Tom Tweed wrote:
>
> Hello Michael, saw your post :
>
> >data might help. If the book I have is correct, the rear camber on a TR6
> >should be 1/2 deg. positive (presumably to bring the outside wheel to
> ^^^^^^^^
> My Haynes manual gives 1 deg. Negative, +or- 1/2 deg.
Well, that's why I put the proviso in "if the book I have is
correct...." <g>
All I have to go on for TR6s is a `75 Chilton's with twenty or thirty
makes in it, and I looked a bit askance at the 1/2 positive figure when
I first looked it up. I would have guessed at least a half-degree
negative, since most unequal length control arm setups tend to push the
outside wheel more positive with body roll, the idea being to have the
outside wheel at or near upright to maximize the contact patch at
maximum roll (most severe cornering).
> In my experience, any positive rear camber, especially with stiff
> springs, will give scary handling on curves, especially bumpy ones.
I have no quarrel with the theory, although I now have a quarrel with
the book. <g> Much more reasonable, I think, to trust the geometry in
the Haynes manual. <g> Too much positive camber in some attitudes was
and is the problem with the older swing-axle Spits (I had a `63 Spit 4
which nearly put me off a cliff in Hawaii when the back end came up and
the rear wheels went extreme positive).
Cheers, and thanks for the correction.
--
My other Triumph doesn't run, either....
|