The problem is partly associated to the tiny wheels. Whatever you use there is only a certain area in which you can keep the wheel upright and in optimum position for grip. The small wheels mean that is a small area of movement and it is hard to see how to get great handling from such a position without resorting to a very hard ride. The other missing item is some sort of roll bar to bring both wheels into a related reaction to cornering and prevent on outside spring being overloaded. This is the fundamental problem with the Trienkel. On hard cornering the single compressing suspension gets over loaded, deforms further and that prepositionally increases the load beyond that the spring can tolerate. In other words there is a speed/load combination beyond which the car is guaranteed to fall over despite it feeling that it will cope on entering a corner. This is bad as many a driver has been fooled into cornering to fast. The Schmitt has rubber and thus the ride is harder and the deformation gets proportionally harder as it is compressed so it gets away with it. Also the tyres tend to let go first, so it skids off speed. If it does tip it is usually possible to collect the situation in the time it takes. The Treinkel, on good rubber, does not, it trips over with very little warning or ability to correct. Cannot speak for an Isetta as they generally are not fast enough to corner that hard
.
The track, triangulation, center of gravity and wheel size greatly limit the P50 handling. But then they were not made to race around in. Its a bit like making a Warthog beautiful. It is easier not to start from there. But then home grown cars are all about doing the unusual.
[/quote]
Al, I understand that smaller wheels have a smaller contact patch with the road surface, in Peel's case exacerbated by the fact that the tires are rounded in profile to match them to the camber change of the wheel that results from such a swing arm type suspension. I also understand that the body's wheel enclosures are often designed to be quite reduced in size when 5" wheels are used. Indeed the Trident has no well above the front horizontal fender line. The lip of the front wheel wells is flat and on the same level with the tops of the inner fenders. What you see from the side view of the car, is all the fender clearance for wheel travel that you get in this car. So indeed front suspension jounce travel is quite limited.
Also the weight of a driver, or heaven forbid, a driver and a passenger, will outweigh the total weight of the unoccupied vehicle- so that you are going to need a much greater proportion of your vehicles upward jounce travel simply to accommodate the weight of its expected carrying load. That is why many of the smaller wheeled micro cars, such as a relatively larger bodied Nobel with its only 8" wheels look a bit awkward perched atop more than the usually seen amount of tire clearance provided above wheels that are so small as to make the upper fender clearance look that much more vast in proportion to the smaller wheel size.
Curiously, the Nobel shares the self defeating flat and low level inner fender design of the Peel. Were they looking for more interior space? I think that a rounded inner fender would have made a lot more sense and given more space for wheel travel, without making it a significantly harder task to get your feet to slide past the rearward vertical section of the inner wheel well upon entering the car.
All these factors can limit availability of wheel travel range, but I see no reason why the fact that a micro car's small wheels alone, if they are proportionate to the small body of a micro car, cannot be accommodated by a greater amount of space designed into the tops of the wheel wells to negate this effect. The fact that both the Nobel and Peels have chosen instead to go the other way with flat and low and level fender tops seems to be more of the culprit here to me. And I haven't a clue as to why their designers would have chosen to exacerbate the situation by creating them that way, as it does seriously reduce the available range of wheel travel.
I will likely shoot for approximately only about 2 and a half inches of jounce travel for a fully loaded Peel, accompanied by relatively stiff springs, as we have no frost heave, and therefore smoother roads here. I may end up using shocks with adjustable spring height perches that can be quickly selected by carrying the appropriate specialist spanner on board, for when the need to carry a passenger makes itself apparent.
We will se if it needs an antisway bar after that, as I am planning on using slightly lower profile, and more flat treaded tires on 6" wheels, and may even experiment with 2 of them in the rear of the Trident. There is certainly room for this in the original design, a la Isettas in non UK versions. I have heard rumor that Peel engineers them selves at least toyed with the idea.
Would stiffer front springs, and less grippy/ lower pressure inflated tires on the front end of a Hienkel/ Trojan go a long enough way to solving its treacherous handling characteristics?
