On Thursday, 21 February 2019 10:32:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 February 2019 10:55:04 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

yes, but fitting an anti-roll bar on the front and upgrading the
brake linings to (ISTR) VG95 made quite a difference.

I didn't realise they lacked an antiroll bar. I was somewhat
familiar with a 50s car that didn't & it almost fell over on slow
corners.

I didn't realise you could have strut suspension without an anti-roll
bar.

On my SD1 which has a very simple strut system, the ARB is part of the
location for the strut.

There are various ways to horribly bodge things that some mfrs used to
save a penny or 2.

Never heard of economy of design?

strange claim

A camel being a horse made by a
committee of engineers?

The SD1 suspension works pretty well for what it is. Didn't need much in
the way of modification for the considerable success the car had in racing
and rallying.

how is that relevant?

There were even cars with rubber band suspension.

If you mean the sort used by BL, I'd guess cost ruled it out rather than a
fundamental problem.

what car did BL ever produce with rubber band suspension?
Have you been having a tipple?

And
cars that relied on the wooden floor bending to provide a measure of
suspension!

The wood floor flexed independent of the chassis? Or were you talking
about all wood construction?

There was no separate chassis, just a bendable wood floor. They're called buckboard cars.


NT