dont forget to avoid those narrow tires also :)
Joe (its going to be a long winter) Amo :)
Albaugh, Neil wrote:
>Joe;
>
>Maybe the rear suspension was a factor in what happened, maybe not. Perhaps
>we'll never know.
>
>I'd still avoid a swing axle if I were building a new car, though.
>
>Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Amo [mailto:jkamo@rap.midco.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:52 AM
>To: Albaugh, Neil
>Cc: 'Russel Mack'; 'Glen Barrett'; 'John Burk'; 'land-speed@autox.team.net'
>Subject: Re: roll center
>
>
>well hard to argue with success, for over 40 yrs it
>set more records than any other car, put more people into
>the 200 mph and 300mph clubs than any other
>
>Joe :)
>
>Albaugh, Neil wrote:
>
>>Glen;
>>
>>Hmmm...I sure would avoid using one of those types of rear
>>suspensions-- swing axles are treacherous; they exhibit large camber
>>changes and their jacking effect almost guarantees that once a certain
>>point is reached, a driver can't save it. About the only way to make a
>>rear swing axle manageable is to limit the wheel travel to only a small
>>bump & rebound.
>>
>>Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Russel Mack [mailto:rtmack@concentric.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:41 AM
>>To: Glen Barrett; John Burk; land-speed@autox.team.net
>>Subject: RE: roll center
>>
>>
>>Glen:
>>the 77 had a lot of positive camber showing on the rear when I saw it
>>towing to the line in 2001. I pointed it out and somebody told me it
>>was a swing-axle. I met Seth, Tanis, and crew later that week (we were
>>next to them in Impound), and I think I remember discussing the rear
>>suspension with Seth, or maybe one of the crew.
>>
>>Have they changed it since then?
>>Russ, #1226B
|