In a message dated 11/30/01 6:53:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, ggnagy@uu.net
writes:
> > Nope - the track is narrow, and the morons that designed the suspension saw
> > fit to run the frame under the rear axle (as did the Austin Healey
> geniuses,
> > on all but the last 3000's), so that when the axle bottoms on the frame,
> it
> > lifts, and you lose adhesion. Makes for a car that is not NEARLY as
> > 'chuckable' as an MGA, for instance.
>
> I thought some of the 'geniuses' behind underslung chassis were in
> Abington, with either the 'M' or the 'K' series?
>
>
The underslung chassis was pretty common, actually - welding up a flat frame
was much cheaper than engineering the 'arch' required to span the axle, with
enough strength that it wouldn't start to fold up in use.
Not too much wrong with the concept, either, as long as you had stiff shocks
and sufficient suspension travel so that the axle rarely bottomed on the
frame. Unfortunately, in racing, we put cornering loads on cars that they
hadn't really designed for, which means that we have to try to deal with it
after the fact, with stiffer shocks, heavier anti-sway bars, rubber snubbers
reduced in size to give that extra fraction of an inch of travel before
bottoming, etc.
Actually, Triumph was not the brightest light in the engineering firmament at
the time. I had the chance to closely compare what the Triumph factory did
with suspension, right from the beginning in 1953, with what an independent
firm, using the exact same basic parts did - Swallow.
Early TR-2s suffered from a number of shortcomings - the front A arm mounts
used to tear off the frame, the rear shock plates would separate from the
frame, and you'd get fierce rear spring wind-up.
Swallow, who came out with the Doretti contemporaneously with the TR-2 (the
suspension bits were, like the engines, derived from other models such as the
Vanguard and Mayflower) did a much better job. They reinforced the front
suspension mounts on the frame, something TR never got around to even in
1962. They had a cross-over brace between the shock mounts at the rear to
distribute loads and prevent them from ripping off the frame. They added a
pair of locating arms to prevent axle wind-up. And they did all this when the
Triumph factory was either too obtuse or too cheap to do the same thing.
But then the cars were never designed with the future in mind, just with
making a profit that year and not eating it all up with warranty claims (ie
the things had to last at least 12 months, after which they became not a
liability, but a retirement plan for British mechanics).
I think that Colin Chapman was asked about the restoration of one of the
early models of Lotus - a Formula Junior, perhaps. When told that the welds
on the frame were insufficiently strong, he replied to the effect that they
hadn't intended the cars to last 2 years, much less 20. Gives you mental
pictures of a welder at Lotus running low on brazing rod when finishing a
frame, and Chapman telling him "No, that's all you get, make it last -
lighter is better anyway"
Bill
/// vintage-race@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|