13-02-2018, 11:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 13-02-2018, 11:28 PM by stuartu.
Edit Reason: added sentence
)
Ian, it is kind of you to imply that I might have something sensible to say about the handling of the Williams cars. Well, you've driven them, what did you think? I suppose that's a bit unfair, perhaps you didn't feel at liberty to explore the ragged edge!
They are very conventional cars in layout. Flat springs, conventional rear dampers adjusted tightly, separate front dampers on the car with the wider front track and an extra static disc in the other car. They really don't roll much. they aren't super light like Simplicity but the c of g is comfortingly low. One sits a little further back than in an Ulster. It maybe they gain a little stiffness from the deeper crankcases. The engines are bolted down at all corners. There is no chassis boxing. I have heard it claimed that the rather tubular body construction with undertray lends stiffness which, I take leave to suggest, is insignificant if true.
Both cars are on 15" cross plies. The ex Ironside car came with 16" rears and was much better (less twitchy) on 15s, quite possibly roll centre related but it is certainly my experience that tyre type and pressure makes a lot of difference. I would advocate going to some trouble to stop the rear spring leaves moving sideways (extra clips or binding or both). I do not doubt that Lotus could literally run rings round them but in my experience on the whole they go where you look.
I find them safe and predictable. I do not think I have ever been aware of roll oversteer with these cars whereas, with my '33 Tourer with "semi flat" rear springs, I have to set it up before the corner if I wish to avoid an unpleasant surprise. Mind you, I am hardly comparing like with like in most respects.
I think the "design trick" is to avoid circumstances the original design dislikes. Well balanced wheels are a really good idea! I don't think I have added a lot to the debate - sorry! John Miles' article is a lot more use here than I am.
Regards,
Stuart
They are very conventional cars in layout. Flat springs, conventional rear dampers adjusted tightly, separate front dampers on the car with the wider front track and an extra static disc in the other car. They really don't roll much. they aren't super light like Simplicity but the c of g is comfortingly low. One sits a little further back than in an Ulster. It maybe they gain a little stiffness from the deeper crankcases. The engines are bolted down at all corners. There is no chassis boxing. I have heard it claimed that the rather tubular body construction with undertray lends stiffness which, I take leave to suggest, is insignificant if true.
Both cars are on 15" cross plies. The ex Ironside car came with 16" rears and was much better (less twitchy) on 15s, quite possibly roll centre related but it is certainly my experience that tyre type and pressure makes a lot of difference. I would advocate going to some trouble to stop the rear spring leaves moving sideways (extra clips or binding or both). I do not doubt that Lotus could literally run rings round them but in my experience on the whole they go where you look.
I find them safe and predictable. I do not think I have ever been aware of roll oversteer with these cars whereas, with my '33 Tourer with "semi flat" rear springs, I have to set it up before the corner if I wish to avoid an unpleasant surprise. Mind you, I am hardly comparing like with like in most respects.
I think the "design trick" is to avoid circumstances the original design dislikes. Well balanced wheels are a really good idea! I don't think I have added a lot to the debate - sorry! John Miles' article is a lot more use here than I am.
Regards,
Stuart