Lomax 223 anti roll bar

[Rocketman1955]

My Lomax 223 has fixing points on the top of all 4 suspension arms (including the inactive one) for an anti roll bar.
Looking at a sample of other 223 on the web I cannot see these fixings.
The car has a Lomax chassis so presumably was bought as a kit.
Are these fixings and roll bar original Lomax parts, or a later retro-fit?
If original, why were they not continued?

[AlanM]

As far as I am aware that is not a Citroen provided part. The genuine Citroen ones connected to the shock absorber plates that enclose the front swinging arm tube.

[howardjs]

Here is the original ARB as fitted to Lomax. A Citroen Ami I believe.

ARB-1.jpg (135.28 KiB) Viewed 46431 times

[cmwbob]

Rocketman, The photo you posted is of the Lomax rear ARB.

The photo posted by Howard is of the Lomax front ARB (which is a copy of the AMI setup).

The ARB's provided by Lomax were manufactured in the Uk from heat treated Spring Steel.

PS. Some early 2CV's had torsion suspension (in place of the underslung dampers etc). Kits for these may well have been offered with a duplication of the rear ARB for the front.

[Rocketman1955]

Thanks for that background.
I was interested if my car is 'standard' due to an issue I found.
If anyone else has the same setup this might be a cautionary tale.

While investigating steering play I discovered the end of steering column was not tightly clamped to the pinion splines. This was because the clamp & bolt had been rubbing on the roll bar!

The car was always low at the front, but it never caused a driving problem and lots of 223 look the same. However, with the reduced ride height the suspension arms are rotated upwards. As my ARB runs across the top of the front axle that results in the centre section of ARB moving fore & aft when the front wheels go down or up together.
The low ride height causes the centre section of the ARB to move sufficiently aft to touch the steering clamp with the car unladen - not ideal!

One obvious fix is to increase the ride height. Currently the suspension is all disconnected so I have checked the potential range of ARB movement. From the current low ride heigh position, the ride height can be increased by approximately 70mm before the ARB gets close to the gearbox mount support, (car unladen). That would give a maximum ride height of about 190mm under the front axle bolt heads.
Alternatively I could remove the anti roll bar or revert to the proven Ami design mentioned above.

Regards the rear axle arms, there was no ARB fitted to the fixings.
The single active arm uses the single spring on one side. There has never been an issue with the wheel catching the mudguard when laden with a driver & passenger. (donor vehicle spec unknown)

[howardjs]

Here is the Lomax 223 rear arm arrangement. One arm is extended to centralize the wheel while the other is cut at the point where the square section becomes round. Both near and offside rear springs are retained and arms connected by a bar as shown. May have been a modification on later kits?
Howard

IMG_0002.jpg (86.31 KiB) Viewed 46396 times

[Davidm]

On my Pembleton I fitted an Ami 8 ARB by mounting it underneath the steering rack tube and chassis. This necessitated welding threaded mounting blocks for the ARB to suit the space available.
Would it help to have the ARB under the Lomax chassis ? Or you could replace the endplates on the steering rack tube and have mounting blocks fitted to suit.
Or another way would be to have what most Pembleton's have - no ARB but stiffer springs.
Davidm

[stevep]

I have just read this post
On my Lomax I have only one rear spring which has a rubber caravan spring assistor fitted for the last 25 years
And never had a problem with weight issues or handling including when towing a trailer. ARB fitted to the front only.
I do wonder whether a ARB fitted to a three wheeler rear end is really doing anything but increase the spring rate .
And Not working at anti roll ?

[cmwbob]

Hi Steve,

You summize correct in that the rear ARB is not about roll control.

The purpose of the rear ARB is to bring the rear action of the dummy spring canister back into play.

The original concept of the 2cv suspension (crossing ploughed fields etc) success is due pre-warning effect (front to rear) of the sliding springs. Simply pre-tensioning the redundant trailing spring arm diminishes that effectiveness for not only the rear but also that side front.

Happy Spluttering

[Rocketman1955]

Having removed the problematic anti-roll bar from the top of the front arms, there is now an issue with roll, particularly on right hand bends. (eg. roundabouts) - it rolls like a 2CV!
It probably feels worse than it is from a handling perspective, but certainly very different to with the anti-roll bar fitted.

I suspect the front spring in the LH cylinder is weak. (the rear wheel is connected to the RH cylinder)

Unfortunately, the Ami type anti-roll bar cannot be easily fitted as my 2 into 1 exhaust routing runs too close to the front arm end cover.
I have designed a replacement ‘top fitting’ anti roll bar, but it would be expensive to get made and have unproven durability.

So, I am considering fitting new 2x front springs and the 1x rear in the hope that balanced new springs will reduce roll.

I have noticed that ECAS sell 100% uprated 2 CV springs for front and rear.
Uprated front springs should certainly reduce roll even if they stiffen up the ride.

Has anyone had experience of uprated springs in a 223, or comments?
Maybe only uprate the front springs?