...again... that's how and why it started (this time!)
the comparison was $$ vs performance of well warn and
suspected weak Armstrongs vs. the low $$ gas tube
.... so my description of the differences as questioned... and
results as tested and described on my own car.... stands on it's
own original merits. :-)
Paul Tegler email@example.com http://www.teglerizer.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Heim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "MG List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: MGB Tube Shocks
I would say cost was a big factor in manufacturers going to tube shocks
originally. But consider, at the present time tube shocks have undergone
another 30 years of development, recently using sophisticated CAD/CAM
techniques, while lever shocks haven't improved since the '50s. I would
be certain that modern high performance tube shocks would exhibit a
superior response over a broader range than their mid-60s predecessors,
and hence, over equally antiquated lever shock designs (regardless of any
theoretical advantages of either design principle).
Countering this, it may be argued that the deficiencies of the live axle
suspension are such that lever shocks provide near-optimal performance
within the limitations of the design, and even expensive high performance
tube shocks would create little real world improvement. But then, of
course, in racing, if not on the street, that very small extra bit is
worth paying for.
I do think Bill was spot on with his observation about "what they are
comparing it to wasn't a brand new factory installation, but a set of
totally thrashed, leaking Armstrongs." At least, I know I'm guilty of
that. But where was I going to find a factory new MGB for a comparison
Max (tubing it on the cheap)
Barrie Robinson had this to say:
>I am a bit puzzled about tube shocks. If they are no better than the old
>Armstrongs why do the hot boy racers of MGs, who are after performance
>including road holding, prefer them? There are so many of these people who
>extol their virtues as against those who do not, that it sort of says
>something does it not? Why have Armstrongs died in the new models - cost?
>I am undecided although I am going tubes that are vertical.
>At 08:52 AM 10/5/00 -0600, Larry Hoy wrote:
>>Here, here. I just removed my tube shocks and installed the orginal
>>I bought rebuilt armstrongs from Moss.
>>>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>>>Behalf Of WSpohn4@aol.com
>>>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:11 AM
>>>Subject: Re: MGB Tube Shocks
>>>In a message dated 10/04/00 11:16:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>> I've invested several hours in archive browsing time reviewing tube shock
>>>> conversions. I plan to do this at some point in the future as my lever
>>>> shocks leak badly.
>>>So what's wrong with rebuilding your Armstrongs, or buying new? Tubes offer
>>>no real improvement over them, especially for the street, they wear out
>>>sooner, and many of the front conversions would delight Rube Goldberg.
>>>And I would discount most of the reports of people that have made the
>>>conversion, if I were you. You are dealing with 2 things there. First, the
>>>guy telling you that the tubes are so great has just spent more than a few
>>>bucks doing the conversion. It just isn't human nature to expect him to say
>>>"Gee, that was sure a waste of money".
>>>Similarly, human nature for some reason precludes people, when they try the
>>>new set up and rave about how much more effective it is, from remembering
>>>that what they are comparing it to wasn't a brand new factory installation,
>>>but a set of totally thrashed, leaking Armstrongs. Hell, you could bolt a
>>>couple of those rear tailgate gas lifts in place and the guy would still be
>>>cliaming (perhaps correctly) that what he had now was better than the
>>>situation he had before.
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.