Hmmm, yes, that may or may not have been the impetus for the bar.
However, the function of a panhard bar is to locate the rear end in the
center of the car's frame. The end points of the bar should be mounted
such that they are parallel with the axle tubes. Done this way there is
very little displacement of the rear end when it moves up and down with
the suspension. Hopwever, whether MKI or MKII the Tiger bar is mounted
so badly that it tries to cause a large displacement of the rear end.
The springs prevent any large movement however and this causes the end
attached to the frame to cause flexing and eventual failure of the frame
bracket. Was this one of the mods originally built into one of the
prototypes? Who thought that this device was even needed...same guy who
installed the "bent" R&P steering tie rods? Did car number 1 have a
panhard bar?
Interesting stuff trying to get into the heads of those in charge of
such decisions..
l8r
mayf
Will Seay wrote:
>mayf,
>
>I think the idea behind the Panhard rod is to keep the rear end and axle
>from rotating on torque reaction. When lots of torque is transmitted to the
>rear end, it tends to rotate (in the axis along the drive shaft). This
>results in applying more pressure to one spring and less to the other. Not
>a good thing. The Panhard rod is supposed to keep this from happening.
>When the rear end tries to rotate, the Panhard rod is supposed to go into
>tension (or is it compression?) to keep the rear end from rotating. Our
>Limey friends, when they put a Panhard rod in the Tiger, assumed that the
>Ford engine rotated in the same direction that British engines do. Well it
>doesn't. As a result, MK1 and MK1A Tigers have the Panhard rod attached to
>the wrong side of the car. Maybe it has something to do with driving on the
>wrong side of the road or something like that. I guess the arrangement
>would be correct for an Alpine, if they put a Panhard rod on the Alpine.
>Anyhow, in a MK1/1A the Panhard rod pushes when it should pull. Maybe
>that's why they like to tear out, but I doubt it. This was corrected in the
>MKII.
>
>- Will B382001570
>____________________________
>Will Seay wseay@embarqmail.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "drmayf" <drmayf@mayfco.com>
>To: <tigers@autox.team.net>; "Alpines" <alpines@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:09 PM
>Subject: [Tigers] Speaking of Panhard Bars...
>
>
>Are there any other cars that use leaf springs like our cars and a
>panhard bar? The use of a panhard bar in our case is just counter
>intuitive to me. The leaf springs keep the rear end located and that
>would seem to make the panhard bar redundant. Yeah, I know about wheel
>hop, but a panhard bar or any other kind of lateral location linkage is
>to keep the rear centered. If I put coil overs on the rear of my car,
>then, yeah, a locating bar would be needed, as well as some trailing
>linkage for fore and aft movement.
>
>So why did they install it? Did the Alpine have one? .
>
>mayf
>_______________________________________________
>Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
>You are subscribed as wseay@embarqmail.com
>
>Tigers@autox.team.net
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
>http://www.team.net/archive
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Alpines@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/alpines
http://www.team.net/archive
|