of rule enforcement concerning suspension pick-up points not being altered.....surely this has been in the rule book least a century?
However....inside a certain (extremely useful) magazine  there is a build of an Escort with fuel infection, etc.....also recently run in the same mag was an article detailing 5 linking an escorts rear end.
This I think involved the elimination of the leaf spring in favour of coily-overs?
This may have been on the same car, or may be  an idea for the trialler...especially as one of  the virtues of the setup was improved axle articulation.
Would this sort of setup not contravene the "suspension pick-up points" rule? for Simon it within the rules, on an independant rear suspension, to NOT use the original/same manufacturer's hub/brakes, or even suspension arm, as long as the original pick-up points were used?


  1. Alistair   You raise an interesting point but I may be able to shed some light. 5 linked escorts ran with both slipper springs, slipper springs and coil overs or coil overs on their own. These cars were also turreted. However, these were only run in Group 4 homologated guise and were never a production setup.   I would presume this modification would be outlawed because its not a production part?   No doubt the technical bods in the MCC, ACTC and suchlike will be able to shed more light...

  2. As i understand from previous postings upgrading to 5 links isn't allowed in Classes1-6.   I think the article was about the V8 Capri?   I do agree that i thought the suspension mounts had to remain standard for the non-specials. So who is this aimed at?    The rule doesn't mention what happens between the original mounting points.   No wonder the Capri runs on only 5 pots out of 8 with "fuel infection". Should tell Will!!!    

  3. the article in question was concerning 5-linking an escort shell...If this was Prac perf cars intended move, then were they aware of the potential rule enforcement?   what this new rule may beg, in question terms, perhaps, is the use of longer spring shackles, effectively moving the suspension mount?   Or in my case, 2 inch spacers above the top spring/shocker cup to raise ground clearance, thereby "moving" the point at which the suspension mounts?   or the repositioning (upwards) of the front lower spring pans, from the BOTTOM of the radius arms, to the TOP of said arm?   Whilst being pedantic in the WOULD save a fortune in insurance as my car would needs reevert to standard, eliminating the need for special cover for a "modified" vehicle?   just bit my tongue, which was firmly in cheek!

  4. Those of you who receive the MCC's News of the Week (NOTW to the cognosenti)  will have seen a summary of what the effect of the new M6.6 should be.  Those who do not can look at it on the MCC website.
    The Escort mods noted earler in this strand are identified as being homologated into Group 4.    My stance on such things that the term production stretches to Groups 2 and A, but no further.
    On the subject of Hubs and Brakes, I would have expected to see the original hubs and suspension arms, albeit modified for strength if neccessary.   Brakes can be improved, I would not want to be in a position of saying that you can tune an engine to your hearts content but you cannot improve the brakes to match, that would be terrible, but braking improvements are inevitably restricted to what will fit that standard hub.
    In a perfect world, the rules of this game would be restricted solely to those parts of the car that affect its hillcliming ability but as the rule makers have to second guess what mighht be tried, and what might affect that ability it turns out not to be so simple.

  5. See MCC News on this link: