3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

RSS
WordPress.org

Healey Handling Improvements

6, December2006 Michael 18 comments
WHY CONSIDER IMPROVEMENTS
Although I seem to have gained a reputation for being somewhat of a Healey modifier I still believe
strongly that a standard Healey in good mechanical condition is a fine car to drive and preserve, and
I only offer what follows in response to several enquiries that I have had on the subject. I do not
consider myself to be an expert, but I have some experience and what follows is based upon
that; furthermore Im sure that most of what Im going to say will be obvious to those who have
considered the subject in any depth but, for those who havent, this should be a good starting point .
Because the big Healey is the epitome of a sports car it is not unreasonable to think that perhaps it
should handle in a sporting like manner. It is pretty disappointing to take your car out to a friendly
gymkhana or similar event and find that no matter how well you drive 1200c.c. rice rockets are
completing the course in half the time it takes you and your Healey. What Im describing below
should result in some respectable improvements and is, for the most part, easily reversible; Im not
advocating modifying the car so dramatically that it looses its classic appeal.
SOME BACKGROUND
Up until 1965 all big Healeys used the same suspension which dates from 1952. Many of the
components were probably designed for a cars built immediately after WWII. The rear suspension
of the big Healey is an interesting study in design compromises. In the interests of styling and to
minimize manufacturing costs Donald Healey opted to use a rather outdated under slung ladder
frame for the 100. Im pretty sure that the Healey was the last mass produced car to use this design.
One of the most demanding compromises which has to be addressed with this type of design is the
spread of the main frame rails. Positioning the frame rails far apart improves the rigidity of the frame
but places some major limitations on the suspension. With the Healey I believe the spread of the
frame rails was determined by the front suspension and that the rear was built around the result.

www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

3/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

UNDERSLUNG FRAME
The problem with the under slung design is that the available suspension travel is limited by a factor
of the distance from the underside of the rear axle to the ground. In the case of a Healey the total
travel available is less than 12 cm. Common practice in suspension design is to maintain the cars
normal ride height at or slightly above about mid travel. This means that the axle has only about 6
cm of available movement either up or down, and that is not very much. If you watch the suspension
of a car driving next to you some time, you will see that an average car uses 10-15 cm of travel
along a relatively smooth piece of highway.
The Healey design did produce a firm ride but, for cross ply tyres, which were all that was
available in those days, the suspension was reasonably adequate.
HEALEY SUSPENSION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Radial ply tyres became commonly available in the early 1960s and their improved grip means that
they can generate forces in suspension systems that are substantially higher than could be generated
with the bias or cross ply tyres. As a result, with good tyres and some not very aggressive driving,
the body roll of a Healey can be quite significant. Body roll in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but
it can have some negative effects when it causes excessive changes in camber of the wheels. i.e.
their inclination relative to the ground.
However in the case of a Healey with its under slung frame, there is another major problem in that
the body roll can be so significant that the rear frame on the inside of the turn rises sufficiently to
contact the axle, which in turn lifts the inside tyre off the ground.

www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

4/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

WHEEL LIFT
This has two immediate effects. Firstly the inside wheel spins because it cannot transfer the engine
power to the ground and secondly the back of the car tends to step sideways. This sideways
stepping is because tyres, particularly radial ply tyres in motion, behave a little oddly. Explained in
simple terms, two tyres carrying 500 pounds each will have considerably greater resistance to side
thrusts that one tyre carrying 250 pounds and the other carrying 750 pounds or in other words lift
off one rear wheel and because the load on the rear tyres is suddenly transferred completely to the
outside tyre things go very pear shaped indeed.
THE FIX
To rectify this situation we have several options.
1. We could fit stiffer springs. The problem is this would result in an even harsher ride, possibly
okay for a smooth race track but definitely not ideal for street use.
2. We could increase the available space for rear axle travel. This is the solution that B.M.C.
adopted in 1965, but it required some fairly extensive frame modifications which are out of the
question for most people.
3. We could add roll stiffness to decrease the amount of body roll in turns and this is the course we
will pursue here.
INCREASING ROLL STIFFNESS
Roll stiffness can be easily increased by installing anti roll bars. The front of a Healey already has an
anti roll bar and you can stiffen this a little by eliminating the softness of the bushes or considerably
more by fitting a thicker bar. Increasing the front roll stiffness results in the outside front wheel
supporting more weight in the turn and the car staying more level however, as a result of the uneven
tyre loading thing mentioned above, this change alone will produce massive understeer. Understeer,
for those not familiar with the term, means you turn the steering wheel but the car to a greater or
lesser degree carries on straight ahead.
To achieve the desired result roll stiffness has to be increased both front and rear, and then balanced
between ends to keep the tyre weights where you want them through the turn. When this is done
correctly the weight transfer in the turn will be evenly distributed between the front and rear wheels
and this will produce the maximum grip.
SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

5/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

1) Increasing roll stiffness will have a detrimental effect on the way the car negotiates one side
bumps but a further modification; fitting tube shocks will improve this dramatically.
2) Installing most of the available rear anti roll bar kits involves welding to the frame.
(I have developed a design for a rear anti roll bar which requires only the drilling of 4 holes for
installation but as yet I have not had an opportunity to test the design).

REAR ANTI ROLL BAR SYSTEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT

3) When it comes time to make adjustments remember; the stiffness of an anti roll bar increases as
the fourth power of its diameter so a very slightly thicker bar will be substantially stiffer.
I hope that all helps.
Tweet This Post
Classic Rallying, Healey Stuff none
Comments (18)
Leave a comment

www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

6/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

#1 | Written by Howard Morris about 6 years ago. Reply

Great site:
Very,very helpful ideas especially the roll (sway) bars.I am currentlyrestoring a HBT7 5174
produced in Nov. 1959. The came from the British Motors Heritage Museum researcher.
My title says 1961 Mark I 4 seater and the researcher agreed on the Mark I 4seater but the
1959 production date and shippage to Minn, Minn Nov. 24 1959 really confuses me any
help would be appreciate. Im on the ato list.
Thanks
Howard
1965 BSA A65 650
1969 BSA A50 500
1970 Triumph T120R Bonnie
1961 HBT7 5174 Tri- carb 4 seater

#2 | Written by Howard Morris about 6 years ago. Reply

Great site:
Very,very helpful ideas especially the roll (sway) bars.I plan on beefing up the suspension and
adding roll (sway) bars, do you make them? Are they available from you? I am currently
restoring a HBT7. 330-927-1876 OHIO
The HBT7 5174 was produced in Nov. 1959. This came from the British Motors Heritage
Museum researcher. My title says 1961 Mark I, 4 seater, and the researcher agreed on the
Mark I, 4 seater, but the 1959 production date and shippage to Minn, Minn Nov. 24 1959
really confuses me. Do I have a 1959 early production HBT7 that is miss titled ? If you any
help would be appreciate. Im on the auto list.
Thanks
Howard akronzips@aol.com 20 miles south of Akron,Ohio (no I missed the Conclave this
year.)
1965 BSA A65 650
1969 BSA A50 500
1970 Triumph T120R Bonnie
1961 HBT7 5174 Tri- carb 4 seater

#3 | Written by Lin Rose 60BT7 #4044 about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael,
Very interesting. So when are you going to make it? Keep up the innovations for the
improvement of an already great car.
Lin Rose
60 BT7 #4044
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

7/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

59 Bugeye

#4 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Glad you liked the post Howard. Hope it points you in the right direction.
Regarding the discrepancy between your manufactured date and the title date I would
suggest this.
The car probably arrived in the U.S. in Jan or Feb of 1960. My bet is that it sat in the
distributors yard for a couple of months then was sent off to a dealer.
It then sat on the dealers lot for a few more months before it sold in say Sep 1960. That is
essentially the new model year for North America so the dealer registered it as a 1961.

#5 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

I will probably make the prototype roll bars some time in the spring when I get a round 2 it

#6 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael
I cant tell you how much I enjoy your blog. It is extremely well put together and reflects
much intelligenceyours I must assume!
Ive made many of the changes that you recommend on my 100the heavier 7/8 bar in
front, the anti-sway bar in back and tubular shocks all around, all contributing to a better if
somewhat stiffer ride. In fact I am to the point of conceding that in order to take further
advantage of these upgrades I must put on larger section tires (Ive been using Michelin zX
175s in part because I like their tall, narrow appearance plus the increased ground
clearance) such as many use. But I digress.
In your article on ride and suspension you make the following statement:
Increasing the front roll stiffness results in the outside front wheel supporting more weight in
the turn and the car staying more level however, as a result of the uneven tyre loading thing
mentioned above, this change alone will produce massive understeer.
Since a heavier front anti-roll bar will also have the effect of lessening body roll and keeping
the inside front tire better in touch with the road in a turn, why would that not tend to minimize
understeer by preventing inside wheel lift and so increasing the front wheels ability to steer
through the turn, as opposed to inducing massive understeer as you state? I know that what
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

8/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

you say is common knowledge and I have read it in other treatises on handling, so obviously I
am missing something. Can you enlighten me?
Best (and keep up the great work)Michael Oritt

#7 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Hi Michael,
Thank you for your very kind comments. Im enjoying putting this blog together and it is very
gratifying to hear that it is of interest.
Let me try to answer your question which, by the way, is a very good one.
This concept is indeed one which is difficult to grasp. It all has to do with dynamic corner
weights.
One way to think of it is this:
Consider a car which is stationary on a very grippy road with a cable attached to the center
of gravity (on a Healey that just happens to be exactly half way between the front and rear
wheels and about 19 inches above the road.) Pull on the cable directly at right angles to the
cars axis and parallel to the road. (This force represents centrifugal force)
The car would try to lean over, body roll, however our car has no front springs (solid
suspension) and incompressible tyres. In this case the car could not lean unless the frame
twisted between where the cable is pulling and the front suspension. If you pulled hard
enough eventually the inside front wheel would come off the ground but the rears would both
stay on the ground. (Just like a car lifting a wheel in a corner)
This is essentially what happens if you have a very stiff front anti roll bar. The rear wheels,
because the car doesnt lean over, see less change in relative load but at the front there is a
substantial redistribution of load from the inside wheel to the outside.
When the roll resistance, which is a combination of the spring rate and roll bar influence is
exactly the same front and rear the car will lean over and the transfer of load from the inside
wheels to the outside will occur at exactly the same rate front and rear.. This would constitute
a neutral handling car.
Please let me know if this does not help and I will be happy to give it another shot.
Michael Salter

#8 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

9/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

I believe I can see the model and thanks for the explanation.
BestMichael

#9 | Written by Alan about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael
Your rear anti roll bar design looks interesting but I think you have to be very careful of the
torsional stresses on the rear bulkhead this bulkhead is not that strongly attached to the
frame and anti-roll bars work best when they are attached firmly to the frame. You may end
up ripping off the rear bulkhead after only a few races.
I think you would be much better off running the anti-roll bar on the backside of the axle
(rather than the front as you have shown), attached with standard healey anti-roll bar
brackets to the top of the frame and custom rose joint links hooking up to the axle. This
would work well also because the anti roll bar, when in action, would be acting in a
compressive force against the frame so the chance of ripping out the mounting bolts of the
brackets on the frame would be essentially nil.
The lever arm could possibly be too short so you should have the roll bars lever arm come
up and over the top of the axle and then connect it roughly in the same spot or even slightly
forward on to your illustration.
Does this make sense?
Alan

#10 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Hi Alan, thanks for the input and recommendations. I had considered putting the anti roll bar
(ARB) behind the axle but there are some issues which encouraged me to move to the front.
As usual there are a bunch of compromises involved.
1). The Panhard rod is in the area behind the axle which limits the available room and would
require that the ARB be elevated sufficiently from the frame to position it high enough to
prevent interference with the Panhard Rod. This would require some sort of bracket to
elevate it from the frame if it was to be frame mounted. I did mount the ARB on AHX12
behind the axle on a pair of staggered mounts as in this picture.

www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

10/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

2). Because the original arrangement on a Healey produces a car which is fairly well balanced
the rear ARB needs only to produce sufficient anti roll moment to counteract any increase in
the moment provided by the improvements in the front ARB (more or less). My experience
with AHX12 and my S has been that anything more than an 11 mm bar with fairly long
lever arms is too much for this application. The axle center line is 25 cm from the forward
(heel panel) but only 16 cm from the trunk front wall. I selected to use the forward panel to
permit longer lever arms.
3). Attaching the ARB bearings using standard BMC type mounts or any others for that
matter to the frame would be very difficult to achieve without welding because of its hollow
box construction. I had considered making a 2 part collar which would clamp around the
frame, perhaps with a thin rubber liner but this started to get complicated and could be a real
problem if it was to come loose.
4) I have an alternate plan for the forward type ARB bearings based upon the rear shock
mounting bolts which is what I did with my 100S back when i circuit raced it and, if testing
proves that the heel panel attachment points werent up to the task, that is my fall back plan.
5) My experience with rose jointed links has not been too good. Maybe Im using the wrong
type but I have found that they develop play after only a few thousand km of use. Any
recommendations would be gladly received.

#11 | Written by Ken about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael,
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

11/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

How do you reconcile the addition of a rear sway bar to Geoffs comments to me that it was
a dumb idea? I think heavens no were his exact words. I didnt question why or ask about
theory, because when I was slaloming with one, it really made the car spin. I already had a
thicker front bar. So I thought he was confirming my experiences. I did think that it felt good
on freeway banked ramps. I still have the ADDCO bar which mounted to the frame stored
away.
The early Huffaker Healey 3000 rear swaybar set up is like yours, mounted to the sheetmetal
high above the frame. It also used Traction Masters.
Ken

#12 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Hi Ken,
I have always admired Geoffs wisdom, particularly after he helped me resolve a detonation
problem I had with the S at Mid Ohio, and I would very much like to know what the
rational was behind that statement.
When I first installed a heavy ARB on the front my S the understeer was unbelievably bad.
I almost put the car through a fence on the first turn of the first test drive. When I then added
a back bar I encountered the problems that you did with oversteer. It was only after adjusting
things several times and finally ending up with a very light rear bar with long arms did the
handling start to work.
I have never used Traction Masters but I could definitely see that they would help improve
things on a Healey. When a pre 65 Healey is leaning into a turn the frame gets really close to
the underside of the axle. I could believe that the Hotchkis type drive of the Healey produces
a slight anti squat property which, when power is applied in a turn, lifts the frame a little and
could make the chassis contact the axle.
Do you have any photos of the Huffaker setup?

#13 | Written by James Wilson about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael:
Exactly what you propose has been done with a friends 3000 that hes having modified as a
rally car by one of the UKs better known Healey shops.
The rear anti-sway bar is a standard one as supplied by Denis Welch but instead of mounting
it as usual to the underside of the chassis rails it is to be mounted as you suggest, above the
driveshaft.
Rather than mount it directly to the sheet metal panels there are two iron uprights
approximately two inches wide and an inch + deep and run from the bottom of the rear seat
panel (to which theyre welded) down the rear panels (also welded) to the bottom of the
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

12/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

chassis rails to which theyre also welded. I dont know how thick they are but presume its
pretty substantial.
As I recall, the mounts to the rear axle are as DW instructs- welded to the rear center-line to
match the width of the anti-sway bar.
I believe the axle mounts were positioned first, then the sway bar put in place as desired
above, with its chassis mounts then used to determine the position and depth of the uprights
to which i=they were then mounted.
A photo:
http://healeyjournal.tripod.com/images/rearswaybartopmount.jpg
which shows the chassis mounts and bushings in position on the uprights without the bar itself
yet positioned.
I trust this helps.
James

#14 | Written by Greg Lemon about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael, thanks for the information on Healey chassis and handling, as I look at the ways to
improve the car without completely changing the character of the car too much this kind of
thing is very useful. While I have not had extensive competition experience I have
autocrossed my 100 at local club events, though I do get beat by some of the more nimble
small bore stuff, I have managed to hold off the TR6s that run in the same class.
Would add that the Triumph TR4A, in optional American solid axle form, retained an
underslung axle until its demise in 67. I can also attest that it exhibited all of the handling
shortcomings you outline for an underslung design.

#15 | Written by Steve Gerow about 6 years ago. Reply

Hi Mike,
Im interested in your anti-roll bar design. Hopefully it will work out in the front of the
compartment as shown. In my own case, Ive got a Cape tube shock setup that takes up the
space in the upper rear corner all the way across.
FWIWregarding the axle mounts, a couple of comments based on observations I just made
on my BN6 with BJ8-style radius arms.
It appears using the bolts from the axle flange for the lower brackets is problematic because
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

13/15

3/26/13

Healey Handling Improvements - Michael's Blog

theyre too far outboard and the linkage would be on the outboard side of the bump boxes. If
I may be so bold as to suggest alternatives:
Consider these two ways to do the axle brackets: the BJ8 way and the non-BJ8 way.
For the BJ8, you could run a longer 7/16 bolt through the radius arm bracket, with a spacer
and use a rose jointed uplink from there. Pegasus now sells teflon-lined rose joints.
For non-BJ8s you might consider a bracket made from a 2-1/2 heavy-duty muffler clamp
with a vertical tab welded to the cross-piece with a 7/16 hole for a mounting bolt for the
uplink. This would clamp around the axle just inboard of the leaf spring. I just emailed you a
sketch.
For the upper mounts, surely the sheet metal there is no less strong than the slim uprights used
on AHX-12. It would be convenient if the upper mounts used commonly-available poly
bushings
From my own selfish point of view, I hope the bar is available in a thickness compatible with
a 3/4 front bar not just with a 7/8 front bar.

#16 | Written by Michael about 6 years ago. Reply

Thanks for your comments Steve; I really lke your idea of usinga pair of modified exhaust
clamps. When I get back to this project I will certainly see if that is an easier solution.

#17 | Written by John about 6 years ago. Reply

Michael,
How timely to read about roll bars to improve healey handling. Today, 1/30/07, I transported
my MKII to a welding shop for a little work. As I have always told people I am restoring my
3000 to the best of 1940s and 1950s technology. I am very interested in doing it better
without compromising correctness. Hopefully you will have your anti-roll kit available within a
year or so. Do you need a tester and test car? BTW, I always enjoy your posts on the healey
list.
john

#18 | Written by john about 3 years ago. Reply

Hi Im interested in trying some of the mods you talk about (fascinating stuff..) but wanted
first to check my cars ride height is about right. its a BN4. Since body panels are unreliable
as datums, can you tell me what ought to be the clearance between the bottom of the axle
www.netbug.net/blogmichael/?p=71

14/15