Joe Curry wrote:
>
> Bill,
> Which competition Preparation manual is that? I have had numerous EMAIL
>conversations with Kas while doing the re-release of his
> camber compensator and I got the distinct impression that he didn't feel
>really good about the design of the swing spring. He seems to
> convey that the camber compensator is a far better arrangement than the swing
>spring. I have the Mk1 through Mk3 Manual and of course
> the swing spring wasn't available at that time.
>
> I think the later competition preparation manuals were written by a different
>person than Kas. No flame intended, I'm just curious!
They were written in cooperation with Mike Barratt. For my own part,
having driven both swing axle and rotoflex cars, the rotoflex is more
stable, hands down. How the swing spring might behave in conjunction
with the rotoflex rear, I do not know.
Anyone who has driven a car with a stable a-arm rear independent
suspension would promptly describe the swing spring as a improvement on
a compromise. The swing axle arrangement was used not because it was
superior to other arrangements in use, but, rather, because it was
cheaper. The swing spring was a simple and cheap improvement on a less
than optimal rear suspension.
The rotoflex joint is generally pooh-poohed as unable to transmit power
adequately, but, in truth, it was used on Formula One cars in the late
`50s and early `60s, including various Lotus types. It might be a higher
maintenance item than one might like, but the overall suspension
arrangement on the GT6 was greatly improved by its inclusion.
Cheers.
|