Jay,
I'll describe one of many ways to do this and you tell me what you think.
In 1990, the idea was to use loose fitting rounded solid axle splines to
mount the wheel hubs on the rear solid axle.
The angle of the hub/wheel flange could then assume an angle with respect to
the solid axle since the external axle splines were rounded and did not
force the hub into perfect alignment.
The hub and upright were located separately to maintain a fixed desired
camber. Looks pretty rigid, as defined by rules, doesn't it?
Since this does not look like a split solid axle, there was some hope it
would pass. Actually the rear axle is split in 2 places because the splines
are loose fitting, but a big tube or similar rigid structure can be used to
connect one upright to the other.
Where it appears to fail is in E.3.b where is says, "Differentials or slip
joints are not allowed". A slip joint can be a lot of things and this is one
of them.
The loose fitting splines really have to be slip joints as one tries to run
the wheel hub at a different angle than the main rear axle shaft. If no
camber or toe, then maybe an argument can be made there is no slippage.
There will have to be some slippage along the splines during a full axle
rotation as long as the hub splines are forced to run at an angle to the
solid rear axle splines.
In other words the same point along the length of a spline on the axle will
not be in continuous contact with the same point along the internal hub
spline thru one rotation. (Slippage)
Then, finally, how does one get around the E.1 statement that says "IF IN
DOUBT, DON'T".
I hate that one.
Given enough time and nothing else to do, I'm sure all possible arangements
have been thought of and a number of them tried.
Chuck
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [F500] 19.5 vs 18 + neg camber in rear
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:33:24 -0400
I think its done with a flexible axle.
---- Jay Novak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, chuck I am also anxiously awaiting to find out how to do rear
camber adjustment in
> F500, legally of course & not like the old Red Devil did it with CV
joints.
>
>
> Thanks ... Jay Novak
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Whitling
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:33 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [F500] 19.5 vs 18 + neg camber in rear
>
> Maybe you can help me with my problem Chuck. My rear camber adjustment
> doesn't seem to work. Can you give me some idea what I should be doing
> to adjust the rear camber on my rulebook regulated solid axle setup?
> Anxiously awaiting your response.
>
> Chuck Voboril wrote:
>
> > I ran the tall rears in conjunction with 18 fronts for about 5 years.
> > I found that the 19's were narrower but since they were taller they
> > had the same grip. Hoosier told me they were designed that way.
> > However, if I ran them enough, especially on concrete for about 6
> > events in really hot weather (112+F), the tall rears stretched and got
> > wider and taller, especially wider.
> >
> > Thru a slalom, the mixed sizes never felt as good, the shorter rears
> > made the car easier to control and a little faster thru the shortest
> > spaced nastiest slaloms. A little more overshoot in the back had to be
> > compensated for with hand input with the tall rears. I never ran the
> > tall tires on all 4 wheels, but my experience with other cars was that
> > the overshoot in the front would make the car have a little less net
> > rear overshoot in turning. The downside is that then the car would be
> > a litttle squishy and less responsive to steering input overall then.
> >
> > I always thought that running a little negative camber in the rear
> > would have helped the tall tire grip also.
> >
> > Other people have also.
> >
> > The most recent person to design and build a rear end on a F500 that
> > could put sizeable amounts of neg camber in with uprights that could
> > assume an angle to the main axle cut the whole rear off his car and
> > started over again. (rulebook heartburn). Actually, it was done about
> > 1990 also and then more recently in about 2004. Neither car continued
> > production with that "feature", as far as I know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: Jim Libecco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Reply-To: [email protected]
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [F500] Getting started in club racing
> >> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >> Don't count out running both autox and club races!!!
> >> We have done back to back
> >> weekends.
> >>
> >> National competetive road racing and last years solo champion.
> >> What changes?
> >> I used to change from 18 to 19.5 inch tires, but now would just
> >> change the fronts and leave the tall rears on all of the time to
> >> simplify.
> >> Just Short/Wide fronts. (10 min)
> >> Switch brake pads (five minutes).
> >> I used to
> >> switch gears but might just leave them the same. Won and
> >> invitational autox
> >> shootout for money with road race gears in. (LOVE CVT's!!!).
> >> Reset toe and
> >> camber.
> >>
> >> That is it.
> >> Oh yeah, that extra 40lbs of ballast to be bolted into
> >> the car due to the 493 penalty in club racing....grrrrr.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original
> >> Message-----
>
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a
name of jwhit.vcf]
________________________________
FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500
The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing
Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003
_________________________________
_______________________________________________
F500 mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
