I would think that a lot of torque and horsepower would be lost through the
rubber rotoflex.
Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>@autox.team.net on 11/28/2000 09:24:29 AM
Please respond to Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>
Sent by: owner-triumphs@autox.team.net
To: Chip19474@aol.com
cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: RotoFlex Suspension
Chip,
The technology was used quite a bit in performance cars ar the time. That
includes Formula Fords as well as other race cars. It
actually works quite well and isn't all that much trouble.
Bear in mind that Mk1 GT6's did have the Spit style swing axles and they
suffered from the dreaded "wheel tuck", so the rotoflex was a
vastly superior configuration.
The Rotoflex setup is indeed an "IRS setup" since it employs a lower
suspension component to keep the wheels from tucking under.
Later technological advances such as CV joints have pretty much obsoleted
the rotoflex suspension, but it seems to be working well
under Tiny Tim the race Spit.
Regards,
Joe
Chip19474@aol.com wrote:
>
> List,
>
> What a curiosity this is.....a rear suspension that transfers power to
the
> wheels through a rubber donut.
>
> I'm familiar with the term but had never seen "it" until last week when I
had
> a chance to see "it" (assembled and dis-assembled) on a GT6+. At first I
> thought how clever it was to use a big rubber bushing donut to absorb
changes
> in axle torque and loads to the rear wheels but after I saw the results
of
> the rubber bushings delaminating from their metal washers, etc, I began
to
> wonder why Triumph did this......well, I'm guessing that money was at the
> heart of the decision.
>
> I have a few books that address Spitfire & GT6 history but thought I'd
ask
> the forum that question....."Why did Triumph use rotoflex in lieu of
perhaps
> a sway bar/swing axle Spit suspension or even an IRS setup?"
>
> Chip Krout
> '76 TR6 CF57822U (chassis finished - working on body & engine)
> '70 Spit Mk3 FDU78512L (tucked away for a long winter's nap)
|