sounds interesting, though I'm not really sure that from your description I
understood what you have planned. In any way, I'm sure a drawing would
reveal all that. You of course did that quite cunning to get all the
engineers on the list to start toying with an idea, which as engineers are
doesn't stop revolving in theri heads until they get some kind of
solution...
erm, could you drop me one of the jpg's?
Cheers, Gernot
> ----------
> From: Pete & Aprille Chadwell[SMTP:dynamic@transport.com]
> Look, folks.... I'm never gonna be able to do this by myself, if at
> all. So, I'm going to go ahead and "unveil" my concept for the ultimate,
> and indeed, PERFECT TR6 (TR4A-IRS/TR250/TR5) tube shock conversion. If
> you
> all think it's absurd and ridiculous, you might just be right.
> But if there are those who would like to see it become a reality,
> and are interested in helping in the development where appropriate, by all
> means let me know. I should say right here and now that I don't think
> there's any MONEY in it. I've done this mostly just for fun, 'cuz I like
> tinkering and designing things.
> Is it superfluous? Maybe. Is it costly? Most likely. Is it
> practical? Probably not. Does it present some challenging engineering
> problems regarding shock valving? Apparently, yes. But, is it brilliant?
> Well... I'll leave that up to the listerati...
> The design is inspired by so many formula and prototype race cars.
> It is also inspired by the complaints about the inadequacy of existing
> tube
> shock kits, and the complaints about lever shocks. Back to the race cars,
> any F1 buff knows that every F1 race car since the late 70's has
> spring/damper units that are actuated indirectly via either a pushrod or a
> pullrod. This does two things: It enables the designers to enclose the
> dampers within the nose cones of these cars to reduce aerodynamic drag, (a
> benefit we admittedly care NOTHING about) and it reduces unsprung weight.
> The latter is of some importance, at least in relation to the aerodynamic
> thing.
> A brief description of my design: Lever shock bodies would be
> replaced with a bolt-on "pivot bracket" of yet unknown construction.
> built
> into the pivot bracket would be a short, large diameter machined shaft.
> Also built into the pivot bracket would be an extension that, when
> installed, would extend downward and toward the center of the car,
> terminating under the rear diff cover. In place of the lever arm of the
> lever shocks would be a rather large bellcrank, again of unknown
> construction. This bellcrank would pivot around the same axis as the
> lever
> arm from the lever shock, and would have the same acting radius. Also, it
> would connect to the semi-trailing arm via the OEM drop-link. On the
> other
> end of the bellcrank would be mounted one end of a telescopic shock. The
> other "fixed" end of the shock would mount onto the end of that extension,
> near the centerline of the car under the rear diff cover. The entire
> assembly would fit within the space between the axle shaft and the rear
> crossmember. However, the extensions would drop below the diff... but they
> would not drop below the chassis. This system, it should be pointed out,
> makes use of the OEM rebound stops in exactly the same way as do the
> levers.
> Now, I've made many drawings and I've even built a model of a pivot
> bracket and installed it on the car. It FITS!! I've taken careful
> measurements and reproduced the drawings on the computer in an
> illustration
> program, TO SCALE, and I am convinced that, aside from a tweak here and a
> tweak there, this thing will fit and WORK.
> The important thing to note is that the motion ratio between the
> drop-link end of the bellcrank and the damper end of the bellcrank is NOT
> 1
> to 1. It's more like 1 to .49. This creates all kinds of interesting
> problems that are beyond my ability to resolve. To sum it up, the shock
> would have to be stiffer than otherwise to compensate for the mechanical
> advantage of the bellcrank over the shock.
> Although the shock would have to be fairly short, (10.75" at full
> bump and 13" at full rebound) I think the biggest obstacle will be the
> valving.
> It's a hair-brained idea, I know, but input is needed from experts
> in the following fields:
> Physics, shock absorber valving characteristics, welding/fabricating &
> machine work.
> Anyone who would like to tell me I'm nuts, please be gentle. All
> others who either are motivated to help make this thing or who just want
> to, well, tell me I'm nuts, throw cold water on me, tell me all the
> reasons
> why this just won't work, please go right ahead. Also, if you'd like me
> to
> e-mail you a .jpg image that shows the arrangement TO SCALE (25%) to
> satisfy your curiousity, let me know.
> Thank you.
>
> Pete "Am I Crazy Or What?" Chadwell
>
|