SZ again

[JHertzman@domain.elided]

In AD7-1322 Lee Scanlan writes "The SZ, whilst using much of the 75, 
exchanged the front torsion bars for coil springs (I believe). If this is 
true and with all the bonuses we've been offerred on bars vs springs, the 
elimination of weighty reinforced spring towers being one, can anyone tell me 
why the change? I would assume only a few of the 75s suspension members could 
then also be re-used, wishbones and the like wouldn't house springs. Where 
did these parts come from for a low volume build? Does it suggest that the 
Alfetta/75 if designed today (or in 1989) would not have torsion bars with 
their low profile and their structually simple "bridge"?"

Eduard van de Beek of the International SZ register is probably the best 
person to answer these questions, but Roberto Piatti's book on the SZ is an 
alternate source, and the two are not in absolute agreement on the nuances. 
For one example, Eduard van de Beek writes (in AD7-1321) "almost all rubbers 
in the suspension etc. are gone and replaced by uni-balls" while Piatti 
writes (on p.78) "The car had the usual rubber silent-bloc system with very 
few metallic Uniball joints so as not to jeopardize comfort". They are 
undoubtedly saying the same thing, but with differing emphasis. Dennis 
Simanaitis, in Road & Track, is firmly in the "rubber bushings are replaced 
by uniball joints' camp.

Piatti's text, and the very detailed cutaway drawing (p.74-75) and chassis 
drawing (p.78-77) suggest that with the exception of the springs themselves 
and whatever rubber was replaced with plastic or metal virtually all of the 
suspension members were identical (visually, at least) to those on the 75, 
with the shocks being replaced by coil-over units by Koni, but that "The 
frame was stiffened - - by means of reinforcing the crossmember and the shock 
absorber connection points inside the engine compartment, welding the front 
frame side members, the casings and the cross members between the rear shock 
absorber pickup points and those of the Watt linkage. It was the shock 
absorber connections which were most in need of reinforcement, since - - in 
this case the body had to bear the total load of the suspension at a point 
which had not been designed for this purpose." In addition to the two 
drawings mentioned above, there is also a very clear rendering (p.67) of the 
bare hull structure

Piatti is not exceptionally clear on the reason for reverting to coil 
springs, but it sounds as though it was related to the variable height 
suspension.

The book should be very interesting for anyone really interested in the car, 
and is full of small surprises; one which impressed me was the weight 
distribution, 56% front and 44% rear, due presumably to the relative ease of 
eliminating weight from the rear hull compared with the front. I assume that, 
given a clean sheet of paper, the designers would have preferred 50-50.

I noted Eduard van de Beek's reservations about the Road & Track article: " 
Referring to the article in Road & Track's May 1989 , there are several 
mistakes in that article, probably due to the fact that the car was moreless 
still in its "pre-selling-fase" , and the lack of serious information about 
that car at that time." Simaniatis was writing at Balocco, from information 
given him by Alfa's people; so presumably was Piatti. If Eduard van de Beek 
would suggest more reliable additions to the bibliography, he would be doing 
Alfa history a real service.

Cordially,

John H.

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