>A while ago there was some discussion of ackerman (sic) angle and its effect
>with relation to tiger handeling. Is the Alpine steering "better" with respect
>to this? I have heard that some prefer the Alpine steering to the Tigers and I
>wondered if this was part of the reason why.
Ramon already commented on this but let me add my two cents worth...
Yeah, the Alpine ackerman angles are pretty close to perfect, the Tiger
couldn't be worse! Except for the slop in the worm gear box and the
extra tie rod ends and the idler bearings, the Alpine steering would
be ideal.
The Tiger is SOO bad that when I push the car out of the garage and I
want it to stop, all I do is turn the steering wheel to lock, makes a
real handy parking brake! Mr. Ackerman (I assume that's where the
nomenclature came from) figured out that when the car steers around a
corner, the inner wheel needs to turn farther because it is taking a
tighter radius, so relative to the outer wheel, the car "toes-out" on
turns. Tigers toe-in instead... it would be alot better if they didn't
toe change at all. What Ramon taught us about using minimum steering
angles for autocrossing makes perfect sense, the tires are aimed in
completely wrong directions at anywhere near full lock.
The problem is that the rack is mounted too far forward, (or actually
the engine is too far forward.. but we do need some foot room don't we).
A custom crossmember might fix it, but would be an extensive project.
I am trying to put a rack under the engine which has its own complications.
Gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 09:14:15 CDT