On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Richard Jackson - Network Technician ext. 2570 wrote:
> Just one small point, wasn't the swing spring from early MkIV Spits(about
> 70-73) shorter than the later ones, as these had the drive shafts that were an
> inch shorter, therefore, Larry would need this shaft to suit the Mk2 shafts,
> otherwise, if the spring is longer then would that create a weird amount of
> positive camber on the rear wheels???? Or am I just talking crap??? (But I
> won't mention Q-ship)
I think I've got YOU this time, Rich! ;-) AFAIK, there is no difference
in springs between the early, short-axle and late, 1"-longer-axle rear
suspensions (at least not so far as suppliers of replacement springs are
concerned). The vertical link on the outer axle hub pivots on the
trunnion; basically I don't think the spring cares where that vertical
link is. Here at the Triumphs list "Analogy Day" festival, this is like
a man's legs being "long enough to reach the ground."
I've often wondered if the slight change in geometry brought about by
those longer axles might be why I've observed that Spitfires with the
longer axles seem more prone to the steadily increasing negative camber
(I've yet to see this as a common problem on the earlier Mk.IV Spits).
[pause for quick breath after much too long a sentence]
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace e-mail: amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* *
* Mrs Irrelevant: Oh, is it a jet? *
* Man: Well, no... It's not so much of a jet, it's more your, er, *
* Triumph Herald engine with wings. *
* -- The Cut-price Airline Sketch, Monty Python's Flying Circus *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|