Jeff -
Horler doesn't list any documentation, but if you look at the way the
edge of the wheel arch is shaped, it comes reasonably close to forming a
square tube, which would be one way to get more rigidity and strength
than the amount of actual added metal would provide. (i.e. The shape of
the thing is consistent with an engineering need.) I recall reading
elsewhere that the square arch was (re)implemented because the round
arch folded in 5 mph testing, but I would have to go digging for the
source.
BL would have had to conduct tests, or submit to US Government testing,
otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to import the car later than
'75.
Chris
Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I read Horler, too, and I did not see where he documented or
> referenced real structural data about the RWA. I don't doubt that the
> SWA might be more structurally sound, but do they _need_ to be? Were
> there really problems with the RWA or was it a preemptive change to
> placate a supposed changed in safety regulations? I've always
> wondered about this claim because it seems to me that it would be
> difficult to determine whether it's true. Is there a database of
> accident reports that would allow us to compare SWA vs RWA? Did
> BMC/BL conduct accident tests? This may be worthwhile knowing in case
> one wanted to change from SWA to RWA for just aesthetics (e.g., not
> for racing needs).
>
> Jeff
>
> At 12:35 PM -0500 11/6/00, Chris Kotting wrote:
> >Okay, here's a "significant opposing view". I like the square arches on
> >the later Midgets. (So call me a weirdo.)
> >
> >The reason that the round arches are so rare is that it was a sylist's
> >change that conflicted with engineering needs.
> >
> >The Frogeye had round wheel arches, but then again, the Frogeye had no
> >bootlid! When they made that big square opening for the bootlid, they
> >lost a lot of structural stiffness back there. When they went to the
> >1/2 elliptic rear axle (not to mention meeting the 5 MPH impact
> >standards), they needed that missing stiffness, hence, the square
> >arches. The round arches were an anomalous result of a stylist getting
> >a change put through over the engineer's heads. It got changed back
> >when there started to be problems.
> >
> >At least that's the story as told by Horler's "Original Sprite and
> >Midgets" book. I would tend to trust that as a reliable source.
> >
> >Now as for the aesthetic value, the "squarebody" Midget with round wheel
> >arches just looks "wrong" to me. The Frogeye's round arches
> >complemented the rounded rear end, the squared off rear arches, to me,
> >compliment the more squared off rear end of the later cars.
> >
> >But, as has been often said by many on this list (me included) "It's
> >_your_ car, do what you want."
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >Ajhsys@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > If you have the option of converting to RWA, do it. You can't
> >get much wider
> > > tires if you keep the SWA openings. If competition is in your future, you
> > > will need to have RWA or flared fenders.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
> Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
> Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
> mailto:jboatri@emory.edu
|