Weight balance of stock Tiger?

T

the_tool_man

Gold forum user
Messages
196
Hi all:

I've searched around, but haven't found a reliable source for the weight balance of a stock Tiger. I see lots of people trying things to shift weight to the back, or more properly, remove weight from the front (aluminum heads, etc.). The only blurbs I've seen are in the Sunbeam Tiger history writeups online that say something like "with a near 50/50 weight balance". Is it really that good? I would think if it were, we wouldn't be trying so hard.

I would go weigh mine, but it's somewhat disassembled at the moment.

Thanks in advance,
John.
 
D

Duke Mk1a

Gold forum user
Messages
1,673
Road & Track, November, 1964
Road test from Road & Track, September, 1967, pages 82-83
Weight distribution (with driver) front/rear, % 51/49
Click to expand...

Motor Trend, March, 1977, pages 103-106
Weight distribution is 51% front and 49 rear, a reverse of the Alpine IV
Click to expand...
 
T

the_tool_man

Gold forum user
Messages
196
Thank you. Near as makes no difference, as they say. Of course, now someone will ask what the ideal balance "should" be. I am assuming 50/50, as that's the commonly-held belief for road cars, assuming similar front/rear tire patch, roll stiffness, etc. Not trying to start an argument. But I'm coming from the Mustang world, where 50/50 is out of reach without major modifications. So, this will be a refreshing change. Thanks again.

Regards,
John.
 
D

Duke Mk1a

Gold forum user
Messages
1,673
My 347 with aluminum heads, intake manifold and aluminum radiator......I bet I am at 50/50 now. Would prefer less up front due to under steer.
 
hottigr

hottigr

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
819
A couple of issues ago in Tiger Tales, Mike Michels had his Tiger on a scale that showed his weight distribution closer to 50/50 than the published 51/49 figure.
 
0neoffive

0neoffive

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
2,862
Unbalanced Critter

the_tool_man said:
Thank you. Near as makes no difference, as they say. Of course, now someone will ask what the ideal balance "should" be. I am assuming 50/50, as that's the commonly-held belief for road cars, assuming similar front/rear tire patch, roll stiffness, etc. Not trying to start an argument. But I'm coming from the Mustang world, where 50/50 is out of reach without major modifications. So, this will be a refreshing change. Thanks again.

Regards,
John.
Click to expand...

In cornering, the Tiger has always been a mischievous brat! The natural/un-natural mix of suspension, weight ratios, and HP make for an eye-opening moment or two/three for both novice and experienced pilots. If you've survived this far, you've learned all the rules (maybe) about powering a Tiger in a gripped turn (like never!) or mastered the "drift" methods. Lots of aftermarket and racing experiments have produced pages of con-fab and interesting products to try. In the end, for most of us, it's a Tiger; naturally dangerous, belongs in the wild, and should always be addressed with caution.
 
6

67 Tiger

Gold forum user
Messages
298
I was under the impression Shelby and his guys moved the battery to the trunk, laid the spare tire flat, and moved the motor as far back as they could, just so they could get the best balance possible. To bad they didnt work on better steering angles.
 
hottigr

hottigr

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
819
50/50 isn't the answer to everything...too much weight on the front and back and not enough weight in the center is not good either...something about polar moment of inertia or something to that effect. I'll let the math/science/engineering people expand on that:)
 
T

the_tool_man

Gold forum user
Messages
196
Wow. Glad to see so many responses to what must seem like a newbie question.

True, weight balance isn't the only thing to consider. In general, you can play with spring and swaybar rates to balance the car between understeer and oversteer. Duke, increasing your rear roll stiffness would help, as long as you don't go too far. On my Mustang, that's as simple as a coil spring and/or swaybar change. On a stock Tiger, those aren't really options. I've seen a Tiger with an adjustable swaybar setup, which would be sweet.

And, yes, you'd like to put everything as close to center of mass as possible if you're building an autocross car. But high-speed stability may suffer in a road car, once you go past a certain point. Sounds like that point may have already been reached by many!

Regards,
John.
 
michael-king

michael-king

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
4,145
While the 51/49 sounds good you have to remember how much of the 51 at the front is close to the actual front of the car. Whie they did have the egine back under the scuttle there is stila lot of weight forward of the centreline.

Reduscing weight in the engine is a good start.. the aftermarket cross members apparently doa good job of this to.

Then you have the rear weight.. yes relocted battery and spare wheel.. but you are moving the weight to the extreem rear.. and you get the pendulum effect.. when the weight is at the end of the swing it gets more momentum.

Dont stress to much about the distribution.. probably better to investigate the floors in the steering, and the traction issues in the rear.
 
0neoffive

0neoffive

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
2,862
And You ??

hottigr said:
50/50 isn't the answer to everything...too much weight on the front and back and not enough weight in the center is not good either...something about polar moment of inertia or something to that effect. I'll let the math/science/engineering people expand on that:)
Click to expand...

Polar moment of inertia ? Didn't she work in a tatoo parlor in Subic Bay ? no affiliation . . . . . .
 
B

BillRo

Gold forum user
Messages
142
Weight and Balance

Fairly accurate wheel weights with vehicle levelled as best we could.

2 Jun 1991 Mk1, 3/4 fuel, No Driver, No Spare, No H/T
LF 653#, RF 693# = 1346# 54%
LR 580#, RR 558# = 1138# Total 2484# 46%

30 Aug 2011 Same Mk1, 1/2 fuel, Spare (35#), No Driver, No H/T
Main Differences: Al manifold vs Steel, 2 Aux lights, diff springs
LF 674#, RF 664# = 1338# 53%
RR 574#, RR 622# = 1196# Total 2534# 47%

Just data and I have no explanation for the numbers.

BillRo
 
6

65beam

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
1,834
balance

what does michael mea by "investigate the floors in the steering " ??????
 
0neoffive

0neoffive

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
2,862
Hefty Critter

BillRo said:
Fairly accurate wheel weights with vehicle levelled as best we could.

2 Jun 1991 Mk1, 3/4 fuel, No Driver, No Spare, No H/T
LF 653#, RF 693# = 1346# 54%
LR 580#, RR 558# = 1138# Total 2484# 46%

30 Aug 2011 Same Mk1, 1/2 fuel, Spare (35#), No Driver, No H/T
Main Differences: Al manifold vs Steel, 2 Aux lights, diff springs
LF 674#, RF 664# = 1338# 53%
RR 574#, RR 622# = 1196# Total 2534# 47%

Just data and I have no explanation for the numbers.

BillRo
Click to expand...

Well, that puts the C/G right under the clock hole. Kinda chubby weight for it's midget size, really . . . . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top