Interesting "friction shock" setup
- Thread starter 11290slk
- Start date
choppinczech
Well-Known Member
I like that. It would also help to keep the axle centered if you're using cross steering.
Hackerbilt
Active Member
My roadster was originally set up with something like that.
Granted this is much higher quality AND makes use of two friction pads per wheel, where mine used only one.
Mine allowed the wheels to "tramp" at highway speeds.
I'm still a bit weary of this design to tell the truth.
I made a new setup that used shorter arms mounted farther away from the cars centerline and also used two pads per shock.
Tramping is completely gone now.
Also...take note this setup uses a kind of extra shackle, off the spring shackle, to keep the shock from binding the suspension. Thats good!
Just using an extended spring shackle and directly bolting the shock will create a problem that could eventually shear off a spring perch.
It did just that for the previous owner of my T, who eventually used two heim joints per shock to create the needed flexibility the previous installation lacked.
Not trying to rain on any parade...just offering my experience with something similar.
Granted this is much higher quality AND makes use of two friction pads per wheel, where mine used only one.
Mine allowed the wheels to "tramp" at highway speeds.
I'm still a bit weary of this design to tell the truth.
I made a new setup that used shorter arms mounted farther away from the cars centerline and also used two pads per shock.
Tramping is completely gone now.
Also...take note this setup uses a kind of extra shackle, off the spring shackle, to keep the shock from binding the suspension. Thats good!
Just using an extended spring shackle and directly bolting the shock will create a problem that could eventually shear off a spring perch.
It did just that for the previous owner of my T, who eventually used two heim joints per shock to create the needed flexibility the previous installation lacked.
Not trying to rain on any parade...just offering my experience with something similar.
one finger john
Active Member
I think that you should just be done with it and put in two hydraulic shocks instead of the two arms with the friction pads.
No? Si? Juan
No? Si? Juan
Hackerbilt
Active Member
Well...you're not gonna beat the consistant control and durability of a hydraulic shock with a friction setup thats for sure.
I like the look and simplicity of them though, and on a tight T front suspension they are usually enough...as long as they are adjusted and positioned properly of course.
Hackerbilt
Active Member
Believe it or not, I used rubber discs cut from a left over section of rad hose!
Had to shorten the new hose I picked up for the T so I sliced the leftover lengthwise to make a flat section and sandwiched it between some scrap plywood.
Used a hole saw to gently drill thru the sandwich.
For preload springs I used door hinge catch springs off an S10 Blazer.
Haven't had to put a wrench to them in 3 summers of driving.
Worked out really good!
tfeverfred
Well-Known Member
When I built the first version of "Miss Behavin'", I used Total Performance friction shocks. I rarely had to adjust them. After her accident, I went with conventional shocks. The ride seemed better, but not by a lot. I think a large part of the friction shocks problem, may just be that they don't look like they'd work. People are used to and accept conventional shocks because that's what they're used to seeing.
From Wiki:
The damping rate for frictional dampers has less than ideal behaviour for car suspension. An ideal suspension would offer more damping to greater suspension forces, with less damping at low speeds for a smoother ride. Frictional dampers though had a mostly constant rate. This was even greater when stationary, owing to stiction between stationary plates.[1][7] For larger bumps the damping may even be reduced. This is particularly a problem for fast driving, when repeated high forces may cause the friction plates to heat up and lose their efficiency.
Motor racing in the 1930s was often an amateur affair, where sports cars would be driven to racetracks such as Brooklands, adjusted in the paddock to their racing trim and then raced. It was normal to re-adjust the damping between "road" and "race" settings.
The need for adjustable damping was so great that it was even useful to provide a means of adjusting this whilst driving. This was a feature only used on luxury cars, often larger cars that might need to set their suspension for varying numbers of passengers. Stiffness could be increased between "town" and a stiffer setting for the faster open road. These dampers were best known under the Telecontrol brand name. A hydraulic control, with an inflatable rubber bag in the disk pack, could be used to increase the clamping force and thus their damping stiffness.[8]
One of the major reasons for the decline of frictional dampers post-war, in favour of hydraulic lever arms, was the hydraulic damper's better change of rate with suspension amplitude. Hydraulic dampers had a resistance that inherently increased with velocity of suspension movement, a far more useful behaviour. This useful inherent behaviour meant that manual adjustment was far less necessary, certainly not whilst driving.
But that setup is certainly different and clean!
The damping rate for frictional dampers has less than ideal behaviour for car suspension. An ideal suspension would offer more damping to greater suspension forces, with less damping at low speeds for a smoother ride. Frictional dampers though had a mostly constant rate. This was even greater when stationary, owing to stiction between stationary plates.[1][7] For larger bumps the damping may even be reduced. This is particularly a problem for fast driving, when repeated high forces may cause the friction plates to heat up and lose their efficiency.
Motor racing in the 1930s was often an amateur affair, where sports cars would be driven to racetracks such as Brooklands, adjusted in the paddock to their racing trim and then raced. It was normal to re-adjust the damping between "road" and "race" settings.
The need for adjustable damping was so great that it was even useful to provide a means of adjusting this whilst driving. This was a feature only used on luxury cars, often larger cars that might need to set their suspension for varying numbers of passengers. Stiffness could be increased between "town" and a stiffer setting for the faster open road. These dampers were best known under the Telecontrol brand name. A hydraulic control, with an inflatable rubber bag in the disk pack, could be used to increase the clamping force and thus their damping stiffness.[8]
One of the major reasons for the decline of frictional dampers post-war, in favour of hydraulic lever arms, was the hydraulic damper's better change of rate with suspension amplitude. Hydraulic dampers had a resistance that inherently increased with velocity of suspension movement, a far more useful behaviour. This useful inherent behaviour meant that manual adjustment was far less necessary, certainly not whilst driving.
But that setup is certainly different and clean!
old round fart
Well-Known Member
Gerry, are the ends of the arms slotted? How is the difference in length of arm accounted for with movement?
old round fart
Well-Known Member
Does it have a bearing or just bushing? I love this kind of stuff!
old round fart
Well-Known Member
Nice thanks
Similar threads
