Hi Andy:
I don't disagree with your assessment of the fit of the Corvair shock, but
I can't agree with you that the use of a shock as fitted to these cars was
somehow irresponsible or unsafe. After all, there were millions of these
cars built. In fact there were over 1 million Corvairs built with this
system. A further note is that the Corvair didn't weigh much more than an
MG and enjoyed a rather similar front/back weight ratio due to the use of
an aluminum engine/transaxle. Corvairs were extensively raced and rallied,
again using this form of axle limiting.
The shocks used were specific to this car and undoubtedly were designed to
function in this manner, but I have to wonder which is stronger - a solid
metal shaft firmly attached to a machined piston sliding in a metal tube
and lubricated by oil, or a length of rubber and fabric belting exposed to
the elements?
John
>John McEwen wrote:
>> There have been some cars which used the shock aborber as the axle travel
>> limiter. Specifically, the Chev Corvair did this.
>
>...snip...
>
>> This would imply that one shouldn't be too afraid of the shock being
>> exposed to the stress of occasional over-extension.
>
>John, I respectfully disagree that it is OK to use a shock absorber as
>the rise limiter. That may have been the case on the Corvair, NSU and
>Fiat that you mentioned. I would personally endeavor to avoid this
>scenario if at all possible. You may want to check with the individual
>manufacturers to determine the validity, but I'm sticking with axle
>straps. That way I don't risk damage to the shock or the mounting
>bolts, regardless of the shock's capabilities.
>
>I suggest that
>> considering weight and load factors, the Corvair shock would be a good
>> choice if it is still readily available.
>
>I also respectfully disagree with this for the following reasons. The
>weight and load of the Corvair at the rear - being a rear engined car -
>is substantially greater than that of the MGB/MGBGT. It is likely that
>the valving for compression and rebound on such a shock would be
>entirely inappropriate for this application. Moreover, without knowing
>the shock dimensions, it is not safe to say that a Corvair shock is a
>viable candidate for fitment on the rear of an MGB.
>
>> Secondly, any auto good parts outlet should be able to look up your
>> requirements, - upper and lower mount types, extended maximum length,
>> collapsed length, maximum diameter if required - and give you a variety of
>> shocks and manufacturers which will fit your requirements. This info is
>> readily available and very valuable to modifiers.
>
>This is true and like Dave Tietz, I did spend some time looking for
>appropriate substitutes other than the Colt option. From what I could
>tell, the Colt shocks are the easiest out-of-the-box application. I
>would however encourage listers to look for other alternatives as well
>and post these to the list.
>
>Andy
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>Andy Ramm
>A silver face in a tweed world.
>Remove obvious spam filter from email address when replying.
>"What we play is the blues, straight from the delta, and I believe we'll
>make it on that," B.B. King
>
>
>By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and
>Sec.227(b)(3)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement
>to this equipment. A violation of the aforementioned Section is
>punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
>is greater, for each violation.
|