Lotocone - fit on shock absorber

Hi,

Some advice please on the expected fit of a lotocone on to a shock absorber.

The ones I have just purchased from CN are an extremely loose fit, with a clearance of about 1mm all around, seems excessive to me but appears to match the centre section of the old one that I had to grind off the shock, when it pulled away from the main lotocone body!

Is this normal or are my inserts the incorrect diameter?

Kevin M

It would help more if you could say where this “excessive” clearance is.
Eg, is it on top/looking down, the clearance between the insert and the lotocone? Or viewed from underneath?

Or have I yet again misunderstood ?

Regards,
Stuart.

Stuart, no misunderstanding on your part, just me being vague! The excess clearance is between the internal diameter of the lotocone and the shaft of the shock, i.e as you look down from the top.

Kevin,

Bet they’re Spax?

I bought Spax inserts for my car and this is one of the reasons I decided NOT to fit them. It was a serious concern to me that the shock tube could actually punch through the lotocone without too much provocation.

I sent them back and ordered Koni inserts which were a perfect fit.

I also decided not to fit the front Spax, the geometry looked wrong with them fitted. I opted for OE units instead and the car then looked and sat as it should.

Interested in what you said about front spax.
Have had mine fitted for a couple of years and people always comment that the front is a bit high. Is this what you meant when you said that the geometry was wrong with them?
Cheers
tim

John,

Must admit I don’t know the insert brand as I have not removed them from the tubes, I will do so and check. Interesting to hear there is such a difference in the fit. I will find my local Koni dealer and take the lotocones across to check…more expense!

Regards,

Kevin

Exactly that Tim, the front lower wishbones were pushed down at a crazy angle and the whole thing just looked wrong.

As soon as I fitted the OE units the car looked like an Elan should

I had a Lotus owning friend and mechanic with me at the time and we both thought I must have the wrong shocks. They were however correct :open_mouth:

I know others on the forum fit Spax shocks but I wouldn’t even consider fitting them now - even if they were free. :slight_smile:

Sounds familiar.
The spax do look odd, the top of the spring housing stops and then there is about an inch of an inch diameter rod before the bottom rubber bush which mates against the chassis. It looks as though the spring housing should butt directly against the rubber bush, but hole in the centre of the steel part of the rubber bush is too small and anyway even if it could the thread at the top of the shock would foul the body.
Perhaps I should go back to the original!
Tim[/img]

Tim, You may be right.

I also remember thinking at the time that the distance between the lower spring platform and the lower wishbone mountings was also much greater.

The rear inserts had the potential to actually be dangerous in my opinion. I don’t know if the ones I had were typical but in new lotocones the shafts were a VERY sloppy fit. The Konis fitted properly and just looked like a superior product.

Just to get back on topic with the rear struts.

  1. There will be some clearance between the strut and the Lotocone as the retaining nut has a shoulder on it’s bottom face. this provides the location between the strut top and Lotocone.
    2)The spring top mounting plate has a “D” hole in it and the strut top locates in this.
  2. The raised conical section on top of the top spring mounting plate locates in the bottom of the Lotocone.
    4 The Lotocone is trapped between the top spring mount raised conical section and the shouldered nut on the top of the strut and will always be secure.
    Fitting the strut into the Lotocone without the top spring mount and strut securing nut will give the appearance of excess play.
    Please don’t slag off aftermarket manufacturers unless you are 100% certain as we need them to keep our cars running
    Regards
    Dave

I’m 100% certain. - The shock should have a sensible engineering clearance in the lotocone and not be on the point of pushing through.

If you are happy to rely on the spring plate, fine, I’m not.

In the original question Kevin expressed legitimate concern and I agree with him. His may not be Spax but mine were and both I and my Lotus owning professional mechanic friend thought it was far from good.

Please feel free to fit whatever you are happy with.

The shock absorber shaft should not touch the Lotocone at any Point.!!! So engineering clearances are not relevant!!!
As far as relying on the spring plate, You do you have no choice!!
The Top nut has a step on the base which locates in the top of the Lotocone. This centralises the shaft in the Lotocone at the top.
At the lower end of the Lotocone the spring top plate has a raised cone at it’s centre, this locates and centralises the Lotocone and shock absorber shaft.
The shaft has a flat machined on it before it becomes a full round shaft. The step produced between the flat and full round diameter locates in the spring top plate.
By clamping the spring top plate with the top stepped nut the shocker strut is both centralised and fixed to the Lotocone in a secure manner.
The fit of the shocker shaft to the Lotocone is totally irrelevant, THE TWO DO NOT TOUCH when installed correctly.
It’s a bit late now but if you still have a problem understanding this I will put a few pics up tomorrow.
Regards
Dave

Sorry, Double post
Dave

I can concur with Dave M on the fit… I have just bought AVO’s and new lotoclones and that is exactly how they fit. I can also post pictures to help. Maybe the Spax shaft is “thinner”??

cheers
Mark

The shaft size is exactly as per Ford front struts from 100e (1950’s on),
I cant see any manufacturer making such a basic mistake as reducing the diameter from that. ( even Spax) as they were used for the whole McPherson strut range of “Classic Fords”
Regards
Dave

I understand this perfectly :slight_smile:

But I don’t agree that it is not relevant

My point, was that there was a marked difference between the diameter of the shaft of my old shocks and the Spax units BUT the Konis were the same diameter as the originals.

AND the Spax shaft would pass through the Lotocone so the only thing preventing it was the edge of the holes in the spring plates. (The OE and Koni shafts would NOT pass through)

If a pothole or some other road obstacle was hit hard we both felt there was a potential for the shock to punch through the Lotocone. Both I and my friend thought this was far from good and as a result I opted for Konis.

I accept it probably wouldn’t happen but we both agreed it was dodgy at best.

My rationale, my choice surely :question:

Gentlemen,

Thanks for all of the advice and comment. Having dry fitted the cone, nut and spring plate it seems, as Dave suggested, to be located well at both ends. I guess it was designed like that, but it just seems odd that the designers would rely upon a shouldered nut to locate / take up slack when a tight fit on the cone itself would seem to offer a more robust solution. There again I’m not an engineer!

Cheers

Kevin