Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Double front shock absorber
I am contemplating fitting a double front shock absorber on my 1929 Special to make the front end a little less lively.

I'm sure lots of you on here have done this mod, so is it worth it, or can the same results be achieved by overhauling the existing single layout?

In deepest Norfolk
I know that others swear by these and have found them a great improvement. I tried one on my special some years ago and found it made absolutely no difference - despite much fiddling with the settings and input from the supplier. I eventually ran out of patience and flogged it.
I fitted one to my 1936 Ruby a few years ago. It very much improved the handling. Cornering was transformed.
Before you start shelling out for what is a nice but expensive accessory, try fixing one end of the standard shocker direct to the axle beam - just undo the alloy link and use it as a spacer leaving the other end hidden inside the two damper arms. It will then act as a kind of Panhard rod to better locate the front axle.

Failing that you could try the tyre rubber bodge between the axle beam and the spring shackles.

Either solution costs nowt or nearly and stops the axle from shoogling (a Scottish term) about under cornering.

Try it.
The idea behind these is that due to its fundamental design, the factory damper offers considerably less resistance when rolling (one arm going up and the other arm down) than it does when bouncing (both arms going up or down together). The twin armed type does not suffer this shortcoming, and will also have smooth friction surfaces without 80 years worth of corrosion.

I fitted one to my 1936 Pearl, and found that the "twitchiness" when entering and leaving a corner was reduced, and the car is generally more stable when cornering. It's not night and day, but when it comes to Sevens any handling improvement is welcome.
I connected a shock absorber arm directly to the axle on my Nippy. It worked very well especially because with the lowered axle beam the arm lines up with the axle fixing. I reinforced the flat steel arm by welding a tube between the 2 parts into which I fitted a rubber bush.
On my 1929 saloon I have rubber block in the shackles locating the axle laterally. That is very simple and very effective.
Dad fitted one to the chummy. The other 2 cars here are standard. Im buggered if I can tell the difference.
That’s because on the standard offering the pair of discs aren’t far enough apart. What’s needed is the outer end of the blades mounted in the end of the radius arms and the discs more widely spaced to suit.
Alan Fairless
Totally agree with Alan, I hear what John said about roll and bounce but in honesty can't see the point of many of the commercial designs utilising the standard spacing, in my experience getting a Seven to corner quickly requires a pretty tight front end set up. I have used a wide spaced twin arrangement for competition to good effect, but on my Nippy which is my road car I simply immobilise one arm as Reker's has already suggested, personally if you are not racing or hill climbing I can't see the point of doing much more.
Black Art Enthusiast 
In all the above, seem to be mixing two quite different factors; better damping and improved location. These need to be separated. As I understand the basic twin, as with the originals, do not locate.

For what it is worth  I fitted Armstrong levers to RP front using original operating points. Original s.a was the larger diameter (export?) type. Pitching on certain poor surfaces was markedly reduced but in spirited driving including on metal roads I could not detect much other change (whereas the same at rear transformed the car).

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)