In a message dated 3/18/2004 2:14:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wrgingerich@msn.com writes:
I'm starting to plan my Spit6/GT6 convertible. What I'd like to build is a
mild to moderate street car. What are the pluses and minuses of both
Rotoflex and non swing spring with camber compensator?
Rotoflex is nice in that camber change is much more limited. It's not so
nice in that there's a lot of added complication and expense when it comes to
maintenance. Also, I've long wondered if an original GT6+ or early Mk3 rear
spring might be a bit too much with the presumably lighter convertible body,
but
that's just speculation on my part.
Camber compensators (often combined with a somewhat dearched spring) are
cheap and effective and add little in the way of complication to the relatively
simple swing-axle setup. Arguably the worst "downside" of a camber compensator
is some loss of ground clearance. Some of the original CC's did not
sacrifice much here, but the ones available nowadays do seem to protrude
downward
significantly.
If interested, take a lot at _http://members.aol.com/herald948/cc/index.htm_
(http://members.aol.com/herald948/cc/index.htm) , a page I did awhile back,
showing an "original" camber compensator installation as well as a photo of
Kas Kastner's original prototype of same. There's also a link to a certain
well-known list member and seller of new camber compensators (I won't mention
Joe
Curry's name here), so you can compare "modern" v. "vintage" installations.
--Andy Mace
*Mrs Irrelevant: Oh, is it a jet?
*Man: Well, no ... It's not so much of a jet, it's more your, er,
Triumph Herald engine with wings.
-- Cut-price Airlines Sketch, Monty Python's Flying Circus (22)
|