Reading the fixes fort he C's understeer, it occurs to me that the
prescribed modifications aren't any more dramatic than are carried out on
thousands of B's for more or less the same reason. I had always imagined
the C would be more problematic what with the torsion bars and all, but it
sounds like basic stuff. Very good to know (especially for Paul!). Just
another observation, it always strikes me as unreasonable how some of the
automotive press really go after a car due to easily tweak-able handling
characteristics - sometimes as niggling a point as tire selection. It
happens every day, but I am referring here to the thrashing the C took in
the press upon introduction, and which has sullied its reputation and gave
birth to myths that are repeated even today. The real problem with the C is
that it just wasn't what everyone expected it to be, not that it is such a
hopeless case. I wonder what a supercharger would do for the six?
Hmmmm.....
----- Original Message -----
>
> > Seems like a heavier front bar would tend to increase
> > the understeer, unless the car is heeling over so far
> > in stock form that it's screwing up the contact patch.
> > Is this really the hot ticket?
> >
> >
>
> Paul, your statement is in line with accepted gospel for nose heavy
> understeering cars.
>
> BUT - the MGC is a bit of a special case - the front wheel tends to fold
> under in really hard cornering, losing grip and causing the terminal
understeer -
> screwing up the contact patch, as you stated.
>
> By increasing the front roll stiffness, you prevent this from happening
(as
> soon) and improve the handling immensely! Counter-intuitive, I know, but
it
> works.
>
> A 7/8" front bar works wonders on the cars. Bloody shame the factory
didn't
> fit them from new - it would surely have made a large difference to the
press
> the cars received!
>
> Really good shocks on the front is the icing on the cake.
>
> Bill
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|