triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RotoFlex Suspension

To: Herald948@aol.com
Subject: Re: RotoFlex Suspension
From: naldous@ccgmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:45:58 -0500 2000) at 11/28/2000 10:44:16 AM
Cc: Chip19474%aol.com%CCG@com, triumphs%autox.team.net%CCG@com
It just seems nonsense to use something that must be replaced a lot. Well
it would be goof for mechanics we replace them.  Wouldnt a live axle or
similar rear suspension be easier to build, stronger, and just as effective
performance wise?




Herald948@aol.com@autox.team.net on 11/28/2000 11:41:02 AM

Please respond to Herald948@aol.com

Sent by:  owner-triumphs@autox.team.net


To:   Chip19474@aol.com, triumphs@autox.team.net
cc:

Subject:  Re: RotoFlex Suspension



In a message dated 11/28/2000 8:10:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Chip19474@aol.com writes:

> 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?"

I'm only guessing here, but one likely possibility is that Triumph was
already utilizing the Roto'flex coupling on the front axle of the FWD
Triumph
1300 introduced around 1965. As much as anything/everything else Triumph
did,
it might have been little more than a case of rummaging around the spares
bins to see what could be adapted to the GT6 rear suspension?

--Andy
Andrew Mace (25% French, 25% English, 50% German heritage -- I've been
fighting with myself for my whole life! :-) )

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>