spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spring sag

To: Fred Griffiths <griffco@mail.cadvision.com>
Subject: Re: Spring sag
From: Barry Schwartz <bschwart@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:25:13 -0700
>MK 2 and MK 3  rear suspension spring rate 166 lbf/in
>--             front           "       "   150
>
>MK IV and 1500 rear spring rate - at wheel     110 lbf/in
>MK IV          front   "                       150
>1500           "       "                       180
>
>Does that help opr hinder the argument for either side (of the debate,
that is)?
>Cheers, Fred
****************************************
It might, it would illustrate that the front spring are doing more work
than the rear. . .I guess I should have said that in the static loaded
condition, the spring's would be at the same loaded rate I.E. the load at
static loaded height is the same (not spring rate) for early or late
Spitfires.  After all the weight at the rear is more or less give or take a
few pounds, the same for the different models. I sit corrected, thanks-

Barry Schwartz (San Diego) bschwart@pacbell.net

72 PI, V6 Spitfire (daily driver)
70 GT6+ (when I don't drive the Spit)
70 Spitfire (long term project)


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