• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Crooked/Straight?

Share this page

aeronca65t

aeronca65t

Great Pumpkin
Offline
Looks like when they built this little Italian formula car, they didn't worry about the engine being square. I guess the U-joints will take up the twist.
<span style='font-size: 8pt'> Seen at the Watkins Glen VRG/EMRA vintage event last weekend</span>

DSC03101.jpg
 
aeronca65t..that's bizzare...I know that on racers there is logical reason to offset the drive train..but there has to be a reason for this other than "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE COULD GET IT TO FIT"...doesn't there?...I'd be interested in someone's logical explanation...it would seem under the torque it would be difficult to even keep u-joints in it...
 
It sure puts the shift lever in a more comfortable place. I presume it's a Stanguellini, yes? It also lets the driver sit lower.

It seems to me that many front engine formula cars in the 1950's had their engines at a slight angle, e.g. the Lancia-Ferrari D50. Many front engine-rear drive road cars had the front of the engine tilted up a little - same issues, just in a different plane. I suppose they wanted to get the driveshaft - hence the interior floor - lower.

Nice photo, by the way.
 
It's gotta be all about lowering the center of gravity by getting the driver down next to the driveshaft instead of over top of it. Seems like that would have caused a lot of off center weight issues though......maybe not. I'm no engineer.
 
Anecdotal Colin Chapman tale has it he remarked once: "I could build the PERFECT race car if it weren't for the d***** DRIVER!"
 
Coldplugs is right - many of the later front-engined racing cars had engines offset like that, including the Mercedes-Benz W196, Lancia D50, later Maserati 250F, Lotus 16, Ferrari Dino, etc.
They almost always drove to rear-mounted gearbox / final drive units, with the input shaft on one side or the other, and sometimes with the gearshafts running laterally, so the bevel was on the input side.
The notable exception of that era was the Vanwall, where the driver sat very high in comparison with his contemporaries.
 
The angle of the u-joints, driveshalf, etc isn't that bad compared to what some of the 4x4 guys have (just vertically). I suspect the u-joints would be just fine.
 
coldplugs said:
70herald said:
Why are there three master cylinders? Its a bit old to have a dual circuit braking system. Hydraulic accelerator?
Click to expand...

I'd guess a dual circuit brake system, plus a hydraulic clutch.
Click to expand...
Yes. And the two brake masters (front and rear) a linked by a cross bar forming a "T". and by varing the placement of the brake pedal rod on that crossbar you can adjust the front/rear balance of the brakes.
It's so simple it's brilliant. I wish I had thought it up.
having dual circuits for the brakes is often a safety requirement, even in vintage cars. and this fills that order as well.
 
Back
Top