Mike why you no rissen he wo t have it till he see's pics with his own eyes!

Chill out its Lunch time have a chip

 

Mike, you say its in 3 parts, but from how you are now descirbing it, it sounds like 4 parts?

Is that not 2 silver parts, a red one and a green one?



Or have I misunderstood your description of the parts, as it appears to be the green part in that which you are now saying wont be able to pull through (ie this is the bit attached to the strut) ?

 

It would certainly be nice to see a breakdown of the parts yes mate, so that I and others reading the thread can better understand how it works.

 

Again you're assuming - it's all one solid billet machined part.

 

Indeed, I and others looking at the thread cant really do anything other than assume until someone just shows some pictures of the component parts TBH mate!

Which is?
The red and the green, or the green and the bottom ally?

 

Back on topic!

Dave what diameter is the lower section that bolts to the turret?
Wondering if these will fit mine.

 

The red and the green.

As I said, it is just three parts. The bottom (round) ring, the top (square ring) and the rectangular plate (with nipple) that the damper is secured to.

How many more times do I have to clarify, the top (square) ring can be removed and the bottom (round ring) will support the weight of the car through the rectangular damper mount. The top (square) ring provides ADDITIONAL load bearing, but it's main function is to position the damper.

Please tell me you understand now, and now also understand what the additional steel ring mentioned would be used to do?

I'm sure that when Dave has them made, he will be able to do so, but just like when you first brought this up, I only had photos to go by as well, so was at a disadvantage to argue the case. However, now YOU'RE at the disadvantage, so perhaps now it has been clarified, you can wind your neck in .

 

Mike, so the red and green bits are one part, and this then can move around under neath the bottom ring, but not pull through it, and its the overlap needed on this that means you have to cut the strut top to allow it to be able to move about?

If so, thats great, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding, and apologies to Jacko that I had the wrong impression of how these work. No offence intended just didnt want anyone buying anything that "appeared" (wrongly to me it would seem) to be really badly designed from a safety point of view.
I must say I still dont like the concept of relying on the lower bit of ally not pushing through the upper bit of ally to take the weight if you were going jump back bridge jumping etc, but that is at least a lot better than it appeared to be and if the ally is thick enough in both cases im sure it will be ok for any application most people are likely to have.


Dave, feel free to either pepper the thread with "failed" posters at me if you enjoy doing so like Ben, or likewise feel free to get a mod to delete all the replies other than my first one asking for some pictures, whatever you would prefer is fine with me, my only intention was to help people understand how these work, which the pictures you said you will post will do, and it appears they would also have helped me too as I was wrong to begin with about the red and the green bits being two seperate parts which was what caused my concern.

Ps
Strengthening ring to stop allow a proper clamping force onto whats left of the strut top sounds like a good addition

 

You've finally got it .

 

Yes mate, EVENTUALLY it even managed to sink into my thick skull once you said that the red and green bits were one part, it was thinking they were two seperate parts that was the basis of THE MISTAKE THAT I MADE where I WAS WRONG that the threads were taking the load.
(in caps so ben can still see and hence enjoy it even if he is shaking with excitement cause I made a mistake, lol)

 

F*ckin' hell its like explaining something to a woman

 

He'll be gutted you've taken the wind out of his sails .

 

Thanks Luke

They are 7" in diameter

 

You forgot this: It's not often I earn them, so feel free to get liberal with them, lol

 

I'm sure he still has plenty of wind left mate.

All joking aside though, im genuinely glad these are nowhere near as bad as they first seemed,as I really was worried someone was going to have an accident as a result.

(TBH I still dont like relying on the ally threads into the base either for the record, so not exactly goign to be rushing to buy them as the tensile strength of those ally threads is nothing like you were quoting for the bolts and being dissimilar metals they'll corrode in time etc, but thats far less of an issue, especially as they wont be continually undone and done up etc like the top 4 and there are more of them too)

 

Liberal my ass, its almost 2 pages of trying to explain a very simple design to you, go shoot yourself dumbass

 

Dave has a pic of he's getting more air

 

I'm confused, I thought you got it?

The alloy threads do not support ANY weight. All the weight is supported in the turret. ALL the bolts go through the alloy AND through the STEEL strut tops and have a nut and washer UNDER the OE strut tops, clamping the alloy rings in place.

Accordingly, please clarify WTF you're on about ?

 

Looks on this (in yellow) like they go up into the ally not down through like you are describing, cool if the others that cant be seen go the other way though.

 

To be fair chip your quite an intelligent person but you just ozze negativity mate, honestly it's like on will peddlys thread when you said to him can you pedal a car to justifie building something to this spec... I mean something like that wouldn't even enter my Mind as to be so horrible off the cuff mate.. I know you know him but still wtf! Lol i mean you must know what I'm on about chip I can honestly say out of every other Internet forum social networking site by far you are the most arogant person I have ever came across not only that you can't help but be a no it all and regardless of what someone else opinion or view is if you can't see it from there side or don't like that's it!

Is a Shame because you are nothing like this in real life but get you behind a computer an lesser beings better watch out

 

If I think something is wrong (in this case I was mistaken) then I will post saying so to try and help people see the truth, 99% of the time that input is useful, and TBH I think even in this thread it is as its drawn the truth out where Mike has (and enjoyed doing it no doubt, lol) corrected me.


Was just asking a question not being negative as Ive never been in the car with him, that car would be wasted in my hands for example!

No i dont know what you are on about in that context at all mate, it was just me asking my friend a question, nothing more than that and nothing negative!

TBH, having seen the speed with which I have straight away put my hands up as wrong in this thread the minute I realised I was, I would have thought it obvious that all I am is OCD about technical reference forums being accurate, rather than arrogant particuarly.


I will always just post what I believe to be the truth, and as generally I stick to posting only about things I know a lot about, that means generally im right. thats not being a know it all though, its just only talking about things I know about.
In this thread I was wrong about the mounts as I made the same mistake that others have looking at the pics of these (including mike for that matter, look at his earler replies to me) but everything I was saying was correct based on what I thought I had seen in the pics (the red and green being two parts)

Real life, if you mean in the context of us chatting in the pub or at a trackday or whatever, isnt a technical reference though, so its not really comparable, but for the record if someone says something that I believe to be techinically incorrect in real life, im just as much likely to correct it, as incorrect info does know one any good (other than as a sounding board to draw out the truth occasionally, like my mistake with the picture in this thread)


I shouldnt have commented again until I saw the pictures of the parts in bits to confirm or disprove my assumption from that one picture. I apologise to Jacko for that, but I do actually feel that the forum now has a better understanding of these mounts as a result so while its embarassing for me to fire such a into my own arse, it has given Mike the chance to explain them in a way that wouldnt otherwise have happened.

 

Trouble is chip like last time mike had orders drop off due to you picking them apart and we both know this thread has fucked Any chance of dave having a smooth amount if interest to try and sell the ten sets...

And as for a car being wasted in your hands I don't understand? Believe it or not people are not born racing car drivers, determination, patients and time.. And sertainly not someone belittling you as you have never driven a powerful car... Thought you liked a challenge or is that just on the Interweb

 

Four come up from the bottom and four go all the way through from the top. Obviously you could easily change this so all 8 go all the way through from the top and as you can see it won't hinder adjustment in any way . You could even counter-sink and use an allen-headed bolt to make it flush fit and look as aesthetically pleasing as the original (or even use longer bolts and put a nut on the top).

 

TBH I would have thought hearing all the design details come out like they have now wont harm sales at all, Luca just posted sounding interested for example, only way that could possible have happened if someone saw my initial posts but then none of the posts after, and that seems unlikely TBH as its such a short time frame.


I like developing my driving, but I can still do so in a much worse car than Will's so for me it would be money wasted to build something that expensive to carry on learning in TBH mate.

 

That sounds fine, 4 up for ease of fitting, then four back down to secure properly.
I like that

 

Now look please take note here is a perfect example of your blissfull arogance.. I'm actually starting to pity you lol.. You actually genuinely believe that by you slagging them off and saying they are unsafe would never get tuv approved and will result in a total fail is going to aid the sale of these.. Yes ok they have been explained more but honestly with you hand on your heart you think this thread has been a good thing for dave?

If so I deserve a cap in my arse for arguing with a retard

 

I must be a retard by your rules then mate, because yes I think this thread has been great for exposing the good points of this product.

Adjustability for example throughout the whole 2 pages so far thats been ONLY given positive comments (not many mounts do both caster AND camber)

 

Suit your self.....

 

I'm in for a set ... Jacko PM'd you on the Escos forum.

 

Thanks Adam

I will start a list soon

Cheers dave

 

price yet?

 

Pm sent

 

prices please

 

3 sets confirmed

Any more ??

 

Hi Guys,

I have a set of genuine set of WRC 909 top mount plates if somebody would like to buy of me, open to offers.. these are new.

 

You cheeky fucker !!

 

Lol start your own tread!!!!!!!

 

.


Could you tell me how high off the top of the turret in mm these are please, I've almost finshed converting my ERST S2 to RWD Cossie and have found that my front GAZ coilovers will be almost 3/4 compressed when at ride hight. It would be easier to fit a top mount like these to regain an inch of travel rather than buy a new pair of shorter bodied shocks.
Could you tell me what there like for road use as this will be the cars main use, Oh and price please



Ginger



.

 

They are pretty much the same height as the standard turret as you cut the top section off. I still use mine on the road and it is fine with these mounts

 

Just for Chips peace of mind

I an currently fitting these top mounts to my car, and they in fact have a total of 10 x 10mm high tensile bolts holding them down