My original statement of ' ..not much different....' at least in my case...
my problem was more one of spring rate for the bounce not my shocks
(which was the original reason for trying them).
Simply logic tells you tubes are better. Armstrongs have a 'dead zone'
..that small motion that must transpire before the valve reverses and
create any resistance in the opposite direction to the new direction of motion.
Tubes don't. What this amounts to, is Armstrongs will not smooth out
as small a motion as tubes will. Plain and simple. Physics is physics.
Tubes also exhibit a logarithmic rather than linear response to movement.
The farther the tube is compressed, usually results in greater damping
forces. An Armstrong's damping is the same regardless of position within
it's range of operational motion.
Hence a tube shock will smooth out greater, and smaller, bumps in
the road, better than an Armstrong ever could.
BUT! Now you need to apply the technology to the vehicle.
..'whole 'nother story!
Paul Tegler wizardz@toad.net http://www.teglerizer.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrie Robinson" <barrier@bconnex.net>
To: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>; <WSpohn4@aol.com>; <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: MGB Tube Shocks
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
Armstrongs.
>I bought rebuilt armstrongs from Moss.
>
>Great ride.
>
>Larry Hoy
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-mgs@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgs@autox.team.net]On
>>Behalf Of WSpohn4@aol.com
>>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:11 AM
>>To: mgs@autox.team.net
>>Subject: Re: MGB Tube Shocks
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 10/04/00 11:16:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
>>
>>> 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
arm
>>> 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
pitiful
>>situation he had before.
>>
>>Bill Spohn
>
>
Regards
Barrie Robinson
barrier@bconnex.net
|