<VV> Fw: Camber Compensator

[Doug Mackintosh]

 -- Doug Mackintosh
Corsa member since 1996
Corsa/NC member since 1996, Virtual Vairs member
Corvair owner 1969-1971 and 1996-on 



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Doug Mackintosh <dougmackintosh at yahoo.com>
To: corvairjunkie at hotmail.com
Cc: Virtual Vairs <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Sent: Sat, 18 September, 2010 20:42:30
Subject: re:<VV> Camber Compensator


Not quite, Paul.
I won't try to explain the camber compensator, but the 64 spring is designed to 
provide support for the weight, but not provide any roll stiffness (the leaf 
spring is designed to flex at the center mount to avoid adding roll 
stiffness). Without the springs, you need stiffer rear springs to hold up the 
weight, but the stiff springs also provide roll stiffness. GM softened the 
springs to reduce roll stiffness, and increased the roll stiffness of the front 
end by adding a "sway bar". The effect of increasing front roll stiffness 
relative to the rear is to work the front tires more, resulting in a shift 
toward more understeer / less oversteer behavior. It has nothing to do with 
"tuck under". 


The point of the change was not to add a leaf spring, thus necessitating a 
softening of the rear springs; the point was to soften the rear springs, 
necessitating a leaf spring to help hold the rear end up.

Paul Chapman wrote:

<<My take on it, the '64's got the spring to prevent the tuck under and as a 
result, had to soften the rear springs to compensate for the leaf spring adding 
to the spring rate.>>
-- Doug Mackintosh
Corsa member since 1996
Corsa/NC member since 1996, Virtual Vairs member
Corvair owner 1969-1971 and 1996-on