mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Shocks as travel stops

To: "Robert Allen" <boballen@sky.net>,
Subject: Re: Shocks as travel stops
From: Mike Edmonds <edmondsm@concentric.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 98 15:30:07 -0700
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that with many systems, 
especially those using coil springs rather than leaf springs, that the 
tube shock was the suspension travel stop. As I recall, the Ford Fairmont 
used coil springs and tube shocks in the rear (it was not a MacPherson 
strut), and didn't have anything else (other than the shock) to act a 
suspension travel stop.

Maybe my memory is going . . .

Thanks.

>Bill Eastman wrote:
>
>> Telescopic shocks are the travel stop on virtualy every leaf spring solid
>> axle car made in America.
>
>I didn't really hold much interest in this thread until I saw the opportunity
>to disagree with Eastman. Awhile back on the Triumph List (or so I've heard)
>there was a great amount of clamoring, preaching and breast beating about 
>tube
>shock conversions for the TR6.
>
>The pursits check in that, with the lever shock arrangement, there is a clear
>bump stop for the suspension (over) travel. Converting to tube shocks would
>eliminate this and, therefore, be a bad thing.
>
>As for Mr. Eastman's observation, I have changed a few shocks on leaf spring
>cars and I have never had any problem with the rear suspension dropping any
>more when the shocks were removed. I, therefore, conclude that the leaf 
>spring
>arrangment some how limits the full rebound direction of suspension travel. I
>believe it does this through its mounting to the car at each end of the 
>spring.
>
>PS: Say, Bill, did you sell another one of those neck-splinting torture 
>systems
>to that football player?
>--
>Bob Allen, Kansas City, '69CGT, '75TR6, '61Elva(?)
>"An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the
>grand fallacy."
>
>

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