Dave
The rule book states: unsprung A-arm front ends are prohibited from use.
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 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: more liner layout
> Am I correct in understanding that A-arms in unsprung cars
> are illegal and they ARE LEGAL if sprung?? As far as
> fabricated goes every race car i ever worked on with a-arms
> have fabricated a-arms. they are not stamped steel stock
> looking things. Am I correct in believing that a fabricated
> a-arm as typical on all race cars are legal if the car is
> sprung and not legal if the car is not sprung??
> Dave
>
> Dan Warner wrote this...
>
> If you read the rulebook. page 33, Sect III-20, the a-arm
> referred to is
> unsprung. Obviously, a sprung front suspension with the
> proper materials and
> geometry will be superior. The unsprung frontend as found on
> Top Fuel and
> Fed Mog cars has proven to be lacking in LSR.
>
> Dan W
>
>
>
> glen barrett wrote:
> >
> > 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
///
|