Otto,
>"Do the record holding lakesters and streamliners run solid rears, sprung
straight axles or IRS? Is there an advantage of IRS over sprung straight
axle?"
Many are not sprung! Having run both sprung and unsprung rear suspension, I
have this to say...I personally believe that, if you have a choice, it is a
"no brainer" when it comes to whether to run solid or suspended. The primary
reason for building cars with no suspension is space or simplicity.
Independent suspension on both ends would be desirable if properly designed.
Why upset a car's stability because one wheel hits a rough spot.
The main issue that I have to deal with because my car is sprung is that it
is more difficult to keep the salt from getting inside the car because of
allowances for suspension travel. When the salt is great, no suspension
isn't that much of an issue, it's when we have a rough course that it really
makes a difference. Last year's course was not only rough, it was full of
divots. A much different issue. I know that some sprung cars stayed on the
sidelines because the course was such that it made it unlikely that the
record could be exceed due to the conditions. People with no suspension
probably couldn't see the course.
I ran 225 MPH with a terrible tune-up. It was not a fun ride, but it was
controllable. The car went right where I aimed it.
Some of you may remember when many of the belly tanks used independent
suspension on the rear (swing axles) It would be my guess that the builders
would not have gone to that much trouble unless they felt that there was an
advantage. The scary thing about these setups was when they got side ways
they were more apt to get into real trouble. i.e....Nadar's "Unsafe at any
Speed" thinking about the Corvair.
Tom, (you won't find me building an unsprung car for the Salt) Redding CA -
#216 D/FCC
|