[tony sayer]

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17632188
--
Tony Sayer

[Bob Eager[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:08:30 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17632188

I love that the BBC showed the clip from Spinal Tap, and had an interview
with the Spinal Tap creator..



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Richard Tobin]

In article ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.

-- Richard

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.

-- Richard

Fortunately it only affected people people, and for us antisocial
unpeople people it never proved an issue.

For unpeople people the greatest danger of course is the Ipod/Walkman
style earphones which are routinely capable of subjecting the ear to a
far higher sound pressure and for far more hours in a day than a
Marshall stack ever did.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...

In article ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.


People have proven conclusively that by behaving unwisely, they were able to
destroy their hearing with amplifiers that max out in the range of a few
dozen milliwatts.

With technical power often comes the ability to do good or ill, to oneself,
and others.

I'm not ready to criticize Henry Ford for making the automobile more
available to the masses, despite the grievous damage that has been done with
them.

[Steve Firth]

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.

Pardon?

[Steve Firth]

tony sayer wrote:
Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17632188

One hopes that his grave will be marked by a black granite replica of a
Marshall speaker stack and that he gets plot number 11.

[Michael Chare[_2_]]

On 06/04/2012 13:08, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard wrote in message
...

In ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.


People have proven conclusively that by behaving unwisely, they were able to
destroy their hearing with amplifiers that max out in the range of a few
dozen milliwatts.

With technical power often comes the ability to do good or ill, to oneself,
and others.

I'm not ready to criticize Henry Ford for making the automobile more
available to the masses, despite the grievous damage that has been done with
them.


Perhaps you are on the side of the American car industry trying to
discredit Ralph Nadar so that they could continue to make dangerous
vehicles.



--
Michael Chare

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Michael Chare" mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2012 13:08, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard wrote in message
...

In ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.


People have proven conclusively that by behaving unwisely, they were able
to
destroy their hearing with amplifiers that max out in the range of a few
dozen milliwatts.

With technical power often comes the ability to do good or ill, to
oneself,
and others.

I'm not ready to criticize Henry Ford for making the automobile more
available to the masses, despite the grievous damage that has been done
with
them.


Perhaps you are on the side of the American car industry trying to
discredit Ralph Nadar so that they could continue to make dangerous
vehicles.

Umm "continue to make dangerous vehicles"?

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that was so
1960s.

[Michael Chare[_2_]]

On 06/04/2012 18:03, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael Chare"mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2012 13:08, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard wrote in message
...

In ,

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds
we heard and still hear...

And without whom, many people would be able to hear a lot
better than they can.


People have proven conclusively that by behaving unwisely, they were able
to
destroy their hearing with amplifiers that max out in the range of a few
dozen milliwatts.

With technical power often comes the ability to do good or ill, to
oneself,
and others.

I'm not ready to criticize Henry Ford for making the automobile more
available to the masses, despite the grievous damage that has been done
with
them.


Perhaps you are on the side of the American car industry trying to
discredit Ralph Nadar so that they could continue to make dangerous
vehicles.

Umm "continue to make dangerous vehicles"?

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that was so
1960s.


It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his
book "Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.



--
Michael Chare

[Phil Allison[_2_]]

"Michael Chare"

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that was
so
1960s.


It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his book
"Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.


** That was due to one chapter where he severely criticised the Chevrolet
Corvair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair

The car was crappy and unsafe in an accident, but so was the VW beetle and
many others at the time.



.... Phil

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare"

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that
was so
1960s.

It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his
book "Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.

** That was due to one chapter where he severely criticised the Chevrolet
Corvair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair

The car was crappy and unsafe in an accident, but so was the VW beetle and
many others at the time.

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles
on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was only
part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was for
the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear
suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault
Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most
seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared to
it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was
still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or
intentionally.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change. The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:51:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.


Worst car for this was probably the old Corvette with its transverse
leaf spring. You were taking your life in your hands at any speed over
30. Add the all-round drum brakes and it was pretty much a car
designed for suicides.

d

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change.

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of
swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied.
The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of
manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable,
probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and
constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the
suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its
shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit
on the ball.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a
good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which
cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good
thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the
pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the
sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under
the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself
after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under
control.

Anyone remember the Triumph Spitfire? Based on the Herald? Could tuck a
rear wheel right under during enthusiastic cornering. I mention this only
to revive the famous Doug Blain (editor, Car magazine in the sixties)
caption on a photo of a Spitfire misbehaving - "Hark, the Herald axles
swing..." Oh well, perhaps that's why they ere called the Swinging Sixties.

Geoff MacK

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:45:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare"

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the
world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that
was so
1960s.

It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his
book "Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.

** That was due to one chapter where he severely criticised the Chevrolet
Corvair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair

The car was crappy and unsafe in an accident, but so was the VW beetle and
many others at the time.

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles
on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was only
part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was for
the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear
suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault
Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most
seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared to
it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was
still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or
intentionally.

IIRC my old Dinky car toys had a similar suspension. They wouldn't go
in a straight line either.

Nick

[Max Demian]

"Nick Odell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:45:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles
on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was
only
part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was
for
the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear
suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault
Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most
seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared
to
it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was
still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or
intentionally.

IIRC my old Dinky car toys had a similar suspension. They wouldn't go
in a straight line either.

I used to like the ones that steered when you pressed the front down on one
side or the other, but my brother objected that a real car would sink down
on the other side.

--
Max Demian

[Steve Thackery]

Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar
spring?

--
SteveT

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Worst car for this was probably the old Corvette with its transverse
leaf spring. You were taking your life in your hands at any speed over
30.

I'm not sure which Corvette you are talking about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

a.. C1 (1953-1962):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs.
Rear: Rigid axle supported by leaf springs and longitudinal control
links.[1]

a.. C2 (1963-1967), C3 (1968-1982):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs.
Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by
a centrally mounted leaf spring.[2]

a.. C4 (1984-1996):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.
Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by
a centrally mounted fiberglass mono-leaf spring.

a.. C5 (1997-2004), C6 (2005-):
Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.
Rear: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse
fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect


Are you thinking of the Corvettes with the transverse leaf spring? If so
there were also upper and lower control arms.

Add the all-round drum brakes and it was pretty much a car
designed for suicides.

My daily drivers had 4 wheel drum brakes from 1962 to 1971, with occasional
drives since then in legacy vehicles with 4 wheel drums since then. If dry,
in good adjustment, adequately sized and with good linings and drums, not
all that bad. Of course I'd prefer discs.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the bar
and accepts a vertical force. At zero displacement the spring has a long
horizontal lever arm for vertical travel. As you rotate the arm, the lever
arm shortens in the plan view and increases the effective spring rate. If
you actually rotate the arm 90 degrees, spring rate approaches infinity and
pushing harder will result in no additional rotation, but you may break the
whole thing lose from its mountings.

Automotive suspensions are among those things that generally work better if
highly nonlinear. One alternative to torsion bars is additional springs that
engage and resist travel as the displacement increases. A common example is
called a "jounce bumper". the bumper is usually made out of rubber and may
include voids and/or be pyramid-shaped to add nonlinearity.

http://www.gasgoo.com/auto-products/...14.html#img400

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:38:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the bar
and accepts a vertical force. At zero displacement the spring has a long
horizontal lever arm for vertical travel. As you rotate the arm, the lever
arm shortens in the plan view and increases the effective spring rate. If
you actually rotate the arm 90 degrees, spring rate approaches infinity and
pushing harder will result in no additional rotation, but you may break the
whole thing lose from its mountings.

Automotive suspensions are among those things that generally work better if
highly nonlinear. One alternative to torsion bars is additional springs that
engage and resist travel as the displacement increases. A common example is
called a "jounce bumper". the bumper is usually made out of rubber and may
include voids and/or be pyramid-shaped to add nonlinearity.

http://www.gasgoo.com/auto-products/...14.html#img400


Today's formula 1 cars use torsion bar suspension. As you say the
non-linearity is valuable. A rising rate spring is exactly what you
want - far better than the linear spring plus bump rubber. Issigonis
designed the "dry" mini with rising rate rubber cone suspension.

d

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Steve Thackery wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

that is not what he actually SAID..he said the suspension was non linear.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change. The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results
would be.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.
--
JohnT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
My daily drivers had 4 wheel drum brakes from 1962 to 1971, with
occasional drives since then in legacy vehicles with 4 wheel drums
since then. If dry, in good adjustment, adequately sized and with good
linings and drums, not all that bad. Of course I'd prefer discs.

My '58 two ton Bentley had drum brakes. It could do a 'crash' stop from
its top speed of 115 mph quite happily, although they would smoke quite a
bit. Fronts were twin trailing shoe with a massive mechanical servo.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
JohnT wrote:
Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension
could be made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30
years to work out how to do the same.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

No they didn't. Simple trailing arm rear suspension - ok after a fashion
for FWD, but useless for RWD. But even with their 'power' suspension, the
car bucked like a bronco between engine pulling and braking - even with
such a modest power engine.

--
*Is there another word for synonym?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Steve Thackery]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the
bar and accepts a vertical force.

Ah, thank you! I was wondering how you could make the torsion bar
non-linear (I don't think you can, realistically), but of course it's
simple to build it into the linkage in the way you describe.

Thanks, Arny.

--
SteveT

[Steve Thackery]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


that is not what he actually SAID..he said the suspension was non linear.

Yes, thank you, I've responded to him.

--
SteveT

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000
miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of
crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was,
err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly
improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far
worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a
Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the
most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket.
Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of
course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either
accidentally or intentionally.

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually
front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much
uncontrolled camber change. The only reason it was chosen for rear
suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the
results
would be.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could
be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could
be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work
out how to do the same.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension
could
be
made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to
work
out how to do the same.

Citroën did it properly in 1955.

Controversial.

Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35 years
later.

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different car
being FWD.

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't have a
lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the pavement! ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35
years later.

Not much difference between 35 and 50 at my age. ;-)

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different
car being FWD.

At least it was still a VW, unlike the Mini. ;-)

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Porsche did it in 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen

And near 50 years later, the Beetle finally got half decent rear
suspension...

The Super Beetle was a true update but came in 1971 which was only 35
years later.

Not much difference between 35 and 50 at my age. ;-)

I can't think what car or development aligns with 1986 (1936+50) .

The New Beetle came 62 years later (1998) and was a completely different
car being FWD.

At least it was still a VW, unlike the Mini. ;-)

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.


Agreed.
trailing arms and a rear beam is..vile.
the original mini with its traling arms and IIRC a sort of wishbone
arrangement was infinitely superior. Minis were almost impossible to get
into a silly state, but the Morris 1100 was easy to get into a tail
slapper on a trailing throttle. Vile.
I think the second best FWD I have driven was the Punto. Oddly enough
that cornered very predictably. Golfs were not bad either ISTR.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.


Agreed.
trailing arms and a rear beam is..vile.
the original mini with its traling arms and IIRC a sort of wishbone
arrangement was infinitely superior. Minis were almost impossible to get
into a silly state, but the Morris 1100 was easy to get into a tail
slapper on a trailing throttle. Vile.

If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the same
type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection was more
about comfort than handling, though.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

FWD cars typically have relatively primitive rear suspensions and still
handle pretty well because the rear suspension of a FWD car doesn't
have a lot to do but keep the rear bumper from dragging on the
pavement! ;-)

That's what many makers would have you believe as it keeps costs down.

In a former life I was an automotive engineer in a department that did
development of future cars for one of the USA big 3.

Part of that job was suspension design and analysis. It is hard to
effectively lie to me about steering and suspension design. ;-)

But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well on
reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms and a
beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for keeping the
wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very important for developing
maximum cornering force. If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can
be kept low. Get the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and
you have a nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets ****ed
in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises come when
encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.


Agreed.
trailing arms and a rear beam is..vile.
the original mini with its traling arms and IIRC a sort of wishbone
arrangement was infinitely superior. Minis were almost impossible to get
into a silly state, but the Morris 1100 was easy to get into a tail
slapper on a trailing throttle. Vile.

If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the same
type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection was more
about comfort than handling, though.

well that's as may be, - perhaps the weight transfer and compliances
were just plain WRONG on the 1100.

I remember it being somewhat better on the Maxi I drove once briefly.

But it is always in the detail I (still have) a spitfire which was
retrofitted with a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. That car with
lowered stiffened fronts and an uprated front roll bar would do splendid
4 wheel drifts.

An unmodified spitfire was - interesting - you had to anticipate the
oversteer as te camber changed, steer into it, and once the suspension
settled than hammer the loud pedal to get some approximation to fast
cornering. Throwing it into a corner was simply asking for trouble.. but
a smooth entry radially loading it up with some decent shocks on made it
not the worse car I have ever driven...





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well
on reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

No suspension at all can work quite well on a smooth surface.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms
and a beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for
keeping the wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very
important for developing maximum cornering force.

A beam axle keeps the wheels parallel to each other, but that's about all.
With body roll - and in practice all cars do this - the important thing is
to get the relationship between the wheel taking the load and the pavement
correct. Which a beam axle is poor at.


If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can be kept low. Get
the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and you have a
nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets
****ed in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises
come when encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

That is true. But it can be done.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the
same type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection
was more about comfort than handling, though.

well that's as may be, - perhaps the weight transfer and compliances
were just plain WRONG on the 1100.

Not my memory at all.

I remember it being somewhat better on the Maxi I drove once briefly.

But it is always in the detail I (still have) a spitfire which was
retrofitted with a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. That car with
lowered stiffened fronts and an uprated front roll bar would do splendid
4 wheel drifts.

It's possible to make any car handle if you effectively stop the
suspension moving - on a smooth road. Getting one which is comfortable and
handles well on a rough one takes skill.

An unmodified spitfire was - interesting - you had to anticipate the
oversteer as te camber changed, steer into it, and once the suspension
settled than hammer the loud pedal to get some approximation to fast
cornering. Throwing it into a corner was simply asking for trouble.. but
a smooth entry radially loading it up with some decent shocks on made it
not the worse car I have ever driven...

The Herald on which it was based was lethal.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the
same type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection
was more about comfort than handling, though.

well that's as may be, - perhaps the weight transfer and compliances
were just plain WRONG on the 1100.

Not my memory at all.

I remember it being somewhat better on the Maxi I drove once briefly.

But it is always in the detail I (still have) a spitfire which was
retrofitted with a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. That car with
lowered stiffened fronts and an uprated front roll bar would do splendid
4 wheel drifts.

It's possible to make any car handle if you effectively stop the
suspension moving - on a smooth road. Getting one which is comfortable and
handles well on a rough one takes skill.

An unmodified spitfire was - interesting - you had to anticipate the
oversteer as te camber changed, steer into it, and once the suspension
settled than hammer the loud pedal to get some approximation to fast
cornering. Throwing it into a corner was simply asking for trouble.. but
a smooth entry radially loading it up with some decent shocks on made it
not the worse car I have ever driven...

The Herald on which it was based was lethal.

I had two of em (heralds) and loved em, but you needed to take care.

They COULD be hustled along, but you needed a deft touch.

Turning circle was to die for.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[Arny Krueger[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

But the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.

Right, but doing whatever you are doing right is far more important than
which general setup you pick.

Even longitudinal leaf springs with a live axle done right can work well
on reasonably smooth surfaces. High unsprung weight only matters on bad
surfaces, which unfortunately seems to prevail these days.

No suspension at all can work quite well on a smooth surface.

Yes. However, that kind of perfection is not required for a longitudinal
leaf springs with a live axle done right rear suspension to be effective.

They do loose traction on rough roads, badly.

For example people like to **** on FWD cars with simple trailing arms
and a beam axle at the rear. However the beam axle is unsurpassed for
keeping the wheels near vertical to the pavement which is very
important for developing maximum cornering force.

A beam axle keeps the wheels parallel to each other, but that's about all.

That's why you need to be careful with how you do the trailing arms.

Its all about things like roll center. Pick that right and the not only will
the wheels be parallel to each other, they will be perpendicular to the
pavement. Hitting those two goals goes a long way towards good cornering.
Most of the rest of the discussion then becomes about fore/aft balance of
which a great deal relies on the front suspension.

With body roll - and in practice all cars do this - the important thing is
to get the relationship between the wheel taking the load and the pavement
correct.

Agreed.

Which a beam axle is poor at.

Disagreed.

If the wheels are not powered, unsprung weight can be kept low. Get
the trailing arm geometry right which is often done, and you have a
nice vehicle - stable but still adequately nimble.

The gold standard is upper and lower control arms, but that soup gets
****ed in at least as often as it is done right. ;-) Many compromises
come when encroachments on the passengers and luggauge are to be avoided.

That is true. But it can be done.

So can the two variants of the beam axle we've discussed. I've owned
vehicles that handled well on even rough roads with unpowered beam
axle/trailing arm rear suspensions.

Just because someone screws up a car, doesn't mean that every technology it
embodies is inherently flawed.