Barry Schwartz wrote:
> As far as the camber compensator being a "better" way to control the back
> end, and before I'm flooded with hate mail, I'm not bad mouthing it. I
> commend Joe on the effort of reproducing it, especially for those in racing
> that may have to use it for class restrictions or whatever - MY OWN
> personal opinion (and it's just that, I am entitled to my opinion as well
> as you are to yours) is that it is a "band-aid" type of fix. It
> "addresses" the problem, not "eliminates" it. It does work, but, If it was
> truly better for handling than the factory's solution, then why do all the
> original competition booklets that I have, with none other than "Kas" in
> the credits, say to chuck the fixed spring in favor of the swing spring?
> It is even a recommended fix for the GT6 (INCLUDING those with rotoflex
> joints, which is exactly the setup I have on my car now). If you really
> want to control wheel tuck go to the truly independent GT6 setup (big grin)
> Seems to me if the camber compensator was a better solution, it would have
> be used back then, no?
Barry,
I'm not sure about the recommendations you mention. If they truly are
in the competition book, I suspect it has to do with the SCCA (or other
sanctioning bodies) rules preventing the wholesale changes of suspension
components. But aI can truthfully say that in the E-Mail exchanges I
have had with Kas in the production of the camber compensators, he
doesn't think much of the swing spring and feels that the camber
compensator is the single most effective thing one can do to the
Spitfire suspension.
The true function of the camber compensator is to eliminate wheel tuck.
That is the exact thing that Triumph did in developing the swing
spring. The camber compensator has a trade off in its use. THat is the
reduction of spring function. (It makes a slightly harsher ride). But
that is a minor trade for the elimination of a possibly catastrophic
problem.
Triumph's approach also carries some tradeoffs but a different set.
They are loss of roll stiffness (not a good thing) and the thing we have
been discussing, tendency to sag. I'm not as down on the swing spring
as Kas is (I have one on Huxley) but I can definitely see the difference
in handling performance between the two setups. My preference is the
Fixed spring with the camber compensator.
BTW, Yes the Rotoflex suspension does indeed solve wheel tuck, but again
carries its own set of baggage. It is significantly more expensive to
install and maintain (the rubber donuts will fail long before the stock
fixed spring components will, and of course with more components, there
is a greater possibility of failure).
Regards,
Joe
>
> Barry Schwartz (San Diego) bschwart@pacbell.net
>
> 72 PI, V6 Spitfire (daily driver)
> 70 GT6+ (when I don't drive the Spit)
> 70 Spitfire (long term project)
|