It would be very interesting to have a frame built that incorporated
the typical special-builder's modifications without the leftover
stuff--especially for building an Ambro. Most specifically, moving
the engine back and down. If you knew you were going to do that you
could do something smarter with the shock tower.upper suspension
moujnt. +
On Nov 16, 2006, at 10:41 AM, `@cs.com wrote:
> Gary, I prefer the idea of the TR4A Frame with the Solid Axle. It
> has been
> done before, usually as a matter of expediency/availabilty.
>
> I see the engineering of the later frame as a benefit to the front
> suspension. The components are essentially all the same, but it is
> friendlier for making
> adjustments.
>
> It would be good to know more about what is better or worse about
> the later
> TR4A (IRS Inspired) frame. Useful information for all of us. I
> always try to
> listen.
>
> Finally, once again, I have to say that I am in awe of what Tony
> (RATCO) is
> doing for the Triumph Community.
>
> Joe (A)
>
>> Hello:
>>
>> I am considering replacing my forty-four year old, 1962 TR4 frame
>> with a new
>> one from RATCO. Since I race the car exclusively, I posed a
>> question to Tony
>> at RATCO regarding the possibility of using a TR4A or TR250/TR6
>> frame instead
>> of the standard TR4. The reason would be to utilize the later
>> model front
>> suspension components which offer the ability to make camber/caster
>> adjustments. Tony's response was he could make the frame of my
>> choice and
>> there were advantages to the later model frames
>>
>> Has anyone had success making this sort of an exchange either with an
>> original
>> TR4A or TR250/TR6 frame or a new RATCO unit? Any comments?
>>
>> Gary
>
>
> === Help keep Team.Net on the air
> === http://www.team.net/donate.html
|