01-28-2012, 05:27 PM
|
 |
Professional Ninja Killer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
|
Re: **Negative** Caster
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidingOnRailz
Guys, both post #8 and #3 are really playing with my brain! MagicRat or somebody can you please restore sanity to this thread??
In the sentence beginning "Primarily, positive caster was designed into many ..." was negative the intended term??
 Heeelp!!!! |
Yeah... I got them backwards a couple times. here is the corrected version of what I said:
Quote:
Speeds were slower, steering effort was something that consumers thought was evil, and bias ply tires have very large amounts of pneumatic trail (a function of the friction associated with the contact patch), so caster was set negative in many cars to make the public happy.
Primarily, negative caster was designed into many manual-steering cars. When some cars started getting the power steering option, some were able to adjust the caster to the positive side on the existing chassis and others didn't have that range of adjustment. A good example - my 66 Pontiac Bonneville. The caster spec was 0.75 negative. Once the B-body was homologated in 1963, there was no way to make positive caster without affecting camber. In 1964 they started making different upper control arms with more rear offset so they could have positive caster without camber issues.
|
__________________
Dragging people kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
|