Passing of an Iconic amp maker;(...

[tony sayer]

Very sad to note the passing of such a figure who influenced the sounds we heard and still hear;)...

[Bob Eager]

with the Spinal Tap creator..

[Richard Tobin]

In article ,

And without whom, many people people would be able to hear a lot better than they can.

-- Richard

[The Natural Philosopher]

Fortunately it only affected people people, and for us antisocial unpeople people it never proved an issue.

For unpeople people the greatest danger of course is the Ipod/Walkman style earphones which are routinely capable of subjecting the ear to a far higher sound pressure and for far more hours in a day than a Marshall stack ever did.

[Arny Krueger]

People have proven conclusively that by behaving unwisely, they were able to destroy their hearing with amplifiers that max out in the range of a few dozen milliwatts.

With technical power often comes the ability to do good or ill, to oneself, and others.

I'm not ready to criticize Henry Ford for making the automobile more available to the masses, despite the grievous damage that has been done with them.

[Steve Firth]

Pardon?

[Steve Firth]

Marshall speaker stack and that he gets plot number 11.

[Michael Chare]

Perhaps you are on the side of the American car industry trying to discredit Ralph Nadar so that they could continue to make dangerous vehicles.

[Arny Krueger]

Umm "continue to make dangerous vehicles"?

The US has some of the highest safety standards for automobiles in the world, and tests cars to ensure that they are being met.

Not even Ralph Nader shows much interest in the issue any more - that was so

1960s.

[Michael Chare]

It was GM who tried to discredit him following the publication of his book "Unsafe at any Speed" in 1965.

[Phil Allison]

"Michael Chare"

** That was due to one chapter where he severely criticised the Chevrolet Corvair.

car was crappy and unsafe in an accident, but so was the VW beetle and many others at the time.

... Phil

[Arny Krueger]

Having actually owned a 1965 Corvair and after putting about 100,000 miles on it - I can say from experience that the lack of crashworthiness was only part of its inherent danger. Its handling was, err unusual. And this was for the 1965 model with the allegedly highly improved Corvette-style rear suspension. The 1960 edition was far worse.

BTW, I also put significant mileage on a VW Beetle a VW Van, and a Renault Dauphine, all rear-engine IRS small sedans. The latter was the most seriously flawed of the three. It was IMO literal death-bucket. Compared to it, the 1965 Corvair was a picture of stability, except of course it was still pretty unstable if maneuvered with vigor either accidentally or intentionally.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

'Twas known from the very early days of independant suspension - usually front only - that swing axle suspension is deadly. It allows too much uncontrolled camber change. The only reason it was chosen for rear suspension was low cost. And it was commonly known before what the results would be.

Jaguar showed in the '60s that decent independant rear suspension could be made for a medium priced car. It took BMW (and others) 30 years to work out how to do the same.

[Arny Krueger]

It is kinda interesting to see how different 3 different implementations of swing axle, VW bug, Renault, and the 1960 Corvair implmentations varied. The VW and early Corvair were at least drivable and took quite a bit of manhandling to get to really misbehave. The VW was probably the most usable, probably because the torsion bar suspension was highly nonlinear and constrained vertical travel. The camber change is controlled if the suspension travel is sufficiently constrained.

Interesting that the earliest implmentation of the 3 arguably addressed its shortcomings the best. Well, Dr. Porsche was well known to have quite a bit on the ball.

I would say that the BMW 1600 was a mid-priced car from the '60s that had a good repuation for handling. Rear suspension was semi-trailing arms which cut the camber change per vertical displacement by a factor of 2 or more.

Note that camber change on the most heavily loaded outer tire can be good thing within reason because it mainntains the tire near vertical to the pavement even as the body rolls. Radial tires also helped by reducing the sensitivity of side force to vertical angle.

One problem is that if you don't constrain the outer tire it can fold under the car which can be pretty disasterous when the car tries to right itself after the turn. Something as simple as a nylon strap can keep this under control.

[Don Pearce]

Worst car for this was probably the old Corvette with its transverse leaf spring. You were taking your life in your hands at any speed over

1. Add the all-round drum brakes and it was pretty much a car designed for suicides.

d

[Nick Odell]

IIRC my old Dinky car toys had a similar suspension. They wouldn't go in a straight line either.

Nick

[Max Demian]

I used to like the ones that steered when you pressed the front down on one side or the other, but my brother objected that a real car would sink down on the other side.

[Steve Thackery]

That's interesting. How did they achieve a non-linear torsion bar spring?

[Arny Krueger]

I'm not sure which Corvette you are talking about.

a.. C1 (1953-1962): Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs. Rear: Rigid axle supported by leaf springs and longitudinal control links.[1]

a.. C2 (1963-1967), C3 (1968-1982): Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with coil springs. Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by a centrally mounted leaf spring.[2]

a.. C4 (1984-1996): Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect. Rear: Independent suspension with trailing and lateral links supported by a centrally mounted fiberglass mono-leaf spring.

a.. C5 (1997-2004), C6 (2005-): Front: Independent unequal-length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect. Rear: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect

Are you thinking of the Corvettes with the transverse leaf spring? If so there were also upper and lower control arms.

My daily drivers had 4 wheel drum brakes from 1962 to 1971, with occasional drives since then in legacy vehicles with 4 wheel drums since then. If dry, in good adjustment, adequately sized and with good linings and drums, not all that bad. Of course I'd prefer discs.

[Arny Krueger]

Nonlinearity is inherent in the action of a lever arm that pivots on the bar and accepts a vertical force. At zero displacement the spring has a long horizontal lever arm for vertical travel. As you rotate the arm, the lever arm shortens in the plan view and increases the effective spring rate. If you actually rotate the arm 90 degrees, spring rate approaches infinity and pushing harder will result in no additional rotation, but you may break the whole thing lose from its mountings.

Automotive suspensions are among those things that generally work better if highly nonlinear. One alternative to torsion bars is additional springs that engage and resist travel as the displacement increases. A common example is called a "jounce bumper". the bumper is usually made out of rubber and may include voids and/or be pyramid-shaped to add nonlinearity.