Irs (Independent Rear Suspension) In 205

[Cameron 16]

Depends on what you want to change really.. if you want to change spring / ARB rates for less than £500 a pop then you're best off with something like Colin's setup as you can just swap coil springs. While this won't allow you to tune camber or toe you can pretty much rely on his experience to assume the settings will be good.

 

If you want complete control they you're going to have to pay a lot more, as camber & toe can't be changed easily or independently with trailing arms. Currently nothing I know of offers independent adjustment of camber & toe at the rear, and like I mentioned before moving to double wishbones will be very expensive!

 

If you want flexibility to go to 4wd or Rwd then you're adding even more complexity (and therefore expense!) as you need to account for forces that aren't normally there on a Fwd car, and also make sure things like the driveshafts, diff and propshaft can be packaged.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Cameron

[stu8v 68 1 Cars]

Are you talking the Rallye? That was done by Mark Shillaber, his own take on Colin's design and not quite the same. I don't think it had the geometry changes Colin applies and Colin usually uses about 185lb/" on the back. The front wasn't anything like Colin's on that one and that makes a big difference.

 

 

Any pictures of these setups?

 

How does Colins setup compare price wise, say to big anitroll bar and torsion bars and pts dampers?

 

Forgot to say its for a track setup, very unlikey to see many road miles except for travelling to trackdays etc.

[Sandy 191]

You'll be lucky to persuade Colin to do it these days, due to our existing work load. He typically charged £500 for the turrets installed and beam work (painting not included, not a bodyshop!) and the Gaz dampers which work pretty well with this are about £180, you can obviously upgrade way beyond that if desired, it uses a universal damper size. Springs are about £20 each. If you can get a slot, it's likely to be more now mind.

Bars and ARB with decent dampers on the standard set up, with no geometry change, won't save you much money!

 

The point being as mentioned above, from a technical point of view, it's a far superior method to the standard set up and works as well as you'll ever need it to.

[stu8v 68 1 Cars]

A few years back I saw a bell crank arrangement on the rear of a race 205 in CCC magazine, I guess the regs wouldnt allow turrets.

 

I was also wondering about somwthing like that as cutting the shell is not that appealing atm.

[Cameron 16]

You mean a push-rod and rocker setup?

[stu8v 68 1 Cars]

You mean a push-rod and rocker setup?

 

Nope just a bell crank from memory, I think they used it to straighten the shock/coilover assembly but cant remember, grrr

 

Maybe one day ill venture in my old boys loft to see if i still have the magazine, sad i know but i kept a load of them. Theyve not seen light for maybe 15-20 years lol

[Cameron 16]

Struggling to imagine how that works tbh!

[stu8v 68 1 Cars]

Me too, I seem to remember it was to get around the rules some how

[Kev-G 1]

Nope just a bell crank from memory, I think they used it to straighten the shock/coilover assembly but cant remember, grrr

 

Maybe one day ill venture in my old boys loft to see if i still have the magazine, sad i know but i kept a load of them. Theyve not seen light for maybe 15-20 years lol

 

That sounds like an article on an early evolution of Colin's Blue Hillclimb 205

[Batfink 201]

Are you talking the Rallye? That was done by Mark Shillaber, his own take on Colin's design and not quite the same. I don't think it had the geometry changes Colin applies and Colin usually uses about 185lb/" on the back. The front wasn't anything like Colin's on that one and that makes a big difference.

 

true. It had not got colins clever front design which i think will make the biggest difference. At least thats now fitted to my car now I dont think any camber or toe was changed on the rear but it does need a few tweaks more as its drum brakes on the rear. Mark did it so its a little different. Mine has no torsion bars in place. Colin (at least used to) leaves them in. Mark also has a slightly cheaper method of doing the top mount for the rear coilover. Colin uses a rose joint.

 

As for the OP question. I think its a case that for helping make it FWD you need to the front setup in the rear or to look for a 405 4x4 rear beam (probably the better option) and converting it for shorter wishbones and driveshafts. Fitting the front setup in the rear does not excite me one bit. So many flaws. I'm sure it can be made to handle ok, but i've never been impressed with how the subframe sits.

 

Theres pictures on the site from a guy called Mark with that impressive blue GTI6 dimma kitted car. Did that not have 4wd from a 405 fitted?

Edited August 12, 2011 by Batfink

[Batfink 201]

I've got the old article. Thats how I got in touch with Mark Shillaber. Thats the one where the picture had a caption about a sequential gearbox being fitted though it was just Colins replacement gear linkage kit. Another thing Colin does better is the rear turrets. Mark welded in tubes which meant wider wheels fouled on the turret (even with a 309 beam)

[TT205 42]

Nope just a bell crank from memory, I think they used it to straighten the shock/coilover assembly but cant remember, grrr

 

Maybe one day ill venture in my old boys loft to see if i still have the magazine, sad i know but i kept a load of them. Theyve not seen light for maybe 15-20 years lol

 

Do you mean this?

 

 

[Cameron 16]

Err.. what?

 

That looks horrendously over-complicated! Did it ever work?

[Batfink 201]

It probably meant they could adjust the spring rates easier, but as a coilover setup Colins 1:1 damping to movement ratio would offer far more benefits. Colin made a similar setup (with normal trailing arms) for Nick Charles in the Castle Combe championship but even then I think he tried to get a better damping ratio within the rules.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Batfink

[foreigner 0]

it's seems to be interesting thread now. Init??

[TT205 42]

Err.. what?

 

 

 

It's the only thing I could think of that looked to have a bell-crank type thingamajigy

[Batfink 201]

it's seems to be interesting thread now. Init??

 

have you thought about using the 405 parts? when 205parts were around they were building one. Might still be pictures in one of their old threads..

[welshpug 1,658]

thats still a torsion bar beam arrangement like the 205 but wider and much heavier :/

[Anthony 1,003]

That was Mike aka "Green Machine"

 

My memory is very hazy, but from what I remember it was going to be a Mi16 Turbo 4WD using Mi16x4 parts in a T16 kitted shell, hence the 405 parts on the rear. I'm pretty sure that it was adapted to use a vertical damper with a turretted rear, but I can't remember any more than that I'm afraid.

 

There seems to be a curious issue with the forum search as well, as despite it showing that he has 40 posts, absolutely nothing is revealed if you use the "display content" in their profile and I'm not immediately sure why - certainly will make trying to find exactly what it was rather more difficult, unless perhaps James or Alastair can remember more about it?

 

It was never finished by Mike though and I believe was sold part-built a few years back. No idea what happened to it after that and whether it was ever completed.

[Cameron 16]

 

Looking at this again, I think it's actually just a coil-over fitted in place of the standard shock. There's an aluminium bracket to lower the fixed end so the spring clears the beam mounting bracket, then that linkage arm and bar at the back looks like it's actually an external adjustable ARB. It isn't a rocker (aka bell-crank) system.

[Sandy 191]

The complicated look is an external ARB by the look of it?

 

The solution Colin came up with for the Castle Combe cars (Dixon's 306 and Charles' 106) is a cunningly modified standard damper location coilover, which gives much closer to 1:1 movement, but has poor ground clearance, so it's race track only really. Nick Charles' car is widely regarded as the best handling car in that series (up to 40 entries per race) and has proven to be easily the most stable car there under braking; something normally very hard to achieve with 106/205/306 etc over the bumpy late braking zones compared to mutli-link cars. Dave Kift's 106, also done by Colin, is basically the same with thicker bars and conventional damper location, but much less stable under braking and turn in.

[foreigner 0]

Looking at this again, I think it's actually just a coil-over fitted in place of the standard shock. There's an aluminium bracket to lower the fixed end so the spring clears the beam mounting bracket, then that linkage arm and bar at the back looks like it's actually an external adjustable ARB. It isn't a rocker (aka bell-crank) system.

 

 

I was thinking about this setup as well. But then it's too simple.

But I like it.

 

 

I am actually thinking of using a lot 405 parts as there is more 405 than 205s out there after the scrapage carnage.

[Rippthrough 98]

Looking at this again, I think it's actually just a coil-over fitted in place of the standard shock. There's an aluminium bracket to lower the fixed end so the spring clears the beam mounting bracket, then that linkage arm and bar at the back looks like it's actually an external adjustable ARB. It isn't a rocker (aka bell-crank) system.

 

Looks like it, problem is lowering the rear pivot on the damper makes the motion ratio even worse than it already is.

[jackherer 543]

I am actually thinking of using a lot 405 parts as there is more 405 than 205s out there after the scrapage carnage.

 

Thats not right:

 

http://howmanyleft.co.uk/combined/peugeot_405

 

http://howmanyleft.co.uk/combined/peugeot_205

[Cameron 16]

Looks like it, problem is lowering the rear pivot on the damper makes the motion ratio even worse than it already is.

 

Yep 100% agree, spring rates must have to be insane!