Re: Discussion of rear rails being lower that the front......see text below
my question.
I think I heard once that Group 44 ran a TR4 with a minor amount of "squat"
in the rear. I also think I read this somewhere, but cannot substantiate it.
TR4 #197 has a bit of this squat feature, but only because the lowering
blocks came out that way by accident, in combination with the MGBGT front
springs.
Can anyone expand on running this configuration of a minor "squat"? I suspect
the rear end jacked up would create some instability.
Joe Alexander
> I don't know if the frame rails were ever supposed to be parallel to the
> ground. On both my cheater TR3 and Peyote they slope upwards from one to
> two inches, front to back measured from beneath the front inboard
> suspension point to the joint where they kick up. About every TR2 I've
> ever come across has stiffer and shorter front springs than original spec
> and softer rears. I can't find anything in the manual that indicates what
> standard is, but I don't know if it matters much since no ones car is like
> that.
>
> By the way, before you bend anything to solve the bump steer issue you
> need to look at roll center. Ugly. If you don't want the front end
> pitching all over the place you need to bring the roll center up to about
> the same place as the rear roll center. The rear roll center for any car
> without some form of stabilization will be the centerline of the axle. The
> stock front end is about three feet underground. The standard solution of
> moving the inboard pivot of the lower A arm outward will exacerbate the
> bump steering problem. Moving the upper pivot inwards and lengthening the
> arm a little both raises the roll center and reduces bump steer. The upper
> pivot bracket is offset to begin with. I'd love to make a more offset part
> and a new upper arm that would solve the problem and look totally stock.
|