C beam photos
04-23-2010, 12:48 AM
#1
Race Director
Thread Starter
C beam photos
There are probably a few new members who have not seen these photos that I posted back in 2007. Here they are again. Makes it a little easier to visualize how the drivetrain on a C4 is set up.
This was for sale at Corvettes at Carlisle but I cannot remember the price.
This was for sale at Corvettes at Carlisle but I cannot remember the price.
04-23-2010, 12:00 PM
#5
Race Director
04-23-2010, 01:13 PM
#6
Le Mans Master
04-23-2010, 09:30 PM
#11
Race Director
04-23-2010, 09:44 PM
#12
Safety Car
04-24-2010, 12:44 AM
#14
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Everett WA
Posts: 7,690
Received 477 Likes
on
353 Posts
C4 of Year Finalist (appearance mods) 2019
Ron
You have lots of cool pics. Thanks for sharing those.
PS I really like the one of the Shinoda car you posted on the other thread .... it's the best one I've seen of that type of rearend
You have lots of cool pics. Thanks for sharing those.
PS I really like the one of the Shinoda car you posted on the other thread .... it's the best one I've seen of that type of rearend
04-24-2010, 09:36 AM
#15
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: South-central Missouri
Posts: 6,314
Received 500 Likes
on
395 Posts
Perhaps it was just evolutionary...
Automotive engineering is an evolving thing; often a compromise between performance and cost. But, I'll agree w/ you that the C-beam certainly looks like a pre-cursor of the torque tube that followed in the C5 & up.
As I understand it, it was understood that the C3s chassis was just too heavy. So, weight reduction was the requirement for the C4. The solution involved reducing frame weight, but the resulting design would reduce the stability of the IRS differential; a problem (theoretically) solved by the "beam".
The concept was weight reduction and to better stabilize the IRS under heavy loads. But, that proved to be a heavy task for two closely spaced bolts. ("Squirming" is evidenced by the ridge that sometimes forms on the C-beam around the circumference of the washers, or the elongation of the bolt holes.)
The beam was a step in the right direction, but an improvement was desired and the tube provides that added stability.
P.
As I understand it, it was understood that the C3s chassis was just too heavy. So, weight reduction was the requirement for the C4. The solution involved reducing frame weight, but the resulting design would reduce the stability of the IRS differential; a problem (theoretically) solved by the "beam".
The concept was weight reduction and to better stabilize the IRS under heavy loads. But, that proved to be a heavy task for two closely spaced bolts. ("Squirming" is evidenced by the ridge that sometimes forms on the C-beam around the circumference of the washers, or the elongation of the bolt holes.)
The beam was a step in the right direction, but an improvement was desired and the tube provides that added stability.
That said, C-beam plates are available from ZFdoc which tend to distribute the lateral forces over a larger surface area which is reported to have stopped the squirming. Some have reported the stability at launch is significantly improved thru their use. Perhaps so. (Maybe my C-beam attachment is/was secure, cuz I haven't experienced the rear end kicking out on my Z. But, some other Z drivers have claimed the stability is improved by the beam plates. I'll take their word until evidence proves otherwise
)
)P.
Last edited by Paul Workman; 04-24-2010 at 09:48 AM.
04-24-2010, 10:28 AM
#16
Le Mans Master
The engine is an 85 because it has the larger alternator, and the exaggerated curved upper alternator bracket without the through-bolt. Just a bolt on each end.
