Has anyone built (or bought) an avon chassis to the book and can tell if the front angled anti-bump steer section actually works or has anyone incorporated it into a locost book chassis ???

Just wondering if it actually works,cant seem to find much info on this subject (bump steer,or lack of it)

I think the angled front on the Tiger is to build in castor, the wishbones only have a couple of mm offset

Wimmera

I havent seen the book or the car but are you maybe talking about anti-dive geometry?

anti-dive - 'fraid not it's "EXTRA dive" geometry!!!
Bob

You are correct it is there for anti-dive, but, would ask the question what on earth do they think you want that for.

If you want braking performance, you don't want anti-dive. On a car such as a 7 with low CofG with a reasonable ride height dive is not a problem. You use anti-dive on low ride height heavily aero dependent race cars, to stop the ground effect changes dramatically effecting the feel of the car on turn in.

Darren

quote:

---

Originally posted by dozracing
You use anti-dive on low ride height heavily aero dependent race cars, to stop the ground effect changes dramatically effecting the feel of the car on turn in.

Darren

---

I looked at pictures of the Avon front suspension a couple of years back and remember thinking "what the **** is that about " -- I actually had been thinking about buying an Avon in the pre-Tiger days and must say I am glad I didn't .

From what I saw the Avon steering geometry is distinctly odd. In the picture I saw looking down to give a plan view the rack was mounted at least 1" perhaps 2" in front of the outer track rod ends ie the track rods were swept back like the wings on a 60s fighter jet. This would give a lot of of extra toe-in on turns -- lots and lots of anti-ackerman.

The reason i asked the question (that has been answered by dozracing and brit trident) is that after reading some of the Suspension geometry books available... i couldnt understand why it was there either.

As i said,question answered.

Actually a tiny ammount of proper anti-dive is fine but go too far and as already pointed out the front suspension wiil "patter" under braking if it encounters the slightest ripple. First car I drove with it was the original 1969 XJ6, I did try some on the front suspension my Davrian Imp saloon by packing down the front swing arm pivot by about 1/2" seemed OK but as the car was written off (not by me :-)) early that season I was 100% never sure Trouble nobody really knows how much is too much I know anti-squat on the rear is a bit more forgiving.

[Edited on 23/2/05 by britishtrident]

Doesn't look like anti dive to me, in side view the w/bone brackets centrelines don't converge they slope from front to back at 5 degrees and are parallel or very close to it and are heading away from the CofG not towards it .

Wimmera

What is it then?

Castor

Wimmera

Definately anti-dive.Given up on using the idea though.

if it's anti-dive... it's done completely wrong to give "extra-dive" like I said before.
Actually I think it's "where they could stick the brackets" geometry ;^)
cheers
Bob
PS I've just looked at the drawings in the book - never seen a real one