Talk:MacPherson strut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why the spring axis is not co-axial with the strut axis for a MacPherson suspension?

[edit] Needs an English Translation :-)

"... 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)

I'm still mystified. Part of the problem is that as one of the many colorblind wikipedia readers, I can't distinguish blue from purple or yellow from gren and have no idea what some of the parts of the picture are referring to. And it is still not clear what the "strut" is - how it different from a shock absorber? What were previous non-MacPherson struts like? etc. Help.... --70.91.87.57 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That good old Anti-Roll Bar

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)

[edit] Example picture

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)

Sorry Kevin, please hand in your nerd badge. The rack is not visible, but the tie rod is not visibly grounded at the chassis either. Cheers Greg Locock (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)