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

"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.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

My '58 two ton Bentley had drum brakes. It could do a 'crash' stop from
its top speed of 115 mph quite happily, although they would smoke quite a
bit. Fronts were twin trailing shoe with a massive mechanical servo.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

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