The question of running front to rear "Wedge" is not an easy one, with the
answer being what results in the lowest lap times for you. (or GP 44!)
The TR3 and TR4 certainly differ in body configuration!
Each race track has a different trade off.
At Atlanta we set the best times with the nose of the TR3 down. This
provided some down force, and reduced the aerodynamic resistance under the
car, even without
the air dam. We also ran some very creative overdrive cooling ducting for
several years. The trade off came from the top back of the open cockpit
sticking further into the wind.
The rear suspension was set up with anti-rise in it, although
TS noticed how that was out done at Mid-Ohio after I worked with Penske and
their damper (shock) dyno and suggested settings!
As Bill B mentioned, the roll axis is certainly a factor; and the softer the
suspension,
the more the car will move about under braking and transitional steering.
My guess is that GP44 may have run a TR4A IRS low in the rear to align the
rear suspension. As for a GP 44 TR4 being set up that way, I would suspect
that perhaps a rival had snuck their very heavy tool box into the trunk, but
I was not there at the time!
The aerodynamics of this configuration would not seem ideal for high speed
corners;
and without a belly pan, the underside drag would be increased.
Hardy
..........................................
>
>
> Re: Discussion of rear rails being lower that the front......see text below
>
> my question.
>
> I think I heard once that Group 44 ran a TR4 with a minor amount of "squat"
>
> in the rear. I also think I read this somewhere, but cannot substantiate
> it.
>
> TR4 #197 has a bit of this squat feature, but only because the lowering
> blocks came out that way by accident, in combination with the MGBGT front
> springs.
|