What's up with all the 289 activity lately?

[What'saCobra?]

Smart move, David. Seat time tells the whole story. Plus a little common sense.

The only time cross-leafs were worth the grief was in the day; when it was the only way to race the car and driver/teams were locked into the cross-leaf system by homologation. But, i can see that some guys really want the original configuration for historical faithfullness. Not me. Give me the old shapes on the outside and ultra-modern systems underneath. Only way to go...IMHO. The fact that it is much cheaper is just simply a side issue...

To make up for a whole series of design compromises, stiffness ruled in the sixties, at least in Cobras. Big time stiffness. And THAT put a lot of stress on bits and the chassis, particularly for long distances, vis: Europe, Sebring. Which was why 'only' the coupes had the trussed tunnel. (Though i know of at least one successful roadster competitor in European FIA races that for sure has one under his alloy tunnel cover. i do not know for sure for sure if it is legal. Not likely the only one.)

Of course, such stiff suspentions couldn't stand up to the long term stresses of rough road courses like the Targa, could they?

Uneven dia anti-roll bars (fr vs rear) put larger axial twist on the already rather flexible chassis, but the bars were necessary (it was presumed) to improve turn-in, throttle-steering and predictability. Everybody (except Ken Miles) seemed to hate the dreaded body-roll; which is more demanding to manage, admittedly. Bob Negstead had lots to say about this unbalanced error. The truss helped control (reduce) that twist and keep the tire patch more orthogonal or at least closer to the intended negative camber...

Even the brakes were beginning to put larger and larger folding stresses on the chassis uprights (fr and rear.) The tunnel also reduced that tendency and reduced both shock binding, drive line universal joint stresses and heim wear, maybe...

In the middle sixties, Porche, however, was already well along with the concept of softer coil springs, lowered roll centers and intelligent shock design. So were many of the CanAm designs. of both over and under 2 liter capacities.

This M6B below, designed about 1967, in which i have several seasons of seat time, had great control and predictability; yet neither excess roll nor overly harsh ride. But, it wasn't designed in the late 30's, was it?