Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the
same type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection
was more about comfort than handling, though.

well that's as may be, - perhaps the weight transfer and compliances
were just plain WRONG on the 1100.

Not my memory at all.

I remember it being somewhat better on the Maxi I drove once briefly.

But it is always in the detail I (still have) a spitfire which was
retrofitted with a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. That car with
lowered stiffened fronts and an uprated front roll bar would do splendid
4 wheel drifts.

It's possible to make any car handle if you effectively stop the
suspension moving - on a smooth road. Getting one which is comfortable and
handles well on a rough one takes skill.

An unmodified spitfire was - interesting - you had to anticipate the
oversteer as te camber changed, steer into it, and once the suspension
settled than hammer the loud pedal to get some approximation to fast
cornering. Throwing it into a corner was simply asking for trouble.. but
a smooth entry radially loading it up with some decent shocks on made it
not the worse car I have ever driven...

The Herald on which it was based was lethal.

I had two of em (heralds) and loved em, but you needed to take care.

They COULD be hustled along, but you needed a deft touch.

Turning circle was to die for.


--
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.