Let's Talk Cyclecars

Geo Hamm

 

Amilcar C6,1938 Bol d'Or,driver Georges Grinard. Marc pic...

 

Hello Fred,​

I had nice chance to drive both Herald and Spitfire (for short time), some 3 decades ago... Just to say that in my childhood and early youth in Belgrade, we consider any British car as sporting auto, and anything built by Triumph as true sport cars! So, even being something older, I used to drive both of them quite fast across and around city. They were quite lively at rear around corners and sharp curves, especially on wavy surface. I didn't have too much problems having a lot of experience with swing-axle vehicles: Zastava 750 (FIAT 600d made in Serbia under license) and its faster derivatives , than SKODA 1000mb, VW-beetle 1200, RENAULT 8/10 and NSU 120c. All of them had rear engine and rear power, but something modified according to simple swing-axle suspension. NSU was the best of them (but quite dangerous at high speeds – light front end) and next to it was RENAULT, the worst was SKODA. Never could know how to pass curves with it: beside bad rear suspension, front wasn't better including heavy and imprecise steering...

However, all of them were quite fun to drive, but only when I know and respect limits of autos, road and myself...

I couldn't be sure for differential-less power: never had auto with blocked or limited differential. Maybe lack of differential shouldn't be too bad for NAMI-1: good power on snow and mud, and under-steer at curves that should compensate regular over-steer (???) and keep power at outside wheel while inside one is over ground in the air. Just theory: maybe all that should lead to disaster during nervous and fast driving...

Ciao, Zoran​

P.S.: Our racers from National class (sixties and seventies), solved problems (almost) with swing-axles of Zastava 750, when pressed rear coil-springs so much that run almost without any suspension's work, getting "X" layout of wheels instead of "O"...

 

Hello Ned,​

Theoretically, such different layouts for front and rear suspension should lead to bad road-holding and disasters, but... Probably designers (and industrialists) tried to solve a few problems on the simplest and most practical way. Over (mostly) bad macadam roads of period, they need independent and flexible suspension, so they choose swing-axles for rear, where are passengers and freight. At front they kept solid axles as the most simple type and one that would keep good steering geometry in all circumstances. It would keep wheels in steady (almost) vertical position to ground? Beside, sold axle ares strong and in that period all autos got front brakes... And, they are CHEAPER!)

Swing-axles at front could be used, but could give nervous suspension and steering over bad roads and fast driving trough curves?

Ciao, Zoran​

 

BSA

 

bizarre 3 wheeler

 

Tonight this thread reached a milestone....

One MILLION views
6,236 posts
208 pages
just about seven years and running....

 

Hi Zoran

I suspect that ride quality was the main motivation here. The swing-axles allowed the designer to add the relatively heavy final drive to the sprung mass, which made for a lower resonant frequency for any given spring rate. Given the limited grip afforded by the tyres of the day the favourable camber recovery characteristics of the swing-axles probably outweighed the jacking tendency: the car would likely skid before it found itself in the sort of situation you showed in your previous post. Moreover, because Hans Ledwinka's differential design had the axles swinging about the pinion axis it placed the roll centre at hub level, i.e. roughly the same height as a conventional Hotchkiss drive's. Where U-joints or CV joints are used the roll centre would be a bit higher and exascerbate the jacking tendency.

The camber recovery characteristics would also have offset the spring-base considerations: the reason why the focus was on IFS elsewhere. The effective spring base of an independent suspension is necessarily equal to the track, unless modified by use of an anti-roll bar (which is ordinarily undamped despite often representing a wheel rate greater than the main springing - the reason I dislike anti-roll bars). Usually the spring base of a solid axle is less than the track, though it is perhaps more accurate to say that it is not necessarily equal to the track. I have been able to devise methods of locating a solid axle which give an effective spring base greater than the track.

The spring-base issue dominated early suspension development. Because front spring bases tended to be narrower than rear spring bases, there was generally more roll stiffness at the rear for any given spring rate. This created a general oversteering tendency, so much so that bad handling must have been synonymous with oversteer in the minds of early suspension innovators. The appeal of IFS was a front effective spring base equal to the track and less camber recovery than the rear suspension, i.e. that which makes for understeer. I do not think the theory of tyre loading v. slip angles was quite understood, though. I do not think it was articulated by 1930; it certainly was by 1950. Resonant frequency theory was well-known, though: Dr. Lanchester had used it in a suspension design before 1900.

 

The green one is a Berkeley: 2-stroke motorbike engine and FWD, made by a manufacturer of caravans (i.e. trailers).

 

thought SAVEM but it matches with Aerocarene 700

 

It's mostly your fault Bob. You and others keep this thread fresh and interesting. You make it worth checking every day. Thanks for your effort.

 

Hello Ned,​

Thank you on detailed explanation, some of that I knew or better said felt, part from experience part from theory. Good to read all that on one place!

Just to add, having half of my experience with mentioned automobiles, with some kind of swing-axles and engines at rear - I was more comfortable with over-steer then later with under-steer driving a few cars with front-engine, front-wheel drive...

Ciao, Zoran​

 

Hello, anybody there? ​

Strange thing happened for the second time: after my message - a week of silence!

Anyway - for the second part of started story: USSR made NAMI-2! Pity that phtos is wihtout good details, and not accompanied with phtos of auto with body...
It seems that independent suspension (swing-axles) and tubular chassis weren't so rare in Europe in period from late twenties to early thirties and later: good base for light and cheap auto for people (known later as volks-wagen – the word that was used a few times before Ferdinand P. “invented” it with his friend Adolf H.)

Ciao, Zoran
​

 

... corection: I found drawing, if not a photo of automobiles NAMI-1 and NATI-2...
(different names are because of chaning the name of Institute which developed prototypes)
Zoran

 

Easily my favorite thread on the HAMB thanks to fascinating contributions by Bob, UKAde Ned etc. I look forward to the next 6000 posts.
Anyone have more info on the Constantinesco. Looks like an interesting motor.

Kume

 

Hello Kume,
from Internet:
"Constantinesco engine
The inspiration behind the car was Constantinesco's 1923 invention of the "oscillating masses" mechanical torque converter, which replaced clumsy gear shifting with a smooth, highly efficient, continuously variable transmission. The transmission ratio was determined by the oscillation of a pendulum, the extent of the oscillations being determined by the pendulum's mass, ingenious attachment, and dimensions in combination with the torque and speed of the engine and of the road wheels. An oscillating masses torque converter can eliminate entire complex geared automotive transmissions with their jerky shifting, added weight and low efficiency. Compared to a similar car with a gear based transmission, Constantinesco's needed a substantially smaller engine, was lighter overall, and was much more fuel efficient. In the car, the mechanical torque converter was embodied in a 494 cc twin-cylinder two-stroke engine of his own design, where it was mounted between the engine's cylinders.


The car was built in Paris with the gearbox (on the rear axle for forward, neutral and reverse) built in England. It was exhibited at the 1926 Paris Motor Show but only a few were made. General Motors signed a "lucrative" royalty agreement to manufacture the torque converters, giving Constantinesco a $100,000 advance on royalties -- but didn't make any, leaving the inventor deeply in debt and the mechanical torque converter sidelined.

 

Thanks Motoklas.
I just acquired 3 volumes of Cars & motorcycles (1929) edited by Lord Montagu - great reading - had a photo of the Constantinesco. Should have thought to google it. Sounds absolutely fascinating.
Kume

 

Incredible. This 1914 GN Cyclecar went for over $100k at auction in Hershey.

 

http://www.prewarcar.com/magazine/previous-features/a-1914-gn-returns-home-024527.html

 

Hello there,​

Interesting films from fifites.
The first is about transforming of ordinary old Austin-7 into hot special:

... and, the second with a few specials at trial, around the middle of the film:

Ciao, Zoran​

 

...and, film about Shelsley Walsh in Gloucestershire, year 1946:

It looks as Alec Issigonis in a "Lightweight Special" at the begining of the film?
Rainy day, great public, drivers mostly without helmets...
Zoran

 

Thanks motoklas - Fantastic viewing - I particularly enjoyed the Austin ad - reminded me a bit of my childhood

 

Does anyone have info or pics of the 1099 motors fitted to these?

 

Here's a few pics for you to peruse......

 

Thanks Gasballoon. What a fascinating wee motor. I want one!
I have only just stumbled on a reference to these early Lagonda's - never new they existed.
Do you know if they had any success in competition.