Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas T
I have to disagree with that statement. Properly sized ball joints, bushings, and other components are required in conjunction with a stiffer chassis. The correct springs and shock valving are also needed. Newer vehicles have very little chassis flex compared to older models and they generally drive and hold up much better. Corvettes are a very good example. Try driving a newer vette and then go drive one from the 70's or 80's and the chassis flex is very obvious. Even without the flex I'd say the newer chassis components are more reliable.
|
well, sure, I agree. I am saying that a track chassis is made for a smooth road and implying that using using it on a regular street is going to wear things out and break them. upgrading parts and attachments is indeed how you combat that.
comparing any late model vehicle developed with a multi-million dollar investment in R&D, engineering, and special tools like FEM and built with multi-million dollar processes like hyro formed frame sections assembled with robotic welding, to a box tubing ladder chassis might be a step too far to say "they increased torsional rigidity and its good, so its good here too".
a late model corvette, and most every other good handling car made in the last 20 years, uses a unit body chassis which still flexes to keep the strain off the suspension components. It can flex less because the strain can be put through the perimiter frame and its "cage" instead of the suspension attachments. This isnt what we are talking about here, we are talking about a sheetmetal cab bolted on a box ladder chassis, where the chassis is 100% of the vehicle torsional stiffness, which coincidentally is exactly what the 70s and 80s vettes use.