Further to earlier discussion on the Triumph rotoflex suspension, here is a
reply from John Kipping which didn't make it to this list yet:
In a message dated 10/02/02 21:01:58 GMT Standard Time,
johnkipping@inet.net.nz writes:
> Subj:Re: rotoflex query
> Date:10/02/02 21:01:58 GMT Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:johnkipping@inet.net.nz";>johnkipping@inet.net.nz</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:GuyotLeonF@aol.com";>GuyotLeonF@aol.com</A>, <A
>HREF="mailto:MJSUKEY@cs.com";>MJSUKEY@cs.com</A>, <A
>HREF="mailto:Sf.Phillips@btinternet.com";>Sf.Phillips@btinternet.com</A>, <A
>HREF="mailto:Spitlist@gte.net";>
> Spitlist@gte.net</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
> Marty,
> I can't really comment on auto cross and rotoflex versus non rotoflex as it
> isn't something I have ever done. Ultimately the rotoflex suspension is
> probably better on good road surfaces, but this is assuming everything is
> in good order which can be very expensive, and if a car is being converted
> to rotoflex there is the problem of the handbrake guides and I am not
> convinced that anybody has the rear shock set up correct, you could be
> really unlucky and end up with Spax. The non rotoflex suspension is much
> lighter, cheaper and better on rough surfaces and in normal driving is the
> better alternative.
> John Kipping
>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <A HREF="mailto:GuyotLeonF@aol.com";>GuyotLeonF@aol.com</A>
>> To: <A HREF="mailto:MJSUKEY@cs.com";>MJSUKEY@cs.com</A> ; <A
>HREF="mailto:johnkipping@inet.net.nz";>johnkipping@inet.net.nz</A> ; <A
>HREF="mailto:Sf.Phillips@btinternet.com";>Stephen Phillips</A> ; <A
>HREF="mailto:Spitlist@gte.net";>
>> Spitlist@gte.net</A>
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 5:35 AM
>> Subject: rotoflex query
>>
>> On Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:39:01 EST
>> <A HREF="mailto:MJSUKEY@cs.com";>MJSUKEY@cs.com</A>
>> Wrote Subject: dump the rotoflex?
>>
>> Leon, in a recent reply you suggested that Joe replace the rotoflex set up
>> in
>> his Triumph. Seams I might have things all backwards. I have a 73 GT-6
>> that
>> my better half autox's and it does an impressive "tuck and roll" in the
>> corners. I had talked to some people in the past that had REMOVED the 73
>> tuck and roll set up and replace it with an earlier rotoflex suspension.
>> Told me it was better. I went out and bought a 72 parts car with rotoflex
>>
>> and was going to convert the 73 over. Now you have me wondering. Which
>> set
>> up is better?????
>>
>> Marty Sukey
>>
>> Marty,
>>
>> I am forwarding this email onto other better placed to give a technical
>> answer to your questions than me, but as far as I know, Rotoflex has
>> several drawbacks.
>>
>> Firstly it is heavy, and expensive to repair, it also requires a great
>> deal of maintenance, the original rubber 'doughnut' joints are no longer
>> avaiable, and the reproductions are poor quality.
>>
>> In my original reply, I was referring to the fact that Joe Curry still has
>> it on his Race Spitfire with a Honda S2000 powerplant, which is putting a
>> great deal of hp/torque through the rotoflex suspension and he is having a
>> lot of trouble putting all that power down.
>>
>> It is my opinion that he should perhaps consider moving to something more
>> modern for that particular car.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>> Perhaps others can also advise as to the technicalities better than me?
>>
>> Regards and Good Luck.
>>
>> Leon
Return-Path: <johnkipping@inet.net.nz>
Received: from rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (rly-ye05.mail.aol.com
[172.18.151.202]) by air-ye05.mail.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id
MAILINYE56-0210160158; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:01:58 -0500
Received: from tyler.inet.net.nz (tyler.inet.net.nz [203.97.28.18]) by
rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id
MAILRELAYINYE510-0210160140; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:01:40 1900
Received: from p37-tnt1.snap.net.nz ([203.97.29.37] helo=default) by
tyler.inet.net.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id
16a16N-0002Tz-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:01:35 +1300
Message-ID: <004701c1b278$6acfafa0$251d61cb@default>
From: "John Kipping" <johnkipping@inet.net.nz>
To: <GuyotLeonF@aol.com>, <MJSUKEY@cs.com>, "Stephen Phillips"
<Sf.Phillips@btinternet.com>, <Spitlist@gte.net>,
<triumphs@autox.team.net>
References: <12c.c3cae43.2997fb46@aol.com>
Subject: Re: rotoflex query
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:29:31 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Marty,
I can't really comment on auto cross and rotoflex versus non rotoflex as it
isn't something I have ever done. Ultimately the rotoflex suspension is
probably better on good road surfaces, but this is assuming everything is in
good order which can be very expensive, and if a car is being converted to
rotoflex there is the problem of the handbrake guides and I am not convinced
that anybody has the rear shock set up correct, you could be really unlucky
and end up with Spax. The non rotoflex suspension is much lighter, cheaper and
better on rough surfaces and in normal driving is the better alternative.
John Kipping
----- Original Message -----
From: GuyotLeonF@aol.com
To: MJSUKEY@cs.com ; johnkipping@inet.net.nz ; Stephen Phillips ;
Spitlist@gte.net ; triumphs@autox.team.net
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 5:35 AM
Subject: rotoflex query
On Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 08:39:01 EST
MJSUKEY@cs.com
Wrote Subject: dump the rotoflex?
Leon, in a recent reply you suggested that Joe replace the rotoflex set up
in
his Triumph. Seams I might have things all backwards. I have a 73 GT-6 that
my better half autox's and it does an impressive "tuck and roll" in the
corners. I had talked to some people in the past that had REMOVED the 73
tuck and roll set up and replace it with an earlier rotoflex suspension.
Told me it was better. I went out and bought a 72 parts car with rotoflex
and was going to convert the 73 over. Now you have me wondering. Which set
up is better?????
Marty Sukey
Marty,
I am forwarding this email onto other better placed to give a technical
answer to your questions than me, but as far as I know, Rotoflex has several
drawbacks.
Firstly it is heavy, and expensive to repair, it also requires a great deal
of maintenance, the original rubber 'doughnut' joints are no longer avaiable,
and the reproductions are poor quality.
In my original reply, I was referring to the fact that Joe Curry still has
it on his Race Spitfire with a Honda S2000 powerplant, which is putting a
great deal of hp/torque through the rotoflex suspension and he is having a lot
of trouble putting all that power down.
It is my opinion that he should perhaps consider moving to something more
modern for that particular car.
YMMV.
Perhaps others can also advise as to the technicalities better than me?
Regards and Good Luck.
Leon
|