Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Front suspension design

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    sals54

    Comment


    • #17
      noun
      noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora

      I don't often post opinions anymore for a number of reasons but to post a question and then peel back and knock those that did exactly what the definition of this "August" body is to me troubling at the least. I see nowhere in that definition that only "True Experts" can discuss a topic. A number of the folks that answered this post have a long history of knowledgeable answers and in depth experience and "at least I" value their opinions and in site into any number of subjects discussed.

      I can't think of a better way to discourage discourse on a topic that what you just did here.

      If I've read you incorrectly, I'll apologize but if I didn't, than My fervent wish is that the Moderators condemn this entire post to the great intergalactic byte bucket and then we can get on with what the forum is structured to do.

      You will also note a smiley here to note that this post is in "good" fun also!!!!!

      Bob

      Comment


      • #18
        Troll: posting to illicit a response to make fun of, or belittle.
        Bez Auto Alchemy
        573-318-8948
        http://bezautoalchemy.com


        "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

        Comment


        • #19
          I guess I did not explain it well enough...

          I am sorry to anyone who misunderstood my intentions. I have no intentions of making fun of anyone's posts in this topic, nor do I belittle them in any way. I only wish to make the point that none of us is an "expert" in many/most of the areas we are talking about, experienced, yes, knowledgeable, yes, just not "expert". Therefore, we really need to show more tolerance for others answers, and not jump all over them, declaring our answer is the only true one. For myself, I usually put a disclaimer at the end of this type of post such as "JMHO", or "Just what I think", or "just my idea", or some such, when giving an "unqualified opinion".

          As for the definition of a forum, I got that, but in this case a specific request was made and ignored by almost everyone who responded. THAT WAS THE POINT! Simply to show that since we are NOT experts in the field of suspensions, we can only give opinions, about half of which will be wrong. BUT THAT'S OK, as long as we don't claim we are expert, therefore our answer is the only correct one. We need to admit our shortcomings, and our lack of qualifications when they exsist. It's just interesting to me to note how we insist we are correct, even when we are giving an unqualified opinion, and how we freely give that opinion as if it were fact. (Demanding that others accept that unqualified opinion, is another thing altogether, and a much worse breach of manners!)

          I know you feel tricked, and I apologize if you take that personally, it's in no way meant to point to any specific person or post. I myself violated this in my own posts! It was just a way to point out something we ALL do, but that we can do better, and perhaps cut down on the arguments and bickering over "unqualified opinions" that goes on here. You are right, it's a "Forum", we need to treat it as such, a place to exchange information, discuss ideas, and share opinions. It's not a place to argue with everything that does not match your (unqualified) opinion.

          (Just what I think! Moderators, feel free to delete if you feel this is out of place, or violates any rules of the forum.)
          Corley

          Comment


          • #20
            I must add something to my earlier reply. I do consider myself somewhat of an expert on suspension systems having worked on the design of suspensions over the last 30+ years off and on for military vehicles for my job and as a consultant for some racing vehicles. However since I don't for a fact know what the designers considered in the design I could not say this is what they intended. Therefore based on the evidence I can only say I suspect or believe that something is the case even if I am close to 100% certain.
            David L

            Comment


            • #21
              another comment

              I should add that although the question was asked to elicit something else it was still an interesting question.
              David L

              Comment


              • #22
                Well...I'm certainly no suspension expert...and I got the cars to prove it!

                And while I'm at it...I'm also not a forum "expert" ...lots of posts to prove that!
                John Clary
                Greer, SC

                SDC member since 1975

                Comment


                • #23
                  Corley, please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me you are the one with the problem. YOU are reading specific butthurt into people who post in response to members questions. Every post (for the most part) in response to questions, is thought out, and typed deliberately in the spirit of helping a fellow hobbyist. That is someone read the post and bothered to type in a response in order to help. Different people learn different things, in different ways. Every response is valid . Everyones opinion is valid. Even if they are technically incorrect in a response.
                  Bez Auto Alchemy
                  573-318-8948
                  http://bezautoalchemy.com


                  "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
                    Corley, please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me you are the one with the problem. YOU are reading specific butthurt into people who post in response to members questions. Every post (for the most part) in response to questions, is thought out, and typed deliberately in the spirit of helping a fellow hobbyist. That is someone read the post and bothered to type in a response in order to help. Different people learn different things, in different ways. Every response is valid . Everyones opinion is valid. Even if they are technically incorrect in a response.
                    sals54

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      as someone that knows little about "suspensions" compared to many here on the "tech" section, as well as some other Studebaker "tech matters", i'm p!ssed that you started this thread for the reason given.

                      the best i can say is that i have learned different options from folks more knowledgeable than i am. i come here to "tech" to learn and maybe share something i have done that worked out well... there are always different ways to take care of a problem. the one(s) that make sense to me are the way i go...

                      please don't become a "troll" like some others are on the forum(s) just to see their name on many started threads that could have been done on one post!
                      Kerry. SDC Member #A012596W. ENCSDC member.

                      '51 Champion Business Coupe - (Tom's Car). Purchased 11/2012.

                      '40 Champion. sold 10/11. '63 Avanti R-1384. sold 12/10.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The folks here have been great help to me and many others. You've had your fun now move along.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Somewhere I have original engineering papers from circa 1950. They stated (to the best of my old memory) that Studebaker engineers recognized that 85 % of American roads were UNPAVED at that time and they were trying to displace the shock and impact loads down the frame rails where they wouldn't cause any damage to the cars suspension. Hence the swept back king pin design. I hope this helps.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Somewhere I have original engineering papers from circa 1950. They stated (to the best of my old memory) that Studebaker engineers recognized that 85 % of American roads were UNPAVED at that time and they were trying to displace the shock and impact loads down the frame rails where they wouldn't cause any damage to the cars suspension. Hence the swept back king pin design. I hope this helps.


                            That would make alot of sense!

                            The car's postwar designs may look like pretty elegant on top, but it's still a farmer's car, that's built like a truck underneath! I can also say that, yes, at the time the suspension system was designed many of the rural roads then were unpaved, gravel highways, so they built something that wouldn't beat itself to pieces at high speed. They still have unpaved highways these days too, just not as many, especially out here in the rural parts of Illinois. It's also not a sleight against modern suspensions, because there's 60 years of improvements between then and now. However, at the time, with what they had to work with, if you're gonna design something like this, it had to be rugged, because you didn't wanna lose a spring or a shackle out in the middle of nowhere!
                            1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
                            1963 Studebaker Daytona Hardtop with no engine or transmission
                            1950 Studebaker 2R5 w/170 six cylinder and 3spd OD
                            1955 Studebaker Commander Hardtop w/289 and 3spd OD and Megasquirt port fuel injection(among other things)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X