In a message dated 02/13/2001 12:22:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
john@engr.wisc.edu writes:
<<
>Dave,
> I believe that the objection to the unsprung "A" arm front suspension
>came from the incidents where the side loads during a spin caused the tire
to
>"peel" off of the rim, resulting in the rim digging into the race surface
and
>starting the car "pencil-rolling"............Ardun Doug King
Howdy,
So why doesn't a king pin setup or ball joints mounted to the
frame do the same thing? what am I not seeing? please describe it a little
better to me, I think that its' just too grey out, and my brain seems to be
out to lunch....thanks and drive careful
>>
John,
I don't know much about it myself. My take was that the Tech people
objected to the light weight, mass produced dragster-type "A" arm solid
suspension. This came during an era where there was a proliferation of
retired RE diggers being converted to lakesters.
I would expect that if someone fabricated a heavy-duty solid "A" arm
front suspension the Tech people would judge it on its merits. Dan Warner
probably has a better handle on it than I. Also, Mike Manghelli, I believe,
has first-hand experience with the failure of the type front suspension that
was/is banned..
Ardun Doug King
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|