Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TR\]\s+Considering\s+tube\s+shock\s+conversion\s+for\s+4A\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: spamiam@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 13:03:04 +0000
That are the thoughts on tube shock conversions for a TR4A? As far as I can tell there are 3 types. 1) The conversion which bolts the upper end of the shock to the inner fender. 2) An adapter bracket
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00097.html (8,138 bytes)

2. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 06:35:05 -0700
Suspension forces transmitted to the body ... Run Away, Run Away ! I've heard of it happening, although I'm not sure it's from hitting the stop. Depends a lot on how you drive. On my TR3A, I had to
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00098.html (9,182 bytes)

3. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: spamiam@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 14:28:32 +0000
Well, I used to own a car which came with the 7/8" front sway bar, and I upgraded to the 420lb springs. I had also adjusted my lever shocks to be stiffer. I really liked the ride that way. It was muc
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00100.html (8,217 bytes)

4. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:03:32 -0700
Relax, Tony, it was a joke ! Most people don't like rear bars on TRs. Adding roll stiffness in the rear aggravates the "wheel lift" problem caused by the front roll center being so much lower than t
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00101.html (8,798 bytes)

5. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: BearTranserv@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:04:49 EDT
Any insights? No insights for TRs Tony, but I can tell you the Spridget community has not been happy with the tube shock conversions in the past. Without completely re-engineering the suspension, you
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00107.html (9,833 bytes)

6. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: spamiam@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:11:43 +0000
I tend to agree with you. I had modified some lever valves to a stiffer setting, and I liked them. I just thought that I might get all that AND MORE with tube shocks. Before I spend $335 on shocks pl
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00109.html (9,936 bytes)

7. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: Dave1massey@cs.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:06:54 EDT
Run, don't walk, away from this one. The fenders are not designed to take this loading and will suffer for it. These conversions should all be rounded up and set ablaze! There is a modification to th
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00114.html (11,225 bytes)

8. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:39:06 -0700
Are they the same ? That's a serious question, I don't know the answer. But if the upper attachment point is radially farther from the original shock mount than the lever shock link attachment, then
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00117.html (8,926 bytes)

9. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Anthony Rhodes" <spamiam@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 22:41:03 -0400
-- Original Message -- Grunt, grunt, grunt. I want. I want. Whoah, slow down there boy. I'll have to get the hose! But hoping that this does not provoke more grunting, here is the product # for Revin
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00125.html (9,123 bytes)

10. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: Dave1massey@cs.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 19:09:37 EDT
Good point. I guess this would be called non-tangential forces that would be applying either for/aft of sideways force on the suspension bushings instead of used to dampen movements of the suspension
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00139.html (10,238 bytes)

11. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 16:36:28 -0700
I disagree, Dave. The force applied to the mount is a function of the speed of the trailing arm motion relative to the car, IOW how fast the shock is being compressed or extended, and of the amount
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00142.html (8,941 bytes)

12. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: Dave1massey@cs.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 20:06:20 EDT
That's the one I saw on the internet. I saw one in person in 1998 but I can't remember many specifics about it. Nuts and screws? ISTR that the picture on the Revington site showed the bolts passing t
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00144.html (9,915 bytes)

13. Re: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: Dave1massey@cs.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 20:35:42 EDT
Well, that is exactly what I meant. Perhaps if I had written "notwithstanding?" Since I was called away I ended my discourse a bit abruptly and meant there should be no differences other than increas
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00146.html (9,234 bytes)

14. RE: [TR] Considering tube shock conversion for 4A (score: 1)
Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:17:01 -0700
My apologies then, Dave. I misunderstood. Randall == This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register == http://www.vtr.org
/html/triumphs/2006-05/msg00147.html (8,088 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu