Talk:Car suspension

message: I find this happening more and more on Wikipedia, where I put a term in the search box, like "lift kit," and I get redirected to long entries where the term isn't even used. Do not combine articles if you are then going to kill the term that directs one to the combined page. I'm sure there's a point in damaging Wikipedia's usefulness that I'm just not grasping.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.84.99 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated the redirect for deletion per WP:R#DELETE reason #10. Thanks for pointing this out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a lift kit?

message: I don't agree with this change.  David R. Ingham 07:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "are more compliant. " 

message: Please note that the edit at  07:27, 27 February 2006 by David R. Ingharn was not by myself but someone who chose a name that resembled mine.  David R. Ingham 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  careful reading of names 

message: This article mentions Hydragas and Kinetic systems as examples of semi-active suspensions; yet neither of these systems is inherently semi-active. In their base form, both systems (Kinetic actually have a number of systems) are passive interconnected schemes, whose advantages lie not in their ability to vary springing and damping parameters, but rather in their capacity to provide different springing and damping depending on the suspension mode in operation. Wade Smith 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion regarding semi-active suspensions 

message: They suck. How exactly are the term being defined here?
It looks as though the signature above should be "03:41, 26 April 2006 70.26.11.45".
Which term or terms would you like someone to define better?  (I won't ask for a clear definition of "suck", which has always seemed poorly defined to me.)  David R. Ingham 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions? 

message: Road vehicles are not the only wheeled vehicles requiring suspension systems.  Some of us are interested in railway suspension.  Does anybody know anything about it? Gordon Vigurs 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Wiki is not a place to ask for advice. For suspension related questions, I recommend the newsgroup sci.engr.mech, or, IF you are a professional engineer, not a student, www.eng-tips.com in the appropriate forum.
Greglocock 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I have access to appropriate sources - my point is that suspension is not just an automotive issue. The article should have gone from general (i.e. seismic oscillations) to particular (the details of specific vehicle suspension system designs), rather than jumped into the specifics from the outset.  Please excuse my naive assumption that an encyclopedia should be a source of knowledge. Gordon Vigurs 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops sorry, I was referring to the Indian guy asking for help, not you. You are right, the article does need a section on other forms of suspension.
Greglocock 09:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I gather from the article that the suspensions of armoured fighting vehicles face design challenges in the form of land mines and other explosive devices.  Beyond this, are there appreciable differences between the suspension of a late model tank and, say, a civilian bulldozer, which faces similar terrain and is also a heavy, tracked vehicle?   If not, would the article be improved by making armoured fighting vehicles a subsection of a section on tracked vehicles?   Also, I remember (perhaps falsely) hearing about wheeled (non-tracked) armoured fighting vehicles - how do they connect with this section?   Thanks --Badger151 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armoured Fighting Vehicles have different priorities for their suspension systems, obstacle clearance being one, that is why military tracked vehicles usually have the front and rear wheels positioned higher on the hull, allowing the vehicle to climb-up and over obstacles. These two wheels are technically known as the 'idler' and the 'drive sprocket', and depending on whether the vehicle is front or rear-engined, can be at either end. On bulldozers and similar non-military vehicles obstacle clearance is of lesser importance, and so the front and rearmost wheels are usually at the same level as the road wheels.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armoured fighting vehicle vs tracked vehicle 

message: Many of the public busses I now see are equiped to lower their front ends, reducing the height of the step into the bus from the pavement (and making it easier for people with movement limitations to enter the bus).  Around here (NYC area) I've seen it called "kneeling", though it may have other names in other places.  I'm also familiar with some ambulances that lower their back ends to ease loading and unloading of the stretcher.  Is this a function of these vehicles' suspensions?  If so, does it deserve treatment in this article?  Thanks --Badger151 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kneeling" busses, &c. 

message: Isn't kind of weird that the picture for this article that deals with suspension for the car comes from a vehicle which was designed 98 years ago? Can we get a picture of a more modern car's suspension, as that picture only shows control arms and a spring on a very very antiquated design. BMan1113VR 04:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is a better picture: 
(resized) BMan1113VR 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article needs more pictures to illustrate modern car suspension systems. -- 193.211.5.90 (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you don't have a camera? Don't be so lazy. Greglocock (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Automotive suspension design seems redundant (or close to it) with this.  I have suggested we merge it here. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess redundant is the wrong word.  Might it make sense to include the design information in a section here.  (I didn't mean to dis your profession!) The design article is rather short.  (John User:Jwy talk) 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a requested article, so I created it, but it obviously included just enough information to escape being a stub. I'll expand it at some point. If you can make some suggestions on its talk page I'll gladly do that. Greglocock 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay.  While I'm glad I have a suspension on my car, I'm not savvy enough about it to help much.  I'll back off and check up after a while. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automotive suspension design merge

message: A while back I contributed several sections based on years of engineering knowledge of vehicle dynamics and suspension design.
The discussion about Sprung Weight Transfer was changed so much as to make the entire discussion wrong. One major concept in SWT is the roll moment arm. This entire section was removed. The "helper" did not understand the concept and figured it was unimportant.
A drawing really should be added but I don't have the time now figure out how to add it.
The drawing needs to be a nicely drawn and added to the discussion.
Here is rough drawing to help with the idea.
http://www.onthetop.com/images/weighttransfer.jpg
There needs to be a few others to clarify the ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imfinenu (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprung Weight Transfer 

message: I'm looking for somewhere to link 'top link' from the description of the rear suspension on the Brabham BT19. The rear suspension is described (in all sources) as a reverse lower wishbone (ie single link on the chassis side) with single top link and two trailing radius rods. Not an unusual design for that time. Exactly what the top link was doing in that little lot is a bit hard to tell, but I guess mainly controlling vertical movement of the top end of the uprights. Although top link is used quite a lot as a term in writing about cars of that era, the meaning is taken to be so obvious (it's a link at the top!) that it's never defined. Any ideas where in the range of suspension articles I could most usefully link this term? The set up almost sounds like a crude multi-link design.... 4u1e 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top (or Bottom) links 

message: I'm looking for a good explanation, with pictures, of the famous Control Blade independent rear suspension used in the Ford Focus and the latest Mondeo, how it works and why is it (supposedly) better than ordinary multi link suspensions. Anyone care to help?
http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html  - the pictures are good, the words are anywhere between wrong and unreliable. Sorry, I don't think anything has been published, why would it be? Greglocock 02:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly drivel. Greglocock 11:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Blade rear suspension 

message: This article reads like a Carroll Smith book.   "A lot of well paid engineers assume this", "Ignorant people show up to the track with such and such a set up and wonder why their cars don't perform" and so on.
sorted. Greg Locock (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a book 

message: on Bose.com is a description.  I'd cut and paste, but it's copyrighted.  They've been trying to get their foot in the door at an OEM for a while but the expense doesn't appear to be equivalent to performance.  It's best chance would have to be a marketing gimmick to ever get in a vehicle, kind of like the LED headlamp.
http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_STATIC_PAGE_EVENT&url=/learning/project_sound/suspension_components.jsp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bose linear motor suspension? 

message: I've read the article top to bottom, and the current state is rather badly mangled and grossly much too technical in the way it discusses the topic.
I am going to start a rewrite - input welcome.
We also still need more images of current suspensions.  Both photographs and diagrams would be useful.  I can make diagrams and I take photos, but I haven't got a car that has multilink or wishbone suspensions.  The image that was pasted in above is a possible one, though.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest that you start with a structure or outline first? The big problem with this trainwreck of a page is that every man and his dog has heard some piece of priceless wisdom about suspensions and feels compelled to share it with the world. Incidentally what references are you intending to use? Most of the websites out there are about as authoritative as a high school paper. Some of the textbooks have glaring errors as well. Greg Locock (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use any of the websites out there.  None of the references are really set up right as a great source for an intro "encyclopedia" overview, but in terms of source material...  Costin and Phipps; Bastow, Howard, and Whitehead; Reimpell, Stoll, Belzer; Staniforth; Dixon; Milliken; Gillespie...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use Staniforth on Ackerman. Did you nick all those books from my house? Grins Greg Locock (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, at least you've heard of Costin and Phipps.  I'm a little young for it technically, but my dad had a copy from when he was racing (amateur) in the 60s, so I got one when I started getting interested in it.  I don't do it professionally, just for fun.  At least this topic has less textbooks than spacecraft and launch vehicle design, which unfortunately I do professionally, and have something like low five figures in reference materials at home 8-( ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article way too technical - needs complete rewrite 

message: Can anyone find a technical description of this suspension? I strongly suspect it is just switchable shocks, ie semi-active. Greg Locock (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that's why the original author changed the claim from active to semi-active, see history...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.230.92 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, when you get a cite for that we'll put it in. I was working with prototype active suspension from 1986 onwards, we didn't regard switchable shocks as any sort of threat, so to me its bragging about a bad solution. The high frequency switchable shocks we get now (Magnaride and the Hitachi system) are fast enough to be interesting, but the early switchable shocks were slow. Greglocock (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Galant Active claim

message: Nothing in here about the push rod suspension setup used in just about every race car.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integracer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Push rod suspension

message: This article claims to be about the suspension of "vehicles", not
"road vehicles", yet it makes no mention of trains at all, and has
no links to articles about conventional trains (only to maglevs).
Does someone imagine that trains don't require suspensions or something?
--208.76.104.133 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about trains? 

message: I seem to recall reading that Chrysler claimed to have pioneered the concept of adjusting the weight distribution in a vehicle so that the axles would fall on the "center of percussion."  Does anybody have any further data on this?  Supposedly all vehicular suspensions now try to achieve this balance.98.170.203.252 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of Percussion 

message: References: 1996 sales brocure, found at: http://rav4world.com/brochure/1996/1996main.html, pp 22 - 23.
It's double wishbone.
I can't see the upper wishbone in that photo, but apparently that's it.
All in favor of removing the photo as it's actually reducing the useful information on the page?  8-)  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To which photo are you referring? Independent rear suspension AWD.jpg ? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we had a long running dispute (polite) over another suspension photo?  Yes, that one...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAV4 suspension answer... 

message: It lists different types of suspension in a difficult to understand way for a layman. I would like this article to be rewritten, and I think the following structure will help the layman understand suspension better:
1. What are the functions of suspension?
2. How does it work? [It has spring that compresses when the wheel hits a bump and expands when the wheel goes into a depression... shock absorber, etc.]
3. History: What were the first suspensions? What problems did they solve, why were their needs felt? What problems they could not solve or what problems did they create? What was the next significant improvement, what problems it solved/not solved/created and then what happened next?
4. The modern suspension types: How is performance of a suspension measured? Passive, semi-active, active, regenerative... spring, air, magnetic, variable viscosity, ... What are the best suspension today? How do they rank by cost? What are their maintenance requirements, their life, and which suspensions are most robust?
5. Special applications: Suspensions for army vehicles, heavy trucks, busses, aircraft, ...
6. Future: What are the latest research areas in suspensions, what are the latest bright ideas...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A n k u r (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is unintelligible for a layman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Suspension (vehicle). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics03.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics04.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics05.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics06.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230102112/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/Galant.asp to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/Galant.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041122000000/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/1980-1989.asp to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/1980-1989.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324014435/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2005/17e_02.pdf to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2005/17e_02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515053535/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/history/1980/e/index.html to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/history/1980/e/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kinetic.au.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice there is no entry for the Belleville suspension.  It was the proposed suspension for the E-series of tanks of Nazi Germany.  While no other examples immediately spring to mind (oh, pardon the pun the please!), I'm sure people much smarter than me might be able to complete this series on vehicle suspensions? -- 74.46.19.3 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belleville Suspension