[DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?

Sun Apr 10 17:56:27 EDT 2016

I would have thought a simple graph like attached would be available somewhere.  I thought I saw where the original shocks could be compressed to 11.6"
Attached
My chart is with 25.2" tires, I got the body connection points from a drawing, but the lower A arm dimensions are from counting pixels.  The chart's ride height is measure from the lower arm bolt center
I wrote the spread sheet to include minor changes in shock length due to angle arcing, but the contribution was less than 3/8"

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bell [mailto:scott at saccrestorations.net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 17:39 PM
To: 'Guido deTomaso'; 'JEFFREY COBB'; 'Joseph F. Byrd, Jr.'
Cc: detomaso at poca.com
Subject: RE: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?

"A short shock, or a long shock with its extension reduced, what's the difference"

Your RIGHT... No difference...

-----Original Message-----
From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of Guido deTomaso
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1:41 PM
To: JEFFREY COBB; Joseph F. Byrd, Jr.
Cc: detomaso at poca.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?

Kinda going all over the map here.  The Pantera has no upper or lower stops, it depends on the shocks for that.  I haven't seen every coilover suspension ever built, but I cannot think of one with suspension stops.  Most live axles I've encountered use the shocks as the extension stop.  So do some popular American IFS set ups, use the shock for the up and down stop.
Outside of some off-road application I'm not seeing the necessity of engineering some suspension stop scheme on the Pantera ... is there even one out there modified with "up" stops ?
A short shock, or a long shock with its extension reduced, what's the difference?  Save a few bucks not buying another set.
Or so it seems to me, I could be wrong.
GD

      From: JEFFREY COBB <jeffcobb1 at me.com>
 To: "Joseph F. Byrd, Jr." <byrdjf at embarqmail.com>
Cc: "detomaso at poca.com" <detomaso at poca.com>
 Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 5:03 AM
 Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?

Joseph,
You never want to have your shock be the suspension stop. 
That is why you have jounce or bottoming rubbers. 
Those that have the shocks as bumpers do wind up having busted shock end bushings and damaged shock internals.

I corner weighed a Mangusta recently, 628 pounds for a front and 898 pounds for a rear wheel. 
Imagine a 12 mm shock shaft rod with two pissy end bushings not being damaged by that weigh and the force which is many times greater when suspension g-force loads in hundreds of a second are paced on it? Though a binding spring does lessen the load at its max compression, the shock rod would be bearing a heavy sharp impact load.

Bottoming loads are intense and need to be directed from the tires contact patch to the frame through the control arms via the ball joints.

That is not the shocks job, its job is to control suspension range movements by dampening/controlling positive and negative vertical accelerations. 
The springs ideal job is to allow correct spring pressure for the inches of travel, to support the weight of the car and to relax at the cars desired height.

Jeff Cobb- I pad

On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:10 PM, "Joseph F. Byrd, Jr." <byrdjf at embarqmail.com> wrote:

> Would you want your shock's internals be your suspension travel limiter?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of Guido 
> deTomaso
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 21:34 PM
> To: Scott Bell; detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Reduce the extension of the shock, assuming you can open it up and put in a spacer of some sort?  So the shorter spring doesn't come loose.
> GD
> 
>      From: Scott Bell <scott at saccrestorations.net>
> To: detomaso at poca.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 2:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?
> 
> Because the spring becomes loose between the perches when the car is un-weighted (like going over a hills peak or a speed bump)...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of Forest 
> Goodhart
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:22 PM
> To: De Tomaso List
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?
> 
> Why not a shorter spring of the same rate?
> 
>      From: Ken Green via DeTomaso <detomaso at poca.com>
> To: De Tomaso List <detomaso at poca.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:25 PM
> Subject: [DeTomaso] Shorter front shocks?
> 
>    Has anyone done an analysis of the viability of running a bit 
> shorter  front shocks?  With the typical length front shocks, and 
> springs on the  heavy side, it appears that the nose is a bit higher 
> than I want at the  lowest spring position.  I could probably use 
> lighter springs adjusted  for the desired height, but I'm not sure that is a good solution.
>  Ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
> Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list 
> DeTomaso at poca.com http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
> 
> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use the links above.
> 

_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list DeTomaso at poca.com http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com

To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use the links above.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shock lenght.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 53514 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://server.detomasolist.com/pipermail/detomaso/attachments/20160410/26f08d3f/attachment.jpe>