For a technician all is flexible,
No. Not with modern auto mechanics. As I mentioned, the later mechanical goal of the auto industry has been a "stiff chassis". It opened up the use of cookie cutter micro-economics which are very profitable.
a lot of words cannot replace a figure.
I agree absolutely! Unlike most people I do my Morgan setup and test items with my Morgan, on a rolling road dyno...which can produce many sad surprises. I don't really care about the numbers though.But I content myself (personally) with observation of "more" or "less" observing more or less. And I do not accept the claims of advertisers for, as an example only, distributors, like other enthusiasts I admire, I want oscilliscope readings and comparisons. Yes, oscilloscopes can be found in our community! We keep quiet in public. We do not want to upset those who spend money on iffy stuff and are happy about it.
... the chassis is flexible... OK it is...how many... it is flexible
I don't know.
Best I could do would be that I have, somewhere, tests from the Development shed of the front end for the purposes of determining the placement of the tie-rods, But AFAIK, no one bothered to test Morgan trad chassis/frames for how much and where they flex and if they did, it would not apply to other trads. They are different. As I mentioned, one of the most astute dealers in the UK once told me that 75% of the frames he received from the MMC were even crooked. And the equipment and systems fit to each trad vary from car to car. Don't blame me!
If we could test each chassis flex individually, both how much and where, we could come up with conclusions for that chassis that reflect your formulas. But they would not apply to other trads save by coincidence.
All three models had, for generations, different frames and it gave them very different personalities. But the Plus 4s were put on the Plus 8 chassis in 1991/2 and even the once lithe and light 4/4 was put on a Plus 8 chassis in 2004. They were looking for the one-size-fit-all solution. That ended the era of very distinct feelings for each model and made the difference power only. But most people, aside from you and I, are unlikely to be interested. Rightly so.
Perhaps MMC has the answer, old people made studies and used formulas for more one century.
I am sure they have tests of the newer stiff chassis, but I doubt they have anything on the trads through the years for the reasons given.
Why don't you ask them, CBY? It is not exactly information that would harm them at this stage, is it? The worst that can happen is that don't reply to a question posted publicly. (shrug) I would approach the CEO, Massimo Fumarola with a copy to whoever is running the Development shed.
All this being said, trads CAN be very much improved by individual tweaking. Astonishing what common sense can achieve.
Many people here come up with good and bad tweaks for their trad on this forum all of the time. One of the delights of being a trad owners in the past.
When I began working we don't use computer, calculations were made "manually" with formula and a slide rule. When Eiffel made the Paris tower (1889), calculations have been made, this was not guesstimates or a "wet finger estimate". For manually calculation you have to do some approximations, a gusset could be ignored, it is the experience and the art of the science to know the elements you can ignore to simplify the calculations. With computer and its calculation power you are able to take all the elements into account and get more precision, but results are not too far for a manually calculation...both use the same principles and formulas.
Sounds like you're having fun! Formulas don't work well unless you have all the necessary important data as inputs. Which chassis would like to analyze? Your own? Je vois sur internet des entreprises françaises qui redressent des châssis d'automobiles. Peut-être ils pourraient aussi analyser le degré de flexion. Je serais très intéressé.
gmg
