[DMCForum] Re: Ride height.

["twinenginedmc12" <twinenginedmc12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think I read somewhere that the bumper height was too low for DOT 
standards.  I considered that BS just like headlight height story you 
heard.  One of my pet useless speculations is that they just plain 
screwed up the design of the front height, and when the car ended up 
being higher than they wanted, came up with statutory reasons as a 
plausible "reason".  I know, it's a pointless piece of speculation, 
and I don't care if I'm right or wrong.
 
As for a lower rideheight improving performance, it's just plain 
physics that, on a flat road, a lower center of gravity improves 
handling, all other factors being equal.  It's a pretty safe bet.  I 
agree that very few people will drive their car fast enough around 
corners to notice the difference, and it's theoretically possible to 
screw up the steering geometry while lowering the car in a way that 
undoes the benefit of the lower center of gravity, so you might be 
right to question the benefit of lowering the car.



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Marc Levy <malevy_nj@xxxx> wrote:
> The rumor I always heard was that the headlights were
> too low for American DOT standards..  and the
> quick-fix was to raise the entire car.
> 
> Sounds like BS to me.
> 
> I think we can all agree that the car does look better
> lower...  As far as performance, I'd love to see some
> real tests before making such a claim.  While everyone
> who has replaced the 25 year old stock springs with
> any of the newer "lowering" springs is pleased with
> the change, it is typical that the owner also changes
> the 25 year old shocks and maybe even the tires at the
> same time.
> 
> BUT.. based on looks alone, I would suggest lowering
> the car.  I doubt any of us push the envelope of
> performance on our cars such that the slight change in
> height would have a significant impact.
> 
> 
> --- twinenginedmc12
> <twinenginedmc12@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Marc.
> > 
> > I don't know anything about that claim that Lotus
> > designed the front 
> > end to be lower.  I guess I answered the wrong
> > question.  Sorry.  
> > There must be a piece of history here I'm missing.  
> > 
> > 
> > I'm curious, is the claim that Lotus intended to
> > design the front end 
> > of the car lower than Giugario's original height, or
> > that they 
> > intended to design it lower than the eventual
> > production height?  
> > 
> > Either is plausible, I suppose, especially (to me)
> > the idea that they 
> > intended to design it lower than the eventual
> > production height, 
> > given that the production front end height both
> > looks ugly, and 
> > performs worse than a lower height would.
> > 
> > Rick.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---