Extra roll stiffness for the front end can be noticed after you've visited the grease nipples. More strangely still, by using the brakes or even better, by opening the throttle. It's not a marginal effect, either, as shown when you roll up quickly at a junction on a curved bit of road with the car heeling - as you come to a stop, the thing re-orientates itself so the red wine is once again level in the glass and you have to tilt your book back to where it was on the straight bits.
The driveshafts are variable length to allow for the massive suspension articulation, split in the middle on a long splined joint with a gaiter over it, filled with grease. There is some resistance to them altering length when static, but applying torque increases this resistance no end.
The roll you see when observing these cars doesn't feel anywhere near as much inside, unless there's something wrong with the thing. Which wasn't uncommon, as the 80s wore on. The cars are set up to go round fast corners at their top speed in complete stability and do so with such ease and composure it surprises you time and again when stepping in from a modern, with its stiff springs and blobs of distorting rubber sandwiched in the suspension designed to make the average driver feel superb (and to help reduce the harshness from the 45-profile tyres).
The downside is understeer at low speeds. With a crappy late car, steel quality* is suspect* so suspension arms distort badly when cornering. As QC fell through the floor, they seemed to fit the British cars with all the dud bits, meaning positive camber on the front wheels and rear wheels which would point any which way other than ahead. Not good for cornering. Add all this to inherent slow speed understeer and lots of roundabouts, the results could be hilarious. The more a driver tried to counter the understeer, the more the thing protested by heeling.
I've driven some which I Iabelled 'unsuitable for ring roads', they were usually late cars with an aftermarket chassis so flimsy it helped with low speed corners by twisting so much the rear axle started steering round. Thing is, those chassis are so puny that a bootful of shopping made it a bit scary even in the dry, let alone the wet. Yet they're the cheapest, so are bought by the masses.
All this negative talk cannot be good. I'll repeat that when right, they're pretty amazing. I've scythed past traffic on winding wet B roads in a particularly sweet car (think Hawes-Leyburn sort of roads), almost appearing to stretch the laws of physics. Anything modern with good road manners could have kept up in theory but would have been a handful, with standing water (not nice with wide tyres and speed), constantly varying cambers and surfaces as well as lumpy foundations and washboard surfaces. Very low centres of mass help no end, along with an original chassis, MichXs (135f, 125r) and everything set up just so. When working so well, these cars seem to have the ability of a cat to move fast yet with minimal disturbance to its environment and of itself.
We've obviously scared all but MrLPeel off, Pete - no response to my request for suggestions for the odd tyre pressures. I'll come to that later. Pete? Pete! Tsk, off for Slovenia already. I look forward to the collectionfred.