Talk:Christie suspension

message: A few pictures of tanks that use this suspension design, while all very interesting, don't really fulfill this entry.  What the article REALLY needs is photographs -- or better yet, diagrams -- of the suspension itself. 76.226.91.83 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: no mention of U.S. Convertable systems ?Brian in denver (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: company name?

message: isn't a further key feature the fact that instead of having lots of littel track guide wheels for the top and the bottom of the track, Christie tanks have 4  - 6 large wheels of the same size as the drivers, with the one intermiediate wheel guiding both the top and the bottom of the track?Engineman (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: features

message: The article claims superior off-road performance compared to leaf spring suspensions. However, in Panzer II it is said that the Ausf. D and E of that tank was constructed with Christie suspension, but were later withdrawn for poor off-road performance / speed, with later models returning to the original leaf spring design. Could someone clarify? -- DevSolar (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is talking generally, but in the Panzer II it is referring specifically to that implementation on that vehicle. Not that either claim is backed in the articles by footnotes to the source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wondered, because there is hardly a better comparison than having both type of suspensions in basically the same vehicle. Funny enough, when looking for sources, I realized that the German article claims not a Christie, but a torsion bar suspendion in the D/E models... something is surely amiss here. -- DevSolar (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: I notice the Merkava is listed, but can't find any support for the claim? BP OMowe (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: You Wiki people are hilarious.  You demand "citations" yet reject "but I was actually there" evidence.  To verify the utterly ludicrous claim that a Christie tank went 104 mph, you cite some baloney reference in a Popular Mechanics of the time.  This was a magazine that was replete with breathless flying-car, floating-apartment-building, monster-this-and-that copy in those days, yet you accept it as proof of the fact that a tank went 104 mph.  (The current 2014 tank speed record is 51 mph, by the way, set by a British Scorpion.)173.62.12.218 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buehlchit speed record 

message: It is an urban legend that Poles made their own Christie. They did not. Use www.translate.ru to read http://vn-parabellum.narod.ru/pl/10tp.htm
Actually USSR hastily provided a better bid and Christie did not sell the license to Poland but to USSR instead. 
So Poles had to come up with a suspension of their own design. The link above holds the schematics of it and it is nowhere near.
This schematics is taken from Poland author J.Magnuski according to http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/poland/10tp.htm ( see the links at left bottom after the photo )
79.111.232.2 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the comment above is correct. Indeed the very photo of destroyed T-34 in the article shows VERTICAL shafts, not horizontal. If the comment above is correct, then the no-becrancs schematics of 10TP might be Christie-like indeed. 79.111.232.2 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish tanks 10TP/14TP did not use Christie! 

message: Christie's patent, and the first examples built, had the upper end of the compression springs resting on a screwed seat. This (in Christie's design) could be screwed up and down to balance out the wheel load.  The difficulty is that some geometries also caused the lower spring seat to move transversely to the spring axis (forwards and backwards) as the suspension moved. This rocked the spring on its seat and when a coilover arrangement had been used with a telescopic hydraulic shock absorber within the spring body, it placed bending forces onto this shock absorber, damaging its piston rod and seal.
The fix was to pivot the upper spring seat. AIUI, this was a Polish innovation, outside of Christie's development.
Can anyone expand on this? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swivelling upper spring seats and Polish innovation? 

message: The "schematic" of the Christie suspension seems pretty worthless, since it's obviously missing at least one very crucial pivot point. right now it just shows a coil spring connected to a wheel via two articulated bars, but moving that wheel up and down isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on the coil spring, it's just going to make the pivots in the red bars flex slightly. The only way I can see this working is if the vertical bar had a pivot in the middle where it mounted to the tank which turned it into the bellcrank lever, probably around 1/3rd or 1/4th of its length from the lower joint. Thus when the wheel moves up, this causes it to pull on the horizontal rod, which pulls on the lower end of the vertical rod, which rotates on its pivot, acting as a lever, pushing "down" on the coil (i.e. sideways). This is not clear at all from the picture or description. I only say that because it's the only way I can imagine that the mechanical stuff in that picture COULD work. I hate to think of the people who are less able to visualize mechanics trying to figure that out.
I see someone else actually mentioned this already, although I don't see any actual answer to their question. What does the Hoffman system have to do with it? I just want the illustration clarified. I also think he/she makes a good point, why DID the Russians use vertical springs and a Christie suspension, while the article says that part of the point was to allow the use of horizontal springs. If you're going to use vertical springs anyway, why bother with the bellcrank nonsense? I'm assuming it's because it allows you to use a shorter spring for a given level of articulation, no matter what angle the spring is at. But then again, how do you use a bellcrank to link a vertical-travel roadwheel to a vertical-travel spring? Those are vertical coil springs in the photo of the blown-apart T-34, aren't they? 
AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that I guess . Alexpl (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Schematic" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion