"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"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. 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.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Controversial.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35 years
later.

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different car
being FWD.

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't have a
lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the pavement! ;-)

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35
years later.

Not much difference between 35 and 50 at my age. ;-)

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different
car being FWD.

At least it was still a VW, unlike the Mini. ;-)

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35
years later.

Not much difference between 35 and 50 at my age. ;-)

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different
car being FWD.

At least it was still a VW, unlike the Mini. ;-)

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.


Agreed.
trailing arms and a rear beam is..vile.
the original mini with its traling arms and IIRC a sort of wishbone
arrangement was infinitely superior. Minis were almost impossible to get
into a silly state, but the Morris 1100 was easy to get into a tail
slapper on a trailing throttle. Vile.
I think the second best FWD I have driven was the Punto. Oddly enough
that cornered very predictably. Golfs were not bad either ISTR.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you believe as it keeps costs down.

In a former life I was an automotive engineer in a department that did
development of future cars for one of the USA big 3.

Part of that job was suspension design and analysis. It is hard to
effectively lie to me about steering and suspension design. ;-)

But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well on
reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms and a
beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for keeping the
wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very important for developing
maximum cornering force. If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can
be kept low. Get the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and
you have a nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets ****ed
in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises come when
encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well
on reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

No suspension at all can work quite well on a smooth surface.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms
and a beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for
keeping the wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very
important for developing maximum cornering force.

A beam axle keeps the wheels parallel to each other, but that's about all.
With body roll - and in practice all cars do this - the important thing is
to get the relationship between the wheel taking the load and the pavement
correct. Which a beam axle is poor at.


If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can be kept low. Get
the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and you have a
nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets
****ed in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises
come when encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

That is true. But it can be done.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well
on reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

No suspension at all can work quite well on a smooth surface.

Yes. However, that kind of perfection is not required for a longitudinal
leaf springs with a live axle done right rear suspension to be effective.

They do loose traction on rough roads, badly.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms
and a beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for
keeping the wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very
important for developing maximum cornering force.

A beam axle keeps the wheels parallel to each other, but that's about all.

That's why you need to be careful with how you do the trailing arms.

Its all about things like roll center. Pick that right and the not only will
the wheels be parallel to each other, they will be perpendicular to the
pavement. Hitting those two goals goes a long way towards good cornering.
Most of the rest of the discussion then becomes about fore/aft balance of
which a great deal relies on the front suspension.

With body roll - and in practice all cars do this - the important thing is
to get the relationship between the wheel taking the load and the pavement
correct.

Agreed.

Which a beam axle is poor at.

Disagreed.

If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can be kept low. Get
the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and you have a
nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets
****ed in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises
come when encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

That is true. But it can be done.

So can the two variants of the beam axle we've discussed. I've owned
vehicles that handled well on even rough roads with unpowered beam
axle/trailing arm rear suspensions.

Just because someone screws up a car, doesn't mean that every technology it
embodies is inherently flawed.