Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
^^^ Well thats helpful then!! Its been said before that "i've got a secret but am not going to tell anyone"!!! Maybe the best option
if you arent prepared to help anyone with anything to do with suspension theory that you dont tell people that they are wrong without pointing out
why.
|
|
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 10:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
As for long diatribes to substantiate my statements, they just won't happen. I've made this clear many times previously. As this all
overlaps with my work, I am not about to give away openly on the i'net, what I get paid for, regardless of how inconsequential or relevant it
may be.
Well, no surprises there, then!
I can well understand the secrecy bit, I am working on a project of my own which I would not dream of discussing on the internet.
What I don't understand is why you need to keep appearing on this forum saying that other people are wrong?
For instance, this thread-
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=91832&page=2
Matt at Procomp is frequently to be found on the other side of the fence from me, but at least he does provide useful and usable information for
everybody to use.
I like to think that I help a little bit as well, and I don't think you will find that I have ever said that anyone else was talkng rubbish, I
just put forward my own ideas and experience for people to use, consider, argue with, ignore as they please.
Any more anecdotes about the people you've 'helped privately' that you would like to share?
John
[Edited on 25/9/08 by mr henderson]
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 10:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
The unsprung weight of a wheel (and anything rigidly attached to it such as an axle) controls a trade-off between a wheel's bump-following
ability and its vibration isolation. Bumps and surface imperfections in the road cause tire compression--which induces a force on the unsprung weight.
In time, the unsprung weight then responds to this force with movement of its own. The amount of movement is inversely proportional to the weight -
John
Ok you wanted some extra on why I consider the above to be 'uninformed anecdotal evidence'. Here goes, I'll just comment on that
little bit above...
The 'vibration isolation' bit has me puzzled. Is it referring to it's oscillation frequency, or dealing with small road surface
variations? Both are very different, and dealt with differently.
Then there is the compresson in the tyre...This depends on a number of factors. Tyre pressure for one, then aspect ratio, sidewall stiffness, total
corner weight,....it goes on. Just altering pressure changes things immensely.
The tyre compression then reacts against the unsprung weight...true, but not before the system as a whole has seen its force. This statement takes no
account of spring stiffnesses, which are vital to the oscillation frequencies of the system, of which the tyre is also seen as a part of the springing
system. This then affects the ability of the system to transmit the impulse loads experienced by the tyre.
'a lighter wheel which readily moves in response to road bumps will have more grip when tracking over an imperfect road.' Not so on every
occasion. Again, it depends on what forces the wheel is seeing, and the frequencies of the springing system as a whole, and the forces acting. A light
wheel with a light load, will be subject to much higher displacements than a heavy item on a lot of occasions. But this all depends on tyres and
aspect ratios, and sidewall stiffnesses, and again, pressures, which play a very large part.
Then you have to throw dampers and their valving ratios in, which change all of the above parameters again, some in a very marked and major way.
You see, some of my work is with vehicles that run on non sealed surfaces, and dealing with all of the above can be a nightmare, at times. Then there
are the gents who drive them.......
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 10:20 AM |
|
|
Syd, you are just picking on various parts of an article (not a thesis, or a book, but a comparatively short encyclopedia article) and saying that it
doesn't deal with other relevant (to suspension systems in general) factors.
What you haven't shown is that the article is actually wrong in any respect. And considering what you said about it originally........
I did say earlier that there was a separate article about shock absorbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_absorber
John
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
If that much of the article is wrong, then the sweeping statement that 7 type cars with live axles being skittish, follows suit.
You cannot separate the different bits, as they all work together and effect each other.
I can be given two identical live axle cars, and set one up to be very loose, oversteer, be 'skittish', and the other to push, or
understeer, profoundly. Two complete opposites on identical cars. It's just a matter of knowing what to do to achieve each setup. And there I
end.
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 04:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
If that much of the article is wrong, then the sweeping statement that 7 type cars with live axles being skittish, follows suit.
You cannot separate the different bits, as they all work together and effect each other.
I can be given two identical live axle cars, and set one up to be very loose, oversteer, be 'skittish', and the other to push, or
understeer, profoundly. Two complete opposites on identical cars. It's just a matter of knowing what to do to achieve each setup. And there I
end.
Cheers,
Syd.
So you couldn't find anything wrong with that article then. That's good, just wanted to get that cleared up.
I'm happy to finish this thread up now too.
John
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 25/9/08 at 09:04 PM |
|
|
Now, Fozzie dear has given me a ticking off for inferring someone was a moron, and I must use polite words and keep my aussie bush sense of humour out
of things.......I'll do my best.
Mr.Henderson, you are either being deliberately difficult, or you are having difficulty understanding what I've written.
Either way, you quite obviously have some sort of problem.
To come to the conclusion you have, after what I wrote showing that several points in that article are inaccurate, and thereby the sweeping statements
are also inaccurate, is beyond my comprehension.
If you must be right all the time, and never wrong, then you must be right this time also.
Anyone with half an ounce of knowledge of car setup practice will readily understand what I wrote previously.
If I say any more I'll get another beating by Foz, with a stick!
Lets just leave things as they are. I'll let you win this one, in your own mind at least.
Cheers,
Syd.
[Edited on 26/9/08 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 26/9/08 at 06:58 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Lets just leave things as they are. I'll let you win this one, in your own mind at least.
Cheers,
Syd.
[Edited on 25/9/08 by Syd Bridge]
I hadn't realised that we were in a competition here.
Never-the-less, and at the risk of labouring the point, I have challenged you to show me what is actually wrong in that article on unsprung weight,
the article that your referred to earlier as, and I quote, "Who wrote that total load of bollocks?"
Anyway, I challenged you to show me what is wrong with it and you have wriggled like a worm on a hook. The best you have come up with so far is to say
that it missed out certain elements that you think should have been included. A far cry from 'total load of bollocks, isn't it?
But that is typical of you. Rubbish everything that anyone else has to say anout suspension, but you have nothing to say except to plead secrecy when
asked for your version of the truth.
John
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 26/9/08 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
See my last post above. ^No more to add.
Cheers,
Syd.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 26/9/08 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
See my last post above. ^No more to add.
Cheers,
Syd.
That was already obvious. Still, the main thing here is that people looking at the article in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass
can rely on the information contained not being a "total load of bollocks" at all.
John
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 13/10/08 at 02:39 AM |
|
|
Yaaawn......
Just meet up in an Asda carpark somewhere and have it out.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 13/10/08 at 06:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MakeEverything
Yaaawn......
Just meet up in an Asda carpark somewhere and have it out.
What a particularly pointless contribution!
As far as everybody else is concerned this thread is dead and buried, but for some reason you have to dig it up and make some completely useless
addition to it! If you've nothing useful to say, then perhaps you should say...........
John
[Edited on 13/10/08 by mr henderson]
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 13/10/08 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
I really don't want to resurrect a dead post, but in my limited experience (only built 2 book Locosts), the first car was (still is) very
skittish. We used original book dimensions with short(11" ) trailing arms and 180lb springs. The second we made 11 1/2" trailing arms and
used 150lb springs. The difference was surprising! Everyone who has driven or been a passenger in the second car has commented how well planted it is
despite its 15" wheels and 50 profile tyres. I've driven far more unstable IRS cars which no amount of tweaking could improve and I think
my live car is as close to optimum as I can make it. I'm not picking sides here, but just a couple of real world observations to try and help
the OP.
[Edited on 13/10/08 by Marcus]
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
