Haynes Forums  

Go Back   Haynes Forums > Haynes Roadster Forums > General discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 26th November 2011, 06:33 PM
danilo danilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 30
Default still confused about a arms..

Been reading my new Haynes book :-)
Been perusing the A Arm designs and have noticed, beyond the 'strange' offset of the lower shock mount (although explained somewhat by Talon.. thank you :-)
Or that the upper A Arm is suggested to have an 8 degree angle on the track rod tube.. erm Why? the angle would then be even less than optimum at actual use settings... besides it's a Ball joint :-)
I was marveling at the lay down angle of the shock /spring unit.. All literature claiming that such extreme angles deteriorate effectiveness.
Notably the lower arm is 17"~ !! ? long.
A Caterham SV (the large one :-) is 12"~ centre to centre. That particular 7 handles pretty well by most yardsticks.
My guess is that this 'extra' width was generated in attempt to accommodate the Sierra track dimension?
Silly observation: but it seems to my dim mind that widening the front chassis rather than the A Arms may have been the superior suspension design route? Certainly would have resulted in a more favourable angle for the coil units. Likely negated the need to hacksaw up the steering rack as well.
Yess the result would have been a wider nose section. Dunno if that's better or worse visually though.

Last edited by danilo : 26th November 2011 at 06:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.