Paul,
I hope you are not saying that is the only reason Triumph widened the axles.
It is not in keeping with the cost concerns in effect at the time.
Since the shorter axles were used well into the MkIV model, I seriously
doubt that the wider body had anything at all to do with the change.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ptegler@cablespeed.com [mailto:ptegler@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:28 PM
To: Joe Curry; 'Jim Muller'; spitfires@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: A quote on the swing-spring
The longer axles go with the wider body styling of the squaretail
Ask Jim Holmgen just how much wider the body is. heh he We realized as
Carlisle EGT this year that he had one long and one short axle on his
squaretail. VERY noticeable from behind while driving down the road.
Paul Tegler
ptegler@cablespeed.com
www.teglerizer.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
To: "'Jim Muller'" <jimmuller@rcn.com>; <spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: A quote on the swing-spring
> That is an interesting point. Surely the Swing-Spring was more expensive
> to
> implement than the fixed spring, but probably less expensive than adding
> the
> camber compensator and certainly much less expensive than the rotoflex
> rear
> suspension.
>
> It gives pause to consider why then that they increased the axle length.
> Was the swing spring found to be less than adequate?
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spitfires-owner@autox.team.net
> [mailto:spitfires-owner@autox.team.net]
> On Behalf Of Jim Muller
> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 3:30 PM
> To: spitfires@autox.team.net
> Subject: A quote on the swing-spring
>
> I recently started re-reading Graham Robeson's book "Triumph Spitfire
> & GT6". Right there in chapter 1, page 19, he says "Cost targets for
> the new car, which had been named Herald after Alick Dick's own boat,
> were very tight, and this partly explains why the very versatile
> independent front suspension was matched by a very cheap and nasty
> swing-axle independent rear suspension. Harry Webster has since
> stated that his engineers always wanted to use the pivoting-spring
> type of swing axle layout which was not adopted on the Spitfire until
> the start up of MkIV production, but that cost limits killed it off
> for many years. Besides, he insists, the suspension was perfectly
=== This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
=== http://www.vtr.org
|