can your alignment shop do this?

 

Beggars the question....why the hell would they??????

 

SWAG: Account for gyroscopic precession of the tires (tyres) and wheels in the toe angle?

A bit overboard, I think, but, who knows?

 

Then came computers...when I worked at an F1 team the chassis was loaded on a 5 post ring, now its 10!

 

What makes sense in an OEM assembly line situation may not in the outside world.

 

Love that photo, plums!

I don't know about the X300 or X308, but for the XJ40 the Jaguar procedure for setting the front end alignment required the car to be sitting with the front crossbeam exactly 150.8mm above the floor. Since the cars had a natural unloaded stance higher than that, the use of a special "camber tie down link" (JD133) was specified. Back in the '90s there were reports of some shops using chains or such to tie the cars to the floor. Others just had a couple of men sit in the front seats while the alignment was carried out. Owners who took their XJ40s to shops that ignored this part of the process often complained about uneven tire wear, tramlining, etc.

I wonder if that Corvette system was meant to compensate for the differences in suspension geometry under static and dynamic conditions? You have to wonder if all that precision was even effective given the old-style steering gear boxes used on 'vettes of that era.

The photo also reminds me of a friend in college who found a '67 Corvette coupe with only 20,000 miles and bought it for $10,000, an astronomical sum to a poor working student like me. The interior of that car was like new. He only put a few thousand miles on it before he sold it, which he regrets to this day. I wanted to buy it from him, but all I could afford was a '68 Triumph Spitfire for $495. But on the fun-per-dollar scale, I think I was the clear winner. And yes, my wife claims to have fallen for me because of that little red roadster.

 

I thought rolling toe-in measurements and tiedowns went away once radial ply tires became standard.

 

The photo was posted on a Corvette forum in response to various
claims as to accuracy/inaccuracy of laser equipment versus predecessor
techniques. The second photo was of the caster/camber being set
on a jig with the frame upside down.

Yes, it was the production line ... take a look at the operator's
haircut

The beauty of the system is that there is no transfer of static
settings to dynamic operation. It is done dynamically, so its
either right or wrong.

This is the same argument that is used today by proponents
of roadforce balancing.

++

 

BMW specified weighting up until at least the previous generation.

The factory trained BMW dealer wheel alignment trainer said that the
purpose was not to "simulate load" as many thought, but rather to
set the suspension at a known state. 700 or so pounds of weight,
distributed in a particular manner.

People report that when this is done properly, the result is sublime.


... ummmm ads in the back of Road & Track for Cobra 427's at $5K?

Two Sunbeam Alpines. One with no engine, one with crunched front end.
They became one car which started and ran exactly once.

 

Why are the Corvettes lights turned on to set the front wheel alignment?

 

The same or next station was for aiming the headlamps. Nothing to do with the wheel alignment.

 

That's why you Americans invented mass production, Wheel alignment, headlamp alignment, and painting the thin white band on the tyre (tire) all at the same time...Genius.

 

There was one other point of "genius" at work in that picture
that came across loud and clear from some of the posters
who knew that assembly line from having been there.

They all thought that what they were doing was special,
worth doing right, and proud to do it.

 

You must have been able to special order a Corvette with its flip-up lights stuck in the open position. Back in the day you saw lots of them driving around that way.

 

Some of them even passed by with the lights in the 'wink' position.

... must have been very friendly Corvette drivers