triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Swing spring bashing -

To: triumphs@autox.team.net, bschwart@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Swing spring bashing -
From: "Nolan Penney" <npenney@mde.state.md.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 07:03:14 -0400
Cc: spitfires@autox.team.net
I have always wondered why the competition manual for the rotoflex rear 
suspension said to convert to the swing spring.  Like you, I enjoy the 
engineering aspects of suspensions and such.  Converting to a swing spring on a 
four linked axle suspension like the rotoflex has does not make engineering 
sense for this design, as I have understood the engineering.  Remember, the 
ever popular Jaguar XKE rear suspension and the Corvette rear suspension, both 
essentially identical to the rotoflex, do not use a swing spring.  Nor do the 
competition cars with the same rear suspension.  Why Triumph recommended it I 
do not understand.  Especially in light of their not recommending a rear 
anti-sway or anti-roll bar.  

It is absolutely true that a swing axle suspension like the Spitfire inherently 
has a camber change problem, which includes wheel tuck or jacking, which ever 
term you chose to use.  But a four linked axle suspension like the XKE or 
rotoflex does not have this problem, and cannot have this problem.  Therefore, 
the fix for a swing axle is not inherently correct for the rotoflex suspension.



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