In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change. The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:51:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.


Worst car for this was probably the old Corvette with its transverse
leaf spring. You were taking your life in your hands at any speed over
30. Add the all-round drum brakes and it was pretty much a car
designed for suicides.

d

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.

Anyone remember the Triumph Spitfire? Based on the Herald? Could tuck a
rear wheel right under during enthusiastic cornering. I mention this only
to revive the famous Doug Blain (editor, Car magazine in the sixties)
caption on a photo of a Spitfire misbehaving - "Hark, the Herald axles
swing..." Oh well, perhaps that's why they ere called the Swinging Sixties.

Geoff MacK

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:45:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare"

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that
was so
1960s.

It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his
book "Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.

** That was due to one chapter where he severely criticised the Chevrolet
Corvair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair

The car was crappy and unsafe in an accident, but so was the VW beetle and
many others at the time.

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles
on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was only
part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was for
the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear
suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault
Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most
seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared to
it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was
still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or
intentionally.

IIRC my old Dinky car toys had a similar suspension. They wouldn't go
in a straight line either.

Nick

"Nick Odell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:45:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles
on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was
only
part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was
for
the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear
suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault
Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most
seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared
to
it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was
still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or
intentionally.

IIRC my old Dinky car toys had a similar suspension. They wouldn't go
in a straight line either.

I used to like the ones that steered when you pressed the front down on one
side or the other, but my brother objected that a real car would sink down
on the other side.

--
Max Demian

Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar
spring?

--
SteveT

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Worst car for this was probably the old Corvette with its transverse
leaf spring. You were taking your life in your hands at any speed over
30.

I'm not sure which Corvette you are talking about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

a.. C1 (1953-1962):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs.
Rear: Rigid axle supported by leaf springs and longitudinal control
links.[1]

a.. C2 (1963-1967), C3 (1968-1982):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs.
Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by
a centrally mounted leaf spring.[2]

a.. C4 (1984-1996):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.
Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by
a centrally mounted fiberglass mono-leaf spring.

a.. C5 (1997-2004), C6 (2005-):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.
Rear: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect


Are you thinking of the Corvettes with the transverse leaf spring? If so
there were also upper and lower control arms.

Add the all-round drum brakes and it was pretty much a car
designed for suicides.

My daily drivers had 4 wheel drum brakes from 1962 to 1971, with occasional
drives since then in legacy vehicles with 4 wheel drums since then. If dry,
in good adjustment, adequately sized and with good linings and drums, not
all that bad. Of course I'd prefer discs.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the bar
and accepts a vertical force. At zero displacement the spring has a long
horizontal lever arm for vertical travel. As you rotate the arm, the lever
arm shortens in the plan view and increases the effective spring rate. If
you actually rotate the arm 90 degrees, spring rate approaches infinity and
pushing harder will result in no additional rotation, but you may break the
whole thing lose from its mountings.

Automotive suspensions are among those things that generally work better if
highly nonlinear. One alternative to torsion bars is additional springs that
engage and resist travel as the displacement increases. A common example is
called a "jounce bumper". the bumper is usually made out of rubber and may
include voids and/or be pyramid-shaped to add nonlinearity.

http://www.gasgoo.com/auto-products/...14.html#img400

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:38:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the bar
and accepts a vertical force. At zero displacement the spring has a long
horizontal lever arm for vertical travel. As you rotate the arm, the lever
arm shortens in the plan view and increases the effective spring rate. If
you actually rotate the arm 90 degrees, spring rate approaches infinity and
pushing harder will result in no additional rotation, but you may break the
whole thing lose from its mountings.

Automotive suspensions are among those things that generally work better if
highly nonlinear. One alternative to torsion bars is additional springs that
engage and resist travel as the displacement increases. A common example is
called a "jounce bumper". the bumper is usually made out of rubber and may
include voids and/or be pyramid-shaped to add nonlinearity.

http://www.gasgoo.com/auto-products/...14.html#img400


Today's formula 1 cars use torsion bar suspension. As you say the
non-linearity is valuable. A rising rate spring is exactly what you
want - far better than the linear spring plus bump rubber. Issigonis
designed the "dry" mini with rising rate rubber cone suspension.

d