Subject:
|
Re: Shock Absorbers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Sep 2002 03:17:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
857 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.technic, Gaurav Thakur writes:
> Turquoise small
> Teal small
These are, afaik, the same color: people differ on how to name what they see.
Instead of adding more shocks, how about adding more suspension arm? There's
a type which I *think* is called "walking beam", where the lower arm goes most
of the way across the vehicle. The chassis attachment for the left lower arm
is about where the pivot for the right wheel would be in a parallel-arm setup,
and vice-versa.
I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that Ford was advertising this as being a Big
Hairy Deal on their pickup trucks in the 1960s or 1970s, if you want to find
some examples. I don't recall why they did it, but what it would do for you
is greatly reduce the mechanical advantage that the front wheel has when
compressing the suspension. Probably to the point where you could cut back to
two shocks quite comfortably.
The shorter upper arm will do slightly unpleasant things to the wheel camber as
the suspension compresses, but it might still be okay for your purposes.
Ran
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: Shock Absorbers
|
| (...) Ford called it "Twin I-Beam" and it was supposed to add the stability of independent suspension while retaining the rigidity of a solid "straight" axle. Robert Powell (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Shock Absorbers
|
| Hi everyone; it has been several months since I last posted here. I have been very busy with real life matters and unfortunately had to take down my Technic set review website due to a lack of time; perhaps I will able to maintain it once again some (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|