At 3:01 PM -0600 6/5/2000, Max Heim wrote:
>Performance-wise, my understanding is that the lever shocks are not as
>effective at rebound control as tube shocks. This may be what creates the
>subjective impression of a better ride.
My understanding is that the valving design and tolerances of tube
shocks, in their more expensive and higher-tech incarnations, are
better suited to performance applications. There are things like
dual valving, gas pressurization, etc. that weren't dreamed of when
LBC moved from friction dampers to hydraulic lever shocks.
From a basic perspective, efficient shocks should dissipate heat
created in absorbing energy/damping motion (the oil in cheap shocks
thins and flows more readily as it heats, decreasing its
effectiveness), and shock fluid should not aerate. It seems to me
that lever shocks are adequate in these areas in day-to-day driving,
but cannot compete (even with competition valves and heavier fluid)
with quality tube shocks on the race track, the Baja 1000, or serious
rally driving. The goal is to keep the tires in contact with the
road and maintain the balance/ control of the car
As an aside, I went to tube rear shocks for budget reasons (I got an
almost new Moss kit cheap). I really didn't like the Monroe shocks
that came with the kit (bone-jarring and not nearly as compliant as
the fronts), so got a couple of Sears shocks speced for a
mid-Eighties Colt. See the article at
http://www.mgb.bc.ca/service/rear-shock.html for more info on shocks.
I've been really happy with the result on the street. Also got a set
of Panasport wheels with Michelin Rainforce tires--quite comfortable,
and seems to have lower unsprung weight than stock steel wheels--a
much better ride.
--
Chris Attias
'64 MGB
'84 Alfa Romeo GTV-6
|