Re: AlfaSuds - Inboard Front Disks.

[Alex Jenner <alexj@domain.elided>]

In alfa-digest #505 it was said...
> 
> With inboard front brakes, if a brake shaft snaps under hard braking 
> when else?) you'll make a quick 90 degree turn somewhere you didn't 
> want to be.
> 
Has this actually ever happened to a AlfaSud? I have never heard
of this and would be quite suprised if it was even slightly 
common.

Far more common cause of accidents would be wheel nuts not tightened 
causing the wheel to fall off or various other forms of brake and
suspension failures which can happen to all types of vehicals.

> As I recall, Jackie Stewart refused to drive such cars for this reason.
> With a front power pack, you've also got the problems of heat, engine

Heat problems etc can be overcome. The same problems exist for the 
mid-engined cars with rear inboard disks, yet throughout the years
this has been a very popular combination for single seater and 
sports prototype racers.

> oil, etc. to get rid of. As I recall, the old Audi 100 had inboard 
> front brakes, can't think of too many other production cars that did.

A number of racing cars did, including the highly successful
Lotus 72 F1 car of the early 1970's.

Certainly inboard front disks are not easy things to get right.
I understand Lotus had problems with the 72 until they improved 
the cooling.

The major problem with the 'Sud inboard disks was that they tried
to operate the handbrake on the front inboard disks. Imagine
all the problems with brake adjustment etc that you hear on the
list from owners of Alfettas (and other transaxle cars) and 
then multiply by a factor of 2, due to most of the braking being
done by the front and you get the general idea.

The design was basically the Alfetta rear brakes transfered to
the front (or was the 'Sud developed before the Alfetta? - 'Sud
prototypes were running in about 1968/69).

Probably the main reasons you don't see many inboard front disk
designs, are:
1) Difficult to implement well (see above).
2) Requirement to recycle the existing designs and parts to cut
   development costs.
3) No room in front drive car with transverse engine (most cars)
4) No room in front engine rear drive car (most of the others)
5) Less advantage in mid/rear engined car (virtually all the rest)

> It's no coincidence that most modern cars have a front drive power
> pack  that's installed from the bottom of the car, since that's the
> cheapest way to build a car. Too bad most of them are horrible 
> things to drive!
> 
Well I hope you are not including the 'Sud in "most of them".
The motoring press of the day were in general agreement that
the AlfaSud was not only the best handling front wheel drive 
car in the world, but also one of the best handling cars, 
regardless of which end the drive was applied.

However many would say that the 33 with outboard front disks,
rear drums and slightly softer setup was a backward step from
the 'Sud. Certainly in comparison with other cars of it's day,
the 33 was still good, but when you compare the AlfaSud against 
other small cars from 1972-83, the 'Sud was not just good, it
was way ahead of the field.

Certainly front drive cars are not to everyones taste, but then
I have heard there might even be some people that don't like
the Alfetta/75/90 gearbox ;-)

As for the reasons that the 'Sud never made it to the U.S.
According to David Owen's "The AlfaSud - A Collectors Guide",
for most of it's life, the factory at Naples could not produce
enough cars to meet demand. It is difficult see what would have
been gained by entering the U.S. market, when they could sell
every car they could produce in the Europe/Australia/NZ etc
market.

Alex Jenner
1980 AlfaSud Sprint Veloce (complete with built in rust).

------------------------------

End of alfa-digest V7 #507
**************************