trackerjack wrote:Because it ties the radius arms together albeit a bit weak, when one wheel goes up the other will too and hence reduce roll. I was under the impression that the racers found it handled better if they removed the rear altogether when not forced to by rules.
That quote I made further up about "a bit of wire that looked like a roll bar" was from one of the touring car racers of the day (might have been Gerry Marshall) because the rules said the car had to have one (Group 1 rules) if it was on the road car.
Steve
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!
Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.
Just to confirm Trackerjack's comments, race cars (or at least mine) work better with no rear ARB and a thicker front one. My front ARB has double the cross sectional area necessitating a revised subframe and suspension arm mounting. That coupled with front springs double (500lb) the rear (225/250 variable). When I was experimenting with use of a standard rear ARB, I had a massive spin in the wet when the rear stepped out. Caught me unawares as that had never happened before (or after) when running without the ARB in similar conditions.
However, both my road Sprints have standard springs and ARBs and perform well within the limits of how I drive on the road.
I suspect there is a strong relationship between spring rates, ARBs and steering geometry when setting up a race car. Modifying a road car will put you in the grey area in between and I suspect that removal of the rear ARB would be something well worth looking into.
