Dave
I should have stated that fabricated tube type independent front suspension
arms are not allowed. We had failures at El Mirage and at Bonneville. Both
vehicles were dragster type chassis. Because they are cheap to buy and not
all are built under late specs. by NHRA or other specs. SCTA felt it would
be safer to eliminate them. The same with the older NHRA approved rear
engine dragsters, the are thin wall CM tubing and we have seen them crack
and also fail. Hope this makes a little more sense.
Glen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
To: "glen barrett" <speedtimer@charter.net>
Cc: "paulblandavon" <paul.blandavon@btinternet.com>;
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: more liner layout
> What???? Arms fold under side load??? Geez quit getting them
> off a 54 Chevy then.. The g loadings on the salt are so
> modest as to be not worth considering. What about all those
> Indy car A-arms folding up? who is the one that came up with
> this theory? We do not have tires that will contain any sort
> of side load in the first place. When was the last time an
> A-arm folded up on the salt? Cars that can generate the
> highest lateral forces all seem to have a-arms. Do you think
> you can exceed 2 g's lateral load with the tires we have
> without the tire slipping on the salt? Joe Timney help me
> here i am drowning in this one...
> Dave Dahlgren (a very confused guy over this one!)
>
> glen barrett wrote:
>
> > Paul
> > Only sprung wheels require shocks. Tripod or independent A-arm
suspensions
> > are not allowed as they are not load bearing as as Tubular axles. They
tend
> > to fold under if side loaded.
> > Glen
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|