"Sean Hamerton" wrote

Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated.

Why not just buy a Sunbeam Tiger? Small car, huge engine, similar results, I
would think (great in a straight line, dodgy round corners). No?

In article m,
The Blue Max wrote:
Why not just buy a Sunbeam Tiger?

Cost?

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article m,
The Blue Max wrote:
Why not just buy a Sunbeam Tiger?

Cost?


But at least he'd be able to find someone to insure it ;-)

Ron Robinson

"The Blue Max" wrote in message
s.com...

"Sean Hamerton" wrote

Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated.

Why not just buy a Sunbeam Tiger? Small car, huge engine, similar results,
I
would think (great in a straight line, dodgy round corners). No?



Tigers corner very nicely (a lot better than a Spitfire) -- but not that
fast in straight line with the standard engines although they do have
fabulous bottom end torque.

"The Blue Max" wrote in message
s.com...

"AWM" wrote in message
...

"The Blue Max" wrote in message
s.com...

"Sean Hamerton" wrote

Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated.

Why not just buy a Sunbeam Tiger? Small car, huge engine, similar
results,
I
would think (great in a straight line, dodgy round corners). No?



Tigers corner very nicely (a lot better than a Spitfire) -- but not
that
fast in straight line with the standard engines although they do have
fabulous bottom end torque.

Complete opposite of what you'd expect! No?


No the suspension engineers at Rootes were the best in the business, Rootes
were just about the first (along with Vauxhall) UK volume car company into
independant suspension (it was while working at Humber in the 1930s that
Issigonnis learned his trade) Jack Channer's team did a very good job the
series Minx front suspension, Chapman had used Minx front end parts on some
of his most successful early designs. When the Ford 260 engine was fitted
to the Shelby made sure it sat tight against the bulkhead this together
withe the engines light weight and small size (its a good bit shorter than
the Rover-Buick engine) ensured the weight distribution hardly changed. When
the Husk/Cob floor pan was adapted for the Alpine a lot of effort went into
ensuring that it was stiffened sufficiently with substantial x frame
subchassis grafted on underneath and stiffening members between the
bulkhead and front arches. At the rear the leaf sprung live axle might look
crude but leaf springs give the suspension desigher the opertunity to use
rear sterring effects control the under steer/ over steer relationship by
careful choice of mounting points and spring camber. The only fly in the
ointment was axle trap even on the Mark 1 , which had a truck engine and
actually wasn't that powerful but had truly massive torque. All the road
test of the time are very complimentary of the handling, reffering to
controlable throttle induced oversteer.


In contrast the Spitfire chassis lacks torsional stiffness (backbone chassis
aren't that stiff unless like the Lotus Elan and Austin Champ the body tub
forms an integral part of the structure) and the rear suspension design is
perhaps the most iffy swing axle ever built, on the later marks they
effectively improved the handling by lowering it almost to the bump stops
to give negative camber.

"AWM" wrote in message
...

Please excuse the slightly irregular posting here, but while I think the
contribution of the Coote Group (as the humourists at the 'Motor' would have
it) to the history of the automobile business in this country has been
grossly underestimated, there's a point or two I would, very politely, beg
to differ with. . .

No the suspension engineers at Rootes were the best in the business,
Rootes
were just about the first (along with Vauxhall) UK volume car company
into
independant suspension (it was while working at Humber in the 1930s that
Issigonnis learned his trade)

Unfortunately he didn't stay very long. Billy Rootes was more interested in
making cars that looked nice and could be sold by advertising and product
placement in films etc. than in cars that handled properly. The 'Evenkeel'
suspension fitted to Humbers and big Hillmans in the mid to late-30's was
more for comfort than cornering and the cart sprung Minx of the period used
to suffer from the most incredible roll oversteer.


Jack Channer's team did a very good job the
series Minx front suspension,

This was not a time when the older Rootes had a lot of control over things
was it? It hadn't got completely taken over by Chrysler, but it was in the
air and the old guard were either dead or loosing control. There was a
fairly pronounced change of generations, especially in the Engineering
Department at that time who did know what they were doing and occasionally
used to slip it by the people upstairs.

Chapman had used Minx front end parts on some
of his most successful early designs.

You may well be right, but most of the ones I am familiar with used Triumph
bits. I had up to now thought I was unique in using Rootes uprights on a
Formula Junior racer way back when the world was young.

When the Ford 260 engine was fitted
to the Shelby made sure it sat tight against the bulkhead this together
withe the engines light weight and small size (its a good bit shorter than
the Rover-Buick engine) ensured the weight distribution hardly changed.
When
the Husk/Cob floor pan was adapted for the Alpine a lot of effort went
into
ensuring that it was stiffened sufficiently with substantial x frame
subchassis grafted on underneath and stiffening members between the
bulkhead and front arches. At the rear the leaf sprung live axle might
look
crude but leaf springs give the suspension desigher the opertunity to use
rear sterring effects control the under steer/ over steer relationship by
careful choice of mounting points and spring camber. The only fly in the
ointment was axle trap even on the Mark 1 , which had a truck engine and
actually wasn't that powerful but had truly massive torque. All the road
test of the time are very complimentary of the handling, reffering to
controlable throttle induced oversteer.

The tramp could probably be cured with suitable control arms (and probably
was, I'm just not familiar with the model, though I have driven Alpines) and
throttle induced oversteer is what it's all about, isn't it?


In contrast the Spitfire chassis lacks torsional stiffness (backbone
chassis
aren't that stiff unless like the Lotus Elan and Austin Champ the body
tub
forms an integral part of the structure) and the rear suspension design
is
perhaps the most iffy swing axle ever built, on the later marks they
effectively improved the handling by lowering it almost to the bump
stops
to give negative camber.

Swing axles are nasty things, but Tim Fry and Mike Parkes used them on the
Imp to give it almost front wheel drive handling. Which doesn't say that it
couldn't be improved by the addition of lots of negative camber.

Issigonis wasn't the only chap who knew what he was doing to have worked at
the Humber. While I was there the guy in charge of Experimental had run a
very effective blown Austin 7 single seater pre-war and I think, before he
went to Vauxhall, Burgess was there too, though I could be wrong, and later
Mike Parkes went to Italy and sorted the Lancia Stratos, drove F1 for
Ferrari and was killed on an autostrada while testing a road going Ferrari.

Ron Robinson