land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fw: Rear suspension

To: "john robinson" <john@engr.wisc.edu>,
Subject: Re: Fw: Rear suspension
From: "DrMayf" <drmayf@teknett.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:48:42 -0800
John, my experience is that the pp;ymer compunds have a great deal of
"damping" as part of their material properties. I would say the you would
have bith in one small "puck". And I, like you, believe that a small bit of
compliance helps - in preventing pats breakage.

mayf
----- Original Message -----
From: "john robinson" <john@engr.wisc.edu>
To: "rtmack" <RTMACK@pop3.concentric.net>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Rear suspension


> Howdy,
>           I run a short wheel base Dodge Colt, solid suspension, and it is
> a rough ride @ 144MPH. I always thought that a small amount of compliance
> would help, something on the order of an inch or so. And am now designing
a
> 'liner with the air pucks in it for suspension.
>          Question....with the air suspension pucks, ( I think they are
> machine mounts, you know, the rubber hockey puck thingys that are air
> pressurized)
>          Am I required to use a shock at each corner that has these units
> mounted as suspension per the rule II-4 ?  or do they qualify as both
> suspension and shock?
>
>               John Robinson, Mechanician
>    Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin
>                  1513 University Ave.
>                   Madison, Wi. 53706
>                      608-262-3606
>                    FAX 608-265-2316

///
///  land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe land-speed
///
///  or go to  http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>