This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"... compression link stabilized by a secondary link which provides a bottom mounting point for the hub or axle of the wheel. This lower arm system provides both lateral and longitudinal location of the wheel. "
Provides location? secondary link .. provides a bottom mounting point ...
I expect this is crystal clear if you already know it. The diagram is v. clear, but a few labels would make it much more intelligable.
Having said, that, I did manage to work out what it is the garage was talking about. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.207.80 ( talk) 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In a history of cars that I read, a distinction was made between the MacPherson system proper and the mere struts that in fact preceded it in race cars. This was the anti-roll bar, which saved money by also serving as the trailing link. This can be imagined as a relatively thin rod that goes forward from the lower pivot, turns 90 degrees inward and immediately goes through a hole in the frame, across the car to the other side and through a hole in the other side of the frame and turns rearward to the pivot on the other wheel. When both wheels rise or fall, this does not affect their movement. But when one wheel rises or falls, the bar resists its movement.
I think that the use of the term on this page has changed to merely be any old strut, and not Mr. MacPherson's particular design feature, which I have noted above. The picture placed on this page does not show this detail, nor does the description.
Also, in the book it said that an Italian firm (probably Fiat) had the idea before MacPherson, but did not prosecute. Sobolewski 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the title "..anti-roll bar..." was the most appropriate for this discussion.
However, more seriously, I have seen the following claim (by Setright, although not in one of the sources quoted, and my paraphrase):
Earle S MacPherson patented the use of the anti-roll bar connection as the trailing link location device in a strut suspension while working for one of the US 'big three' auto manufacturers (sometimes stated as Ford, sometimes GM: maybe he moved across town between the patent and the application?). So, the distinctive thing about his patent is not the strut, per se (struts were already known, but not in common use), but the use of the a-r bar for geometrical control. From that point of view, a MacPherson strut ought to be one which utilises this form of control, not just a strut. These days, at least in Europe, the a-r bar is not used in this 'role' (sorry), so these are struts, but not MacPherson struts.
On the other hand, it can be argued that MacPherson was the populiser of strut supension, even though his patented variant of the strut is not the one in popular use today. And so it is his popularisation not the patent that is being commemorated in the use of his name.
In this context, you can see why Fiat might have thought this too messy an area into which to intervene by sending in m' learned friends. Mark w69 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the system shown on the AWD car is really a Chapman strut since it's on the rear, non-steering wheels of that car, but this distinction, for the purposes of this article, is probably just an unnecessary technicality. kevinthenerd ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the example image at the top of the article, the legend states that "The front of the vehicle is at bottom left of the image." I cannot speak for the implementation in every model of car that uses MacPherson struts, but in the Subarus I'm familiar with the front of the vehicle would be at the top right. The tie rod connects to the front of the knuckle, and the radius rod reaches back toward the center of the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.145.40 ( talk) 06:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not get the difference between the 2 pictures int the Chapman strut and mac pherson. It seems that the same picture has been used with 2 different legends ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.52.10 ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article fails to set forth what really distinguishes the subject design from other competing designs, past and present, and the article would be better if it did. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The "example of a Chapman strut" is used to illustrate a "multi-link type rear independent suspension" in the article Independent suspension. I can't see no chapman strut in the picture. Maybe it is wrong here.
All the Citroen models with hydropneumatic suspension have front macpherson struts with no spring as the springing medium is the spheres on top of the strut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.155.195 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
88.69.33.208 ( talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The same basic design, a shock rod inside a coil spring, is also widely used in motorcycles, in conventional rear suspensions with one of them on either side of the rear wheel as well as sophisticated linkage type suspension with central monoshock. But they wouldn't be called MacPherson in that context, would they? I've seen the word 'coil over' but as a non-English native, it strikes me as slang or vernacular? -- Cancun771 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No that is either a strut or a coilover, certainly not MacP. Coilover is actually a better word, less ambiguous than strut. Greglocock ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a question as to the suspension of the 1949 Ford Vedette.
There is broad agreement that the Vedette became an early car to use MacPherson struts. At least by 1954 (by which time it was Simca building them, not Ford) it used struts. Also in 1950 the Ford Consul was using struts.
The question is, did the 1949 Ford Vedette use struts from the outset, or did it use a different suspension system (unequal length wishbones have been suggested, presumably with lever shocks? Was the bodyshell then redesigned for struts when it went to Simca?
(Posted at all three of the relevant talk pages, but please reply at Talk:MacPherson strut#Ford Vedette suspension?)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
The picture should be reworked to avoid colour as the sole means of conveying information. This presents a problem to colourblind users. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Photo here, but I've found little other information as yet. http://www.antiqbrocdelatour.com/Les-collections/voitures-anciennes-doc/2e-dessins-anciens/Cottin%20et%20Desgouttes%20sans%20secousse%20suspention%20speciale%20a%20roues%20independantes%20de%201926.jpg Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"... compression link stabilized by a secondary link which provides a bottom mounting point for the hub or axle of the wheel. This lower arm system provides both lateral and longitudinal location of the wheel. "
Provides location? secondary link .. provides a bottom mounting point ...
I expect this is crystal clear if you already know it. The diagram is v. clear, but a few labels would make it much more intelligable.
Having said, that, I did manage to work out what it is the garage was talking about. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.207.80 ( talk) 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In a history of cars that I read, a distinction was made between the MacPherson system proper and the mere struts that in fact preceded it in race cars. This was the anti-roll bar, which saved money by also serving as the trailing link. This can be imagined as a relatively thin rod that goes forward from the lower pivot, turns 90 degrees inward and immediately goes through a hole in the frame, across the car to the other side and through a hole in the other side of the frame and turns rearward to the pivot on the other wheel. When both wheels rise or fall, this does not affect their movement. But when one wheel rises or falls, the bar resists its movement.
I think that the use of the term on this page has changed to merely be any old strut, and not Mr. MacPherson's particular design feature, which I have noted above. The picture placed on this page does not show this detail, nor does the description.
Also, in the book it said that an Italian firm (probably Fiat) had the idea before MacPherson, but did not prosecute. Sobolewski 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the title "..anti-roll bar..." was the most appropriate for this discussion.
However, more seriously, I have seen the following claim (by Setright, although not in one of the sources quoted, and my paraphrase):
Earle S MacPherson patented the use of the anti-roll bar connection as the trailing link location device in a strut suspension while working for one of the US 'big three' auto manufacturers (sometimes stated as Ford, sometimes GM: maybe he moved across town between the patent and the application?). So, the distinctive thing about his patent is not the strut, per se (struts were already known, but not in common use), but the use of the a-r bar for geometrical control. From that point of view, a MacPherson strut ought to be one which utilises this form of control, not just a strut. These days, at least in Europe, the a-r bar is not used in this 'role' (sorry), so these are struts, but not MacPherson struts.
On the other hand, it can be argued that MacPherson was the populiser of strut supension, even though his patented variant of the strut is not the one in popular use today. And so it is his popularisation not the patent that is being commemorated in the use of his name.
In this context, you can see why Fiat might have thought this too messy an area into which to intervene by sending in m' learned friends. Mark w69 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the system shown on the AWD car is really a Chapman strut since it's on the rear, non-steering wheels of that car, but this distinction, for the purposes of this article, is probably just an unnecessary technicality. kevinthenerd ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the example image at the top of the article, the legend states that "The front of the vehicle is at bottom left of the image." I cannot speak for the implementation in every model of car that uses MacPherson struts, but in the Subarus I'm familiar with the front of the vehicle would be at the top right. The tie rod connects to the front of the knuckle, and the radius rod reaches back toward the center of the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.145.40 ( talk) 06:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not get the difference between the 2 pictures int the Chapman strut and mac pherson. It seems that the same picture has been used with 2 different legends ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.52.10 ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article fails to set forth what really distinguishes the subject design from other competing designs, past and present, and the article would be better if it did. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The "example of a Chapman strut" is used to illustrate a "multi-link type rear independent suspension" in the article Independent suspension. I can't see no chapman strut in the picture. Maybe it is wrong here.
All the Citroen models with hydropneumatic suspension have front macpherson struts with no spring as the springing medium is the spheres on top of the strut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.155.195 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
88.69.33.208 ( talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The same basic design, a shock rod inside a coil spring, is also widely used in motorcycles, in conventional rear suspensions with one of them on either side of the rear wheel as well as sophisticated linkage type suspension with central monoshock. But they wouldn't be called MacPherson in that context, would they? I've seen the word 'coil over' but as a non-English native, it strikes me as slang or vernacular? -- Cancun771 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No that is either a strut or a coilover, certainly not MacP. Coilover is actually a better word, less ambiguous than strut. Greglocock ( talk) 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a question as to the suspension of the 1949 Ford Vedette.
There is broad agreement that the Vedette became an early car to use MacPherson struts. At least by 1954 (by which time it was Simca building them, not Ford) it used struts. Also in 1950 the Ford Consul was using struts.
The question is, did the 1949 Ford Vedette use struts from the outset, or did it use a different suspension system (unequal length wishbones have been suggested, presumably with lever shocks? Was the bodyshell then redesigned for struts when it went to Simca?
(Posted at all three of the relevant talk pages, but please reply at Talk:MacPherson strut#Ford Vedette suspension?)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
The picture should be reworked to avoid colour as the sole means of conveying information. This presents a problem to colourblind users. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Photo here, but I've found little other information as yet. http://www.antiqbrocdelatour.com/Les-collections/voitures-anciennes-doc/2e-dessins-anciens/Cottin%20et%20Desgouttes%20sans%20secousse%20suspention%20speciale%20a%20roues%20independantes%20de%201926.jpg Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)