Do all 110s understeer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Wasn't the car with the most chronic terminal understeer ever the Hillman Imp from the 1960s?
It had a rear engine, but with nothing in the (front) boot, on a wet road the front wheels had no grip at all.
So there is more to it than where you put the engine, although mid-engine probably make it a lot easier to get it right.

---

there are so many variables, firstly hinging around tyre construction, that dictate what the weight distribution should be.
Most of the openwheelers I've played with we were always trying to get more weight over the nose to reduce understeer, as the tyres we were using dictated this. The batteries were moved from under the drivers thighs, and all the lead we could jam there without incurring a too great a weight penalty.

We always ran nil droop too. This kept the (unsprung) weight on the nose, or at least reduced longitudinal weight transfer under acceleration, again reducing understeer.

Might be to do with the wheel base too, i was actually thinking on the way home that i like how in my disco and previous rangies you are able to power out of a corner even on a wet road without loosing grip, i thought this as some knob in a falcon ute did a u'ey if front of me and powered too hard and fishtailed down the rd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loanrangie

Might be to do with the wheel base too, i was actually thinking on the way home that i like how in my disco and previous rangies you are able to power out of a corner even on a wet road without loosing grip, i thought this as some knob in a falcon ute did a u'ey if front of me and powered too hard and fishtailed down the rd.

---

What it had nothing to do with the fact you having equal traction to ALL wheels that are driven and he only had rear wheel drive:wallbash:

I have been quite impressed with the handling of my 130. Only had 1 incident of over steer and that has been since I took the muds off and am rimming the baby wheels. I thought it would be much more like a barge.

I like the handling characteristics of the Defender, it seems neutral to me and very controllable. The worst thing I ever drove was a leaf sprung Troop Carrier, you needed to plan well ahead or you would run off the road. I thought the driver was ****ed until we swapped drivers and it was like a barge. They have a massively heavy engine in front and it feels like it wants to just go straight.

Jeff

:rocket:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff

The worst thing I ever drove was a leaf sprung Troop Carrier,

---

I have to agree there, my parents had one, I found the problem was that the steering was too light and had no feel to it, you had no idea where the thing wanted to go.
Was still a good 4x4 though:angel::wasntme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rangieman

What it had nothing to do with the fact you having equal traction to ALL wheels that are driven and he only had rear wheel drive:wallbash:

---

that was the point i was making dh.

Think that is bad, try a Stock WRX on a loose road....... NASTY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sclarke

Think that is bad, try a Stock WRX on a loose road....... NASTY

---

would be fun if planned first :burnrubber:;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Wasn't the car with the most chronic terminal understeer ever the Hillman Imp from the 1960s?
It had a rear engine, but with nothing in the (front) boot, on a wet road the front wheels had no grip at all

---

I think you are wrong. The Imp had great handling. I've considered buying one - except I've got no money.


From the Imp Site

Quote:

---

(The Singer Chamois) took advantage of the detail improvements of the Imp's first year. It retained all the mechanics of the Hillman Imp and added a few virtues.
The Chamois differed from the early Imp in that it had Dunlop SP41 radials fitted to wider (1/2") rim wheels. These were an improvement on the C41 crossplies, which caused gradual understeer. The SPs kept handling neutral up to much higher speeds.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.imps4ever.info/tech/suspense.html

Having basic front suspension (swinging arms) but a superior rear suspension (trailing arms) fairly neutralizes the usual 'tail-happy' handling of a rear-engined car.
The problem with cars with the engine behind the compartment is often that of a heavy tail-end, causing oversteer on corners (that is: the heavy tail flies out as you drive round). This was very evident in the VW Beetle with it's swing axle rear suspension, which encouraged the back wheels to tuck in and under as the recalcitrant tail of the thing swung outwards. The Imp's light engine, in conjunction with trailing-arm rear suspension means that this potentially dangerous oversteer characteristic is not present.
The Imp's rear trailing arms were developed by Harry White and a team of chassis engineers.
The handling of the small Hillmans - even in standard form - became legendary.


Quoting from "Apex : The inside story of the Hillman Imp" by David and Peter Henshaw. They interviewed Tim Fry, who demonstrated the Imp to a bloke from Chrysler, just before the take over in 1967:

And the silly American said to me, just as we were coming up to this roundabout, 'Do these things understeer or oversteer?'. And I said, 'Well, I'll show you on this roundabout'.

'You can make it understeer like this, (and we went round the first roundabout), 'or you can make it oversteer like this.' And he was completely silent after that.

---

Ron