jdoclogan
Platinum Level Sponsor
Tim watched your latest of a long list of superb Alpine grease monkey videos http://forum.sunbeamalpine.org/inde...d-improving-standard-rear-leaf-springs.28668/.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
Racing Springs on #41 Sebring Alpine
- Thread starter jdoclogan
- Start date
spmdr
Diamond Level Sponsor
My $.02....Ahh yes, rear springs, I have more than a passing interest in them.
But I have not messed with rear springs on any of the Alpine cars I have dealt with.
That is to say, they have not been a problem in need of any fixing.
The Love Bug Alpine is an Sl so the springs are narrow but stock, all be, with a lowering block.
The Weekend Racer has stock springs as well, with no lowering blocks, yet.
The reason I say I have an interest is because of my history with rear springs in the Tiger world.
Tigers tend to lend themselves to rear spring abuse. And because of that, more replacement springs end up on Tigers.
I know this because I have taken them OFF, and replaced them with stock springs, with GREAT success!
As far as I am concerned, If you want to screw up the handling of your car,
change the rear springs to an aftermarket rear spring.
Here are the reasons:
1) When you change the rear springs, you usually end up increasing the rear roll stiffness in a nonlinear way.
2) The typical replacement spring has a Much smaller front mounting eye (later, wider springs), that is more rigid and in it's self increases roll stiffness.
3) fewer thicker levees tend to be stiffer, vertically and in roll.
4) Springs with less arch go into reverse arch and become increasing rate.
5) Stiffer rear springs FEEL more Sporty, until the rear end comes around!
If you think you NEED to change the rear springs to something stiffer, make sure you also add roll stiffness to the front end as well.
The problem usually crops up when the rear end has an increasing rate and the front end does not.
Good luck with aftermarket rear springs!
But I have not messed with rear springs on any of the Alpine cars I have dealt with.
That is to say, they have not been a problem in need of any fixing.
The Love Bug Alpine is an Sl so the springs are narrow but stock, all be, with a lowering block.
The Weekend Racer has stock springs as well, with no lowering blocks, yet.
The reason I say I have an interest is because of my history with rear springs in the Tiger world.
Tigers tend to lend themselves to rear spring abuse. And because of that, more replacement springs end up on Tigers.
I know this because I have taken them OFF, and replaced them with stock springs, with GREAT success!
As far as I am concerned, If you want to screw up the handling of your car,
change the rear springs to an aftermarket rear spring.
Here are the reasons:
1) When you change the rear springs, you usually end up increasing the rear roll stiffness in a nonlinear way.
2) The typical replacement spring has a Much smaller front mounting eye (later, wider springs), that is more rigid and in it's self increases roll stiffness.
3) fewer thicker levees tend to be stiffer, vertically and in roll.
4) Springs with less arch go into reverse arch and become increasing rate.
5) Stiffer rear springs FEEL more Sporty, until the rear end comes around!
If you think you NEED to change the rear springs to something stiffer, make sure you also add roll stiffness to the front end as well.
The problem usually crops up when the rear end has an increasing rate and the front end does not.
Good luck with aftermarket rear springs!
65beam
Donation Time
If you take a look at this car you'll notice that even with 13" wheels the body sets lower than most. The front fulcrum pin nuts were loosened after this photo was taken and the front settled down more. The suspension was built by Doug @ Tiger Auto. The rear springs were rearched by a shop in Dayton. I'm not sure what he did to the late cross member and it does have a larger sway bar
but he did tell me that the rear springs match what's under his Tiger. He also set the front alignment. It handles pretty good for a street car but he did say he would have to get used to the right hand drive before really driving it hard.
but he did tell me that the rear springs match what's under his Tiger. He also set the front alignment. It handles pretty good for a street car but he did say he would have to get used to the right hand drive before really driving it hard.
jdoclogan
Platinum Level Sponsor
Dan, I appreciate your input, I always consume and process every word you write on this forum. After looking at my Series I and II Alpines vs my III, IV, and V Alpines. I note the spring size difference (narrow vs wide [slight difference] respectively) in your description above and the mount ends small vs large (forward mount) respectively and both small (rear mount).
You point out that you block to lower. Interesting that my #41 Sebring Alpine springs were de-arched by the Rootes competition department . I'm wondering why the Rootes competition preferred de-arching over the simple lowering block method. The springs I have are virtually flat suggesting from your comment above ("Springs with less arch go into reverse arch and become increasing rate.") they would be good for racing. Maybe Rootes competition choose the de-arching method over blocking because they got more roll stiffness than using the blocking method? I'm pondering whether to put a stock set of early springs on #41 with the block method you are using (what is the size of block you incorporate into the system?). What are your thoughts?
Sorry Bob, I'm not fond of the wheel selection for the HLM in the photo. Maybe it is just the angle of the photo. My eyes just go to the wheels. Thus, I'm viewing the wheels instead of the gorgeous lines of the Harrington Le Mans. I would add that my original Promotional Harrington Le mans has spline hubs with wire wheels. IMHO a more classic look. For my Factory Works #41 Sebring Alpine I will have both the wires (for original classic presentation) and the Minilites (with spline and knock-off) for racing.
You point out that you block to lower. Interesting that my #41 Sebring Alpine springs were de-arched by the Rootes competition department . I'm wondering why the Rootes competition preferred de-arching over the simple lowering block method. The springs I have are virtually flat suggesting from your comment above ("Springs with less arch go into reverse arch and become increasing rate.") they would be good for racing. Maybe Rootes competition choose the de-arching method over blocking because they got more roll stiffness than using the blocking method? I'm pondering whether to put a stock set of early springs on #41 with the block method you are using (what is the size of block you incorporate into the system?). What are your thoughts?
Sorry Bob, I'm not fond of the wheel selection for the HLM in the photo. Maybe it is just the angle of the photo. My eyes just go to the wheels. Thus, I'm viewing the wheels instead of the gorgeous lines of the Harrington Le Mans. I would add that my original Promotional Harrington Le mans has spline hubs with wire wheels. IMHO a more classic look. For my Factory Works #41 Sebring Alpine I will have both the wires (for original classic presentation) and the Minilites (with spline and knock-off) for racing.
Last edited by a moderator:
spmdr
Diamond Level Sponsor
First I would point out that UNLESS you can trace any part found on a car back to the factory,
Assume it has been changed.
When I bought my first Tiger, it came with rear springs I assumed where original, I came to find out, NOPE!
And I assumed the ill handing was FACTORY as well, NOPE!
Having driven Sebring, I suspect It would be HIGHLY unlikely the Factory would have wanted stiffer suspension.
The track is ROUGH!!!!!
And therefor I SUSPECT the the springs you think are original Sebring springs, are not, .... My $.02....
The period pictures show the cars riding quite high.
As far as lowering blocks, on the Tigers, I think they are 1.25o "
On the Love Bug Alpine, I think they are 1.750" , and the car sets quite low.
I raised the front of the car up because I couldn't even put it on the trailer without it dragging.
BTW, some of the things I bought at the Scott Harvey sale were a sizeable selection of rear end/rear spring U-bolts.
Also, from my checking, rear springs in good shape tend to be about 6+ inches high when inverted to the ground.
And, on Tigers, end up almost flat when loaded.
DW
Assume it has been changed.
When I bought my first Tiger, it came with rear springs I assumed where original, I came to find out, NOPE!
And I assumed the ill handing was FACTORY as well, NOPE!
Having driven Sebring, I suspect It would be HIGHLY unlikely the Factory would have wanted stiffer suspension.
The track is ROUGH!!!!!
And therefor I SUSPECT the the springs you think are original Sebring springs, are not, .... My $.02....
The period pictures show the cars riding quite high.
As far as lowering blocks, on the Tigers, I think they are 1.25o "
On the Love Bug Alpine, I think they are 1.750" , and the car sets quite low.
I raised the front of the car up because I couldn't even put it on the trailer without it dragging.
BTW, some of the things I bought at the Scott Harvey sale were a sizeable selection of rear end/rear spring U-bolts.
Also, from my checking, rear springs in good shape tend to be about 6+ inches high when inverted to the ground.
And, on Tigers, end up almost flat when loaded.
DW
Last edited:
alpine_64
Donation Time
Dan,
I would suspect the springs on Jerry's car when he got it date from its scca race history post Sebring. The car had flared front arches and can assume went through different setup for short track club racing as the years progressed.
It seemed quite popular by about '63 to de-arch thr alpine rear in scca when you look at the photos... The later the years get the lower the alpines seemed to get.
The factory Sebring cars did run quite high ride heights... The hollywood sports car alpine sat a lot lower than the factory cars when you look at the photos.
Also the sebring cars carried longer range tanks at the event and hence a fair bit more fuel weight so having the springs flat would not have worked out that well especially considering the large gaps in the concrete runway paving...so think its safe to say they were a later addition.
I would suspect the springs on Jerry's car when he got it date from its scca race history post Sebring. The car had flared front arches and can assume went through different setup for short track club racing as the years progressed.
It seemed quite popular by about '63 to de-arch thr alpine rear in scca when you look at the photos... The later the years get the lower the alpines seemed to get.
The factory Sebring cars did run quite high ride heights... The hollywood sports car alpine sat a lot lower than the factory cars when you look at the photos.
Also the sebring cars carried longer range tanks at the event and hence a fair bit more fuel weight so having the springs flat would not have worked out that well especially considering the large gaps in the concrete runway paving...so think its safe to say they were a later addition.