Richard,
Perhaps my "will" should have been "may". I did not mean to impose any
definate characterization of what will happen only to suggest that it is
possible. Since I have little experience with the swing spring (I don't
particularly care for the design), I can't say for shre what will happen in
any particular situation and as you are, I am only going on theory when it
comes to that particular assembly.
Personally, I prefer the camber compensator with a fixed spring and can find
only one drawback in using this setup. That of course is the loss of a bit
of ground clearance in the rear. The handling characteristics in all my
tests are certainly superior to the swing spring.
I have often wondered but never actually tested, whether a fixed spring with
no camber compensator and long axles would be preferable to a swing spring
with long axles. Since Triumph added the long axles to induce more negative
camber, it is logical to think that they were less than impressed with the
performance of the swing springs in combination with the shorter axles. I
know that I did not have a lot of success when I put one of the swing
springs on Huxley (my red Mk1). Since I converted to the camber
compensator, it does perform much better without the characteristic
oversteer associated with the wheel tuck problem.
Cheers,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gosling, Richard" <r.gosling@penspen.com>
To: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>; "M D Nugent" <carcentric@yahoo.com>;
<spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: rear sway bar
Joe,
Should have known you'd chime in on this one!
You suggest "...it will have another more positive effect. since the
wheel tuck only becomes a problem when the unloaded wheel is allowed to
drop and suddenly becomes loaded when the turn is reversed, the swaybar
may actually help solve wheel tuck by not allowing the unloaded wheel to
drop..."
Surely the inside wheel will always drop, unless you introduce a rear
anti-roll bar that is so stiff that either
A) the car barely rolls at all in corners, or
B) the inner rear wheel actually picks up clear of the ground when the
car rolls, like a racing VW Golf (see
http://bilsport.net/ormis/bilder/lillehammer04.jpg if you've never
witnessed this phenomenon!)
In either case you have little or no contact force at the inside wheel,
which can then easily spin if any significant throttle is applied
(unless you have a limited slip diff). Which is an entirely different
problem to wheel tuck, but still not ideal!
Which suggests to me that the swing-spring has a second, and quite
probably unintentional, benefit: with almost equal contact force at
both rear (driven) wheels, you are far less likely to spin a wheel if
you hoof it mid-corner, unless you have enough torque (and little enough
grip) to spin both.
Maybe lots of rear roll stiffness would work as an alternative solution,
but my instinct is that, if you were going to go that route, you'd want
to do it in a big way (and not start with a swing spring). Mixing just
a bit of this solution with its diametric opposite, the swing spring,
does not inspire me as a good idea. One or the other!
However, I openly and freely acknowledge that Joe is much more
experienced at this stuff than me (just someone playing with the theory,
but with no practical experience), and I bow to his superior knowledge.
Just playing Devil's Advocate, I guess!
Richard Gosling
=== This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
=== http://www.vtr.org
|
