> Given the British propensity to resist change in design it is likely that
levers > were used "because they always had been used".
Eh? What? British resistance to change?
How about the Dunlop Maxaret braking system on the Argosy aircraft from
which the ABS braking system was developed?
How about the disc brake?
How about the pneumatic tyre?
How about east west engines with integral gearboxes - which configuration
virtually every other smaller car in the world now uses?
How about rubber suspension?
How about hydrolastic damping?
How about the first patented adjustable driving seat found in Riley?
How about the first car fitted with bumpers as standard?
ON A BROADER SCALE:
How about the first railway accident in 1828?
How about the first sewing machine in 1790?
How about the first television?
How about the first telephone capable of sustained articulate speech 1876?
How about the first iron steamship 1821?
How about the first vacuum cleaner 1901?
How about the first water closet 1589?
How about the first race on earth to speak English (in the proper form) as
its mother tongue?
All the above are British FIRSTS.There are many many more. I just got bored
writing them down. Fact is Britain is ahead of America - always has been,
always will be 'cos we're at least 2500 miles away and anywhere between
five and eight hours ahead :)
What's more, 'Scottie' in Startrek is a Scot first and a British passport
holder. I guess Captain James T. Kirk knew what he was doing by recruiting
a Brit as his Chief Engineer on the Federation Starship. Are we really that
backward?
I don't think so.
>
> Remember that Austin and MG and most other cars of the immediate postwar
> era used the shock arm as the upper control arm of the front suspension.
> Moving from this mid-thirties concept in post-war Britain was not
feasible
> given the need to get back into production and the above-stated
reluctance
> to change anything - if people would keep buying it as it was.
>
> Finally your remark that only British cars used lever shocks is quite
> erroneous. All American General Motors cars used the same system as the
> LBCs we know and love so well - some starting as early as 1935. In fact,
> the LBCs undoubtedly copied the American system. Look under a Buick or
> Cadillac of this era and you will see the suspension of an MG or Austin
of
> the late '40s or early '50s. GM didn't abandon this type of suspension
> until 1955.
>
> Ford and Chrysler used different types of suspension but they did use
lever
> shocks until the late '30s with Chrysler being the first to go to modern
> tube shocks in 1937 and Ford in '49.
>
> John McEwen
>
>
>
> >-- [ From: Bob Nogueira * EMC.Ver #3.1a ] --
> >
> >Got a thinking mans question here ,
> >As long as I have been on LBC lists, a week has not gone by that someone
> >raises the issue of converting from lever shocks to tube type shocks.
> >This happens so frequently that it finally got me to thinking about a
> >conversion. As always, before I change out something I ask myself
> >'what are the trade offs?" Having never heard anyone say anything good
> >about lever shocks I got to wondering why did they use lever shocks if
> >the tube type shocks are so much better and CHEAPER.?
> >It seems to me that if I were designing a car from scratch tube shocks
> >would be much easier to design in than levers.
> >Analyzing the difference in design the only advantage I see is that the
> >lever shock has far less movement of working (wearing) parts per inch of
> >suspension travel than a tube shock and thus could be expected to last
> >far longer than a tube shock. (The only problem with this theory is it
> >doesn't fit in with any of the design philosophy of all the other parts
> >on my LBCs :) )
> > Anyone know why so many British companies chose levers over tubes, yet
> >no non British car has ever used levers ?
> >Also did Rolls Royce, and the other high end British cars use levers
> >or tubes?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Bob Nogueira
>
|