Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0
Swamp2,
Seriously you have not just wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
As I like to say, a spring is a spring is a spring
|
read up on some of the simple stuff such as progressive springs, which are getting outdated. |
Yup, I sure did write that and it is true. In this context either a coil or a leaf, ALL THEY DO IS PROVIDE A SPRING CONSTANT, k and provide the basic functions I mentioned above. Sure I know about non-linear springs (i.e. "progressive") but they are not used that often at all. All we would have to change is to say a spring is a spring is a spring and provides a k = k(x)! You said yourself that they are getting outdated as well. They simply feel strange. It is better to extract any desired non-linearity out of the suspension linkage design. By the way I cut my teeth doing suspension design in the mountain bike industry (disc brake design as well). A very different field and massively different ratios of sprung and unpsprung weights compared to a car, but the fundamentals are all the same.
So I stick by my statement. Much more entertaining is yours,
Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0
Inherent design of leaf springs will always lag behind handling prowess of multi-link rear.
|
You do realize the the two terms have nothing to do with each other? Apparently not. The number of links, layout of the linkage system and the device used to provide a spring force are all separate and can be mixed and matched at a designers will.