>
>I've discovered the heart stopping limitations of swing axles! I was playing
>around in an empty parking lot, thinking that all of the complaints about
>swing axles were frivolous, enjoying the mild oversteer as the rear suspension
>tucked under on hard turns. I was taking turns harder and harder, ending
>up with more and more oversteer, and having a great time steering the car
>with the throttle when it happened: the rear suspension must have tucked
>under too far, and I lost almost all rear traction. The car spun 2 or 3
>times, and there wasn't a damn thing I could do. I ended up facing back-
>wards, and had actually broken a weld on the exhaust system from the flex.
>I'm glad that I know the limit is so dangerous, I might have been tempted
>to approach it on the regular road if I hadn't had this experience in the
>parking lot.
>
I've posted this comment before, back in the early '70s when
I was autocross chairman for Long Island (NY) Sports Car Assn.
the conference rules we ran under REQUIRED" all swing axel
cars to have a camber compensator to avoid the tuck-under
problem Joe A. encountered with his early Spitfire.
Since another poster mentioned the only rollovers he has
seen in SCCA NER autocross has been with the swing axel VWs,
I'm amazed that SCCA Solo rules allow such swing axel cars
to compete without a camber compensator. In my opinion,
the person most likely to get in trouble is the first
timer or novice driver of such vehicles and the camber
compensator certainly would add a level of safety not
otherwise present on the vehicle.Bill Sohl
Bill Sohl
|