mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Important Shock Absorber Follow Up Info (longish)

To: John McEwen <mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Important Shock Absorber Follow Up Info (longish)
From: Andy Ramm <aramm@concentric.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:57:32 -0800
John,

Thanks for the reply.  You may be correct that the shocks are more than
sturdy enough to handle the task of limiting the rear end.  All I can
say is that I'm using fresh axle straps and will stick with these just
in case.  YMMV.

Cheers,

Andy

John McEwen wrote:
> 
> Hi Andy:
> 
> I don't disagree with your assessment of the fit of the Corvair shock, but
> I can't agree with you that the use of a shock as fitted to these cars was
> somehow irresponsible or unsafe.  After all, there were millions of these
> cars built.  In fact there were over 1 million Corvairs built with this
> system.  A further note is that the Corvair didn't weigh much more than an
> MG and enjoyed a rather similar front/back weight ratio due to the use of
> an aluminum engine/transaxle.  Corvairs were extensively raced and rallied,
> again using this form of axle limiting.
> 
> The shocks used were specific to this car and undoubtedly were designed to
> function in this manner, but I have to wonder which is stronger - a solid
> metal shaft firmly attached to a machined piston sliding in a metal tube
> and lubricated by oil, or a length of rubber and fabric belting exposed to
> the elements?
> 
> John
> 
> >John McEwen wrote:
> >> There have been some cars which used the shock aborber as the axle travel
> >> limiter.  Specifically, the Chev Corvair did this.
> >
> >...snip...
> >
> >> This would imply that one shouldn't be too afraid of the shock being
> >> exposed to the stress of occasional over-extension.
> >
> >John, I respectfully disagree that it is OK to use a shock absorber as
> >the rise limiter.  That may have been the case on the Corvair, NSU and
> >Fiat that you mentioned.  I would personally endeavor to avoid this
> >scenario if at all possible.  You may want to check with the individual
> >manufacturers to determine the validity, but I'm sticking with axle
> >straps.  That way I don't risk damage to the shock or the mounting
> >bolts, regardless of the shock's capabilities.
> >
> >I suggest that
> >> considering weight and load factors, the Corvair shock would be a good
> >> choice if it is still readily available.
> >
> >I also respectfully disagree with this for the following reasons.  The
> >weight and load of the Corvair at the rear - being a rear engined car -
> >is substantially greater than that of the MGB/MGBGT.  It is likely that
> >the valving for compression and rebound on such a shock would be
> >entirely inappropriate for this application.  Moreover, without knowing
> >the shock dimensions, it is not safe to say that a Corvair shock is a
> >viable candidate for fitment on the rear of an MGB.
> >
> >> Secondly, any auto good parts outlet should be able to look up your
> >> requirements, - upper and lower mount types, extended maximum length,
> >> collapsed length, maximum diameter if required - and give you a variety of
> >> shocks and manufacturers which will fit your requirements.  This info is
> >> readily available and very valuable to modifiers.
> >
> >This is true and like Dave Tietz, I did spend some time looking for
> >appropriate substitutes other than the Colt option.  From what I could
> >tell, the Colt shocks are the easiest out-of-the-box application.  I
> >would however encourage listers to look for other alternatives as well
> >and post these to the list.
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Andy Ramm
> >A silver face in a tweed world.
> >Remove obvious spam filter from email address when replying.
> >"What we play is the blues, straight from the delta, and I believe we'll
> >make it on that,"  B.B. King
> >
> >
> >By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and
> >Sec.227(b)(3)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement
> >to this equipment.  A violation of the aforementioned Section is
> >punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
> >is greater, for each violation.

-- 




Andy Ramm
A silver face in a tweed world.
Remove obvious spam filter from email address when replying.
"What we play is the blues, straight from the delta, and I believe we'll
make it on that,"  B.B. King


By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement
to this equipment.  A violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation.

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