Steve Thackery wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

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

that is not what he actually SAID..he said the suspension was non linear.



--
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
...
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.
--
JohnT

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.

In article ,
JohnT 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.

No they didn't. Simple trailing arm rear suspension - ok after a fashion
for FWD, but useless for RWD. But even with their 'power' suspension, the
car bucked like a bronco between engine pulling and braking - even with
such a modest power engine.

--
*Is there another word for synonym?

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the
bar and accepts a vertical force.

Ah, thank you! I was wondering how you could make the torsion bar
non-linear (I don't think you can, realistically), but of course it's
simple to build it into the linkage in the way you describe.

Thanks, Arny.

--
SteveT

"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.