For the guy's running SCCA that is fine. Cut off the whole mess and put
on unequal upper and lower A-arms and coil over shocks. Get out there
and beat
Those RX7's.
But as for me, I like the back end hanging out and sliding in the turn.
Look at the picture of Kas on the FOT web site. Front wheels one way the
back one's another. BUT, and here's the catch, under control. There are
a lot of
Changes I would like to make so I can run with those Elva Courier, 70
Fiat 124, 356 Porsche. I have a blast trying to keep up with them.
Even at that I am not totally legal. I have changed some things that we
couldn't do in 1965 but I soon got tired of being lapped by everyone
else.
At least now I can keep them in sight.
Peddling hard at the back
Dean Tetterton
1958 TR3A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fot@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-fot@autox.team.net] On
Behalf Of Bill Babcock
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:22 PM
To: 'Larry Young'
Cc: 'stutzman'; David Wingett; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Suspension Thoughts
Wow, now that's interesting. The kind of modification that would
absolutely meet tech criteria for probably every sanctioning body--if
only
because they couldn't detect it. I'll play with that. It might also
provide the added benefit of stiffening the upper mount, since anyone
who
did it would probably pay attention that that at the same time. For that
matter, it might make a very easy way to move the upper mount inwards at
the same time, which would increase camber using stock parts. So far the
ideal seems to be stock or longer upper arm length with the pivot point
moved inward about 1 inch. IF you can do that with a change that also
lowers the upper mount and increases camber gain we'd really be on to
something.
It definitely has a 1960 feel to it as well. Any guy with a sawzall and
gas welding equipment could have done it--if only he had what would have
been $20 Million worth of computing power and a big circle of friends
who
were also engineers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Young [mailto:cartravel@pobox.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Bill Babcock
Cc: 'stutzman'; David Wingett; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Suspension Thoughts
Would shortening the spring towers be a legal mod? It seems like it
should be legal. From my experiments with FSGP, that looks like a very
good thing to do. By lowering the upper fulcrum you improve both camber
gain and roll center height. With a more sophisticated program like
SusProg3D, you could probably predict body roll and determine how much
to
shorten the spring towers to get the camber gain you need for maximum
tire
patch. It will probably need to be shortened about 1 to 1 1/2 inch.
Has
anyone tried this?
Larry Young
Bill Babcock wrote:
> Not many organizations would. What I'm really up to is building a set
> of fundamentally stock-looking modifications that dramatically improve
> handling. I suspect Hardy had a thoroughly non-stock front
> suspension--we're not all racing vintage. Every so often I remind
> myself that Peyote would be mid pack at most SCCA sports racer meets
> just as it is.
|