Odd, my car's manual states its turning circle increases by 7.5cm if it's fitted with roof bars. WTF has that to do with turning?
- posted
7 years ago
OTish: Turning circles
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
perhaps they overhang the car and make it wider, so that if you are turning between two walls you could have a problem.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Likewise, our car, which is made in 2- and 4WD versions, has a larger turning circle for the 2WD version. Since both cars are normally driven through the front wheels, why should the fact the one version can *also* supply power to the rear wheels when necessary mean that its turning circle is 20 cm smaller.
I could understand it if the car was made in FWD and RWD versions, and the RWD had a smaller circle because the front wheels could turn through a greater angle if they were not driven and therefore there was no need for a universal joint (*), but that's not the case.
(*) Think of the very small turning circle of the Triumph Herald.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
wonderful for on-street parking. My mother had one which I drove from time to time.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
All cars should have steering rear wheels. Think how much easier it would be to stop next to the kerb instead of driving 50 yards further and waiting for the back to catch up.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Er.... firstly I've never seen bars overhang at all, nevermind mor than the wingmirrors.
And most importantly, it's the LENGTH of the car that matters when you turn, not the width. Think which part would hit the wall if you got it wrong, the front corner of the car.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
But, if the roof bars overhang, you'd be starting further away from the first wall.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
I had a 13/60 for many years. The turning circle and the tilt-forward bonnet were two very useful features.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
You'd think as cars developed, we'd get smaller circles?!
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Indeed, but no. My first car was a three-wheeler, and it had a 16 foot turning circle. The Herald was a step backwards, at 25 feet! But my current Renault Laguna Estate is a big car, but has a very tight turning circle. I don't know what size it is, but it is very impressive.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Mine is a Renault Scenic (similar size?), the book says 11m. I thought that was rather ridiculous, but roads are wider than you think in metres. Mind you, 11 metres is more than double your 3 wheeler.
However, if you turned the 3 wheeler tightly, didn't it
formatting link
?
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Except the Herald steering geometry was awful and completely opposite of the ideal Ackerman geometry.
The outer wheel would turn more than the inner wheel and you'd get terrible tyre scrub.
A member of the family managed to break an inner ball joint from the strain, thankfully at crawling speed.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
How on earth did the designer manage to c*ck that up? I can see them having both wheels turn the same due to cheap shit mechanicals, but designing it to compensate the wrong way?!
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Not really
That's what happened if you didn't grease the kingpins
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
The engine space had taken up some of the space that the wheels needed + wider tires. I guess CV joints also have their limits.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
In article , charles writes
I wonder if they are allowing for a load on the roof bars? -maybe with a heavier load the suspension geometry increases the turning circle.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
In which case what about a family of 5 or a boot full of luggage? Why mention the roof bars in particular?
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
You obviously never had one.
"Triumph Herald & derivatives implement "anti-Ackerman" steering"
formatting link
IIRC they were a combination of a ball joint and a trunion from using double wishbone.
No kingpin! You seem to be getting cars and their suspension mixed up.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Yes, it was known as the Anti-Ackerman, against all engineering practice. And it did just fine.
So, once aware of this, avoiding any problems was just a matter of paying attention and not doing it too often. Just because it could turn in 25 feet was not a reason to repeatedly do so.
Must have been straining it too much, I never had that problem in over
125,00 miles of driving mine.- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
That was quite a common Standard problem at low speeds..