spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: early/late rear springs, was sagging rear/advice

To: spitfires@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: early/late rear springs, was sagging rear/advice
From: "Jim Muller" <jimmuller@rcn.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:16:58 -0500
First, I must point out that I drove the Spitfire to work today top-
down.  'Twas a cold ride home but oh so satisfying!  I'd forgotten 
just how rev'y the engine was, and how much farther apart 2nd and 3rd 
gears are compared to the GT6.  I got sorta' used to the extra 
torque.  And you know, when the top is down I don't hear any of those 
noises that worry me so much!

On 1 Nov 2006 at 15:57, Barry Schwartz wrote:

> The Swing Spring FIXES the problem that is inherent
> with Swing axles... period, and does so quite effectively.

Now don't you go a'bad-mouthing Joe ("fluif") Curry.  He knows what 
he is about!

Barry, you are absolutely right that the swing-spring fixes the 
problem.  However there is a cost.  It increases the vertical loading 
during a turn of the outside front tire and the inside rear tire, and 
decreases the loading of the tires on the other diagonal.  The 
outside front tire is already the most loaded, so you'd really like 
to transfer weight from the outside front to the inside front, not 
the other way around.  Because the effect of friction is not quite 
linear with downward force, the more uniform you can distribute the 
weight the higher total lateral force you can generate.  So this 
further shifting of weight to the outside front causes a net loss of 
traction at the front, and the car understeers more.  You can tweak 
the dynamic balance by playing with tire pressures but the net total 
lateral g's is still less.

This doesn't matter to me because even though I like driving 
spiritedly I really don't care whether I've given up a few tenths of 
a lateral g.  Absolute performance specs, either laterally or in a 
straight line, have never mattered much to me, which is how I can be 
delighted at driving a Spitfire instead of a Corvette.  But it 
matters to anyone who competes.

Now with a GT6 the situation is not so clear.  A Spitfire is 
obviously sub-optimal with engine mass, a high c.o.m., and low roll 
axis at the front, and at the back very little mass, a high roll 
axis, and c.o.m. so low that it has almost no roll couple.  So it 
benefits from more roll stiffness at the rear to help out the front 
by unloading that outside tire.  On a GT6 the rear has more weight 
and a higher c.o.m., and different geometry which lowers the roll 
axis.  The engine is bigger too, but I don't know how that extra 
weight is distributed front to rear.  So perhaps losing roll 
stiffness at the rear doesn't hurt much, maybe even helps if it 
actually has too much.

Back around mid-September 2003 I posted a detailed description (to 
either spitfires or triumphs@autox.team.net) of a swing axle's 
behavior and how the swing-spring works.  (I made one error near the 
end, choosing the wrong word for something, duhhh.)  If you have 
access to archives, see if you can find it.  If not, drop me a note 
and I'll send you a corrected copy.


-- 
Jim Muller
jimmuller@rcn.com
'80 Spitfire, '70 GT6+


===  This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
===     http://www.vtr.org



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>