The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

1972 · Post by **1972** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:18 am

Tom Bishop wrote:Non Shockless beam = jumping out of the road.

Will have to see once it is done.

Blitzkrieg · Post by **Blitzkrieg** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:39 am

We've been through all of this before!

http://www.aircooledvwsa.co.za/viewtopi ... ilit=shock

davetapson · Post by **davetapson** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:03 am

Yep - at least '72 is giving it a go

If it doesn't work, make another plan.

If it does...

Me, I'm interested to see what transpires...

1972 · Post by **1972** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:10 am

Yes blits I know we have gone over it, its not as if im gonna ride around with the thing on.Just want to at the end of the day be able to have my own idea on something that I have done and tested myself.So I am not building the thing so it can sit on the bug.Its just so that I can put it behind me and say that riding shockless is '
A.kak
B.not so bad
C.And if you never hear from me again, it went really badly

Tom Bishop · Post by **Tom Bishop** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:39 am

Dont know if you got to meet Nick when you were in Melkbos.

He tried the no Shock route oneday and ended with his buggy on its roof.

Shocks were one of the first things to be fitted to the automobile.

davetapson · Post by **davetapson** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:43 am

Tom Bishop wrote:Dont know if you got to meet Nick when you were in Melkbos.

He tried the no Shock route oneday and ended with his buggy on its roof.

Shocks were one of the first things to be fitted to the automobile.

Did he do the polyurethane tube / bushings thing, or just take the shocks off?

1972 · Post by **1972** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:04 am

davetapson wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:Dont know if you got to meet Nick when you were in Melkbos.

He tried the no Shock route oneday and ended with his buggy on its roof.

Shocks were one of the first things to be fitted to the automobile.
Did he do the polyurethane tube / bushings thing, or just take the shocks off?

If you use roller bearings (stock) you will end up on your roof if you use uerathane bushings its the other way around.

Tom Bishop · Post by **Tom Bishop** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:04 am

davetapson wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:Dont know if you got to meet Nick when you were in Melkbos.

He tried the no Shock route oneday and ended with his buggy on its roof.

Shocks were one of the first things to be fitted to the automobile.
Did he do the polyurethane tube / bushings thing, or just take the shocks off?

Ah, the polyurethane bushing tube. No , he just took the shocks off.

How is this bushing superior or similar to a bearing and a shock. Its either going to hold the trailing arms so tight that they dont move (then they wear and start to move) or you going to lube them and they will move like normal arms.

These polyurethane tubes are another 009 Dizzy. (Helps increase the size of your Balls)

I think if you are after effects rather see what its like to drive with out front brakes. Its Safer.

Tom Bishop · Post by **Tom Bishop** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:08 am

Ok, You driving in JHB and hit one of your PotHole.

Whats going to absorb the energy? Something Must.

davetapson · Post by **davetapson** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:15 am

Is anyone here speaking from experience of using the polyurethane bushing setup..?

Tom Bishop · Post by **Tom Bishop** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:57 am

davetapson wrote:Is anyone here speaking from experience of using the polyurethane bushing setup..?

No Experience.

I once Rode a normal bicycle on a bumpy gravel road and a mountain bike with shocks. Oh, I forgot, Once had a buggy that seized the front bearing when sea water got in.

Just want to know where the energy will go.

And why dont any manufacturers rather use it. On their cheap or performance cars.

What advantage does it give you over the normal from suspension?

Dutch_Diver · Post by **Dutch_Diver** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:27 pm

Tom,

The shock goes up the arse and spine. The only reason to remove in my view is to show how hard (re stupid) you are.....hence hard tail motorcycles! I'm been there and never again.

Shane, Try it....replace the shock with a metal pipe and have a go! then put the shock back in

Post by **eben** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:17 pm

... i just want to see what happens when I turn the loaded revolver around and pull the trigger...

why would that not be a good idea?

davetapson · Post by **davetapson** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:54 pm

Oi Eben - you deleted my reply!?

I'll try and remember what I said...

What advantage? An alternative form of damping for lowered suspensions.

Apparently there are people driving lowered suspensions with no damping (no, not my cup of tea either), but I suppose that 1" of suspension travel on a slammed vehicle provides it's own damping by bottoming out. How is the energy absorbed? By the car smacking the ground / bump stops. Accepted, no shocks on a normal / reasonably lowered suspension would be madness.

How does the p/u damping work? I don't have the design details so can't say (but neither do you guys, so you can't say that it won't

) What I'm assuming (hoping) is that it's a long bushing that fits between the tube and the spring pack. Energy would be absorbed by the friction of the p/u moving against the susp. tube.
(And before some idiot says what about the grease, clean the tube out. Lubrication of the leaves I dunno - graphite?) There is no point in lubing between the bushing and tube for obvious reasons, and I believe that p/u is allegedly 'self lubing' to some extent. Also sounds like it may be as squeaky / creaky as hell.

Another option is that a long enough p/u bushing could be fixed to the tube at the inner end (middle) and to the spring pack at the other end. The resistance to flex would absorb energy.

Shane, you can't post pics of the bushings to put this argument to bed?

I'm not saying it'd be better or worse than normal shocks - all it has to be is adequate, and that's good enough, and probably better than 75% of the cars on SA roads anyway. I'm assuming that it would fall between no shocks and standard, hopefully on the better side of the scale.

Luckily for us, Shane (if he can stand the bashing he's getting

) is going to give it a go

(and should he survive the experience

) hopefully will give us and idea of how effective they are.

Why is it not used my motor manufacturers? Probably not particularly long lasting if it's relying on friction to absorb energy. This mod is probably used on cafe cruisers that get driven on the weekends, if at all - no one is expecting them to last 250,000km. May well be as noisy as all hell too if there is friction involved. And as a number of Fortuner and Triton owners will tell you, the manufacturers don't always get it right either.

Post by **eben** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:59 pm

I didn't delete anything.

PS remind me how this mod is going to pass Roadworthy again?

Aircooled VW South Africa

The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)

Re: The re-Birth of Toy 1 (o\_!_/o)