triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Which drive do people like!

To: William Hooper <rotoflex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Which drive do people like!
From: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 23:21:55 -0700
Cc: Triumphs@autox.team.net
References: <20000605055959.68631.qmail@hotmail.com>
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!

Joe

William Hooper wrote:
> 
> Kas Kastner in his GT-6 competition preparation manual recommends replacing
> the rotoflex rear suspension with the latest-model swing spring suspension.
> He obviously likes the swing spring, & it's the one to have in competition.
> 
> I like the rotoflex.  It was the suspension on the first car I owned, which
> I still have, & we understand each other.  I changed over to the swing
> spring once, but changed back.  There's something fun & frisky in the
> rotoflex; it matches the 2.0 GT-6 engine, which, as someone else here noted,
> has a snappier personality than the 2.5.
> 
> To be honest, both rear suspension designs are a little weird.  You can have
> large black rubber donuts, or a rear suspension spring that woggles around
> in its mount on the differential. That's fine, it goes with the rest of the
> car's personality.  (Gas station mechanic about 1977 upon seeing the
> Strombergs:  "What do you have flying saucers under the hood for?")  Don't
> even start about the BPDWA.
> 
> In case anyone has ever been curious:  I once installed a swing spring &
> left the rotoflex axle shafts in place also.  The result was scarier
> than can be described.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________

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