Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site othervax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
From: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.auto.tech
Subject: Re: Triumph Spitfire
Message-ID: <740@othervax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 14:44:46 EST
Article-I.D.: othervax.740
Posted: Thu Dec 12 14:44:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 20:02:54 EST
References: <290@aluxp.UUCP> <177@uw-june>
Reply-To: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn)
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Information Systems - St. Laurent  P.Q., Canada
Lines: 26
Xref: pepe net.auto:4452 net.auto.tech:438
Summary: 

In response to a request for info on why the rear wheels of a Triumph
Spitfire are canted, <177@uw-june> pjs@uw-june (Philip J. Schneider)
writes:

>
>Regarding the Triumph with the canted rear wheels - if you will take a
>look under the car (you will likely have to jack it up), you will notice
>that the rear axle is not solid.  Rather, it sports universal joints on
>either side of the differential, giving the car "independent" rear 
>suspension.  The entire structure is connected to a single large leaf
>...   This spring is likely quite worn, since, as it sags, the rear
>wheels gradually acquire that angle you mentioned....

While I agree that there is obvious wear (or the suspension has been
"lowered" by some idiot) if the car is dragging its bottom, it should
be noted that the Spit's rear wheels have significant *negative
camber* designed in (i.e. the wheels are closer together at the top
than at the bottom).  This is similar to, but with a much bigger
angle than, the current Ford Escort.  Never noticed it? - have a
look.

Sorry I cant give technical specs, but it is about 20 years (sigh)
since I drove and maintained a Spitfire.  I waited a few days before
posting in the hope that a current techy would respond.

Ray Dunn.   ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray