#Conventional Leaf Spring Exporter | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

greatworldwar2 · 4 years ago

Text

• Panzer 38(t)

The Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), originally known as the ČKD LT vz. 38 was a tank designed during the 1930s, and developed in Czechoslovakia. It saw extensive use in World War 2.

The Panzer 38(t) was a conventional inter-war tank design, with riveted armour. The armour varied in thickness from 10 mm to 25 mm in most versions. Later models (Ausf. E on) increased this to 50 mm by bolting on an additional 25 mm armour plate to the front portion of the hull. The sides received an additional 15 mm increase of armour from Ausf. E production runs onward. The two-man turret was centrally located, and housed the tank's main armament, a 37 mm Skoda A7 gun with 90 rounds of ammunition. In addition, a 7.92 mm machine gun was in a ball mount to the right of the main gun. This machine gun could be trained on targets independently of the main gun, or coupled to the main gun for use as a conventional coaxial machine gun. The driver was in the front right of the hull, with the radio operator seated to the driver's left. The radio operator manned the hull-mounted 7.92 mm machine gun in front. Minor adjustments, such as adjustable seats for the driver and firmer footing for the commander/gunner and loader, were provided in German service. A total of 2,550 rounds were carried for the bow and turret machine guns. The driver could also fire the hull machine gun with a trigger fitted on the left tiller bar. In German service, a loader position was added to the turret by reducing the ammunition capacity by 18 rounds. All future Panzer 38(t) tanks were rebuilt according to this specification and those already in service were modified accordingly. The engine was mounted in the rear of the hull and powered the tank through a transmission at the front of the hull with five forward gears and one reverse gear. The track ran under four rubber-tired road wheels and back over a rear idler and two track return rollers. The wheels were mounted on a leaf-spring double-bogie mounted on two axles.

In 1935, the Czechoslovak tank manufacturer ČKD was looking for a replacement for the LT-35 tank they were jointly producing with Škoda Works. The LT-35 was complex and had shortcomings, and ČKD felt there would be orders both from the expanding Czechoslovak army and for export. ČKD decided to use a leaf-spring suspension with four large wheels for their new tank with an export success under the name "TNH". With small variations for each customer, 50 were exported to Iran, 24 each to Peru and Switzerland, Lithuania also ordered some. The British Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) had one trial model delivered on March 23rd, 1939 to Gunnery School at Lulworth. A report stated that "the (bow) gunner could not sit back comfortably as the wireless set was in the way of his left shoulder". The report also stated that, due to the shudder while the vehicle was on the move, it was impossible to lay the gun. As a result, the British did not purchase the LT-35 and the trial model was returned.

In the fall of 1937, the Czechoslovak Armed Forces launched a contest for a new medium tank; Škoda, ČKD and Tatra competed. Škoda Praga submitted the existing joint production export model mentioned above. ČKD also entered a prototype separate from the above, the interesting V-8-H (later called the ST vz. 39), which proved to have numerous mechanical problems. Tatra, known mostly for its smaller, wheeled armoured cars, submitted a paper entry that was a very novel concept that completely changed the layout of a tank, which concept they patented in 1938. On July 1st, 1938, Czechoslovakia ordered 150 of the TNHPS model, although none had entered service by the time of the German occupation. After the takeover of Czechoslovakia, Germany ordered continued production of the model as it was considered an excellent tank, especially compared to the Panzer I and Panzer II that were the Panzerwaffe's main tanks during the outset of WWII. It was first introduced into German service under the name LTM 38; this was changed in January 1940 to Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). The relatively small turret of the Panzer 38(t) was incapable of mounting a cannon powerful enough to defeat more heavily armoured tanks such as the T-34, so production of the Pz. 38(t) halted in June 1942 when more than 1,400 had been built. Other examples of the Pz. 38(t) were also sold to a number of other Axis nations, including Hungary (102), Slovakia (69), Romania (50), and Bulgaria (10).

The main advantages of the Panzer 38(t), compared to other tanks of the day, were a high reliability and sustained mobility. In one documented case, a regiment was supplied with tanks driven straight from the factory in 2.5 days instead of the anticipated week, without any mechanical breakdowns. In the opinion of the crews, the drive components of the Pz. 38(t) - engine, gear, steering, suspension, wheels and tracks - were perfectly in tune with each other. The Pz. 38(t) was also considered to be very easy to maintain and repair. After production of the Pz. 38(t) ceased, the chassis was used for tank destroyer designs, which were produced in greater numbers than the original Pz. 38(t). From 1942–1944, about 1,500 examples of the Marder III model were produced. It was replaced by the Jagdpanzer 38(t), based on a modified Panzer 38(t) chassis, of which approximately 2,800 were produced. The Panzer 38(t) chassis was also the basis for an anti-aircraft gun carrier, the Flakpanzer 38(t), of which about 140 were produced.

The Panzer 38(t) performed well in the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the Battle of France in 1940. It was better armed than the Panzer I and Panzer II tanks. It was on a par with most light tank designs of the era, although it was unable to effectively engage the frontal armour of medium, heavy and infantry tank designs. It was also used in the German invasion of the Soviet Union from 1941 onwards in German and Hungarian units, but was outclassed by Soviet tanks such as the T-34. Some ex-German units were issued to the Romanians in 1943, after the loss of many of the Romanian R-2 tanks. By then, it had become largely obsolete, though the chassis was adapted to a variety of different roles with success. Notable variations include the Sd.Kfz. 138 Marder III mobile anti-tank gun, the Sd.Kfz. 138/1 Grille mobile howitzer, Flakpanzer 38(t) and the Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer" tank destroyer. The German tank commander Otto Carius, who was credited with over 150 'kills', described an action in a 38(t) in July 8th, 1941: "It happened like greased lightning. A hit against our tank, a metallic crack, the scream of a comrade, and that was all there was! A large piece of armour plating had been penetrated next to the radio operator's seat. No one had to tell us to get out. Not until I had run my hand across my face while crawling in the ditch next to the road did I discover that they had also got me. Our radio operator had lost his left arm. We cursed the brittle and inelastic Czech steel that gave the Russian 47mm anti-tank gun so little trouble. The pieces of our own armour plating and assembly bolts caused considerably more damage than the shrapnel of the round itself."

The above report highlights the reason why the 38(t) was pulled out of front lines in favour of heavier Panzer III, IV and StuG IIIs. Panzer 38(t) continued to serve after 1941 as a reconnaissance vehicle and in anti-partisan units for some time. Several captured examples were refitted with Soviet DTM machineguns and employed by the Red Army. At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans found Soviet T-34 tanks to be superior, as the German 37 mm Pak36 anti-tank gun proved incapable of penetrating the T-34's armour. To neutralize the T-34, the Germans mounted a captured Soviet 76.2mm gun on the chassis of the 38(t) model as a stop-gap measure and called it the "Marder III". Crews of early Marder III models fought exposed on top of the engine deck. Efforts to provide Marder III crews with more protection eventually lead to the Hetzer design.

The T-38 was the local designation for the wartime deliveries of Panzer 38(t)s from Germany to Romania in 1943. T-38 served with the forces operating in Kuban. within 2nd Tank Regiment and later the 54th Company attached to the HQ and the cavalry corps in Kuban and Crimea. T-38 tanks were still in action with the 10th Infantry Division and Cavalry Divisions in 1944. In the Slovak Army, this tank received designation LT-38. Because of the first series of the LT-38 was not finished in March 1939 and as it was seized by Nazi Germany, the army of the Slovak State, a German ally in the Polish and Soviet campaigns, initially had only LT-35 tanks. In 1940 Slovak Army ordered 10 tanks, which were used in Operation Barbarossa. Two tanks were destroyed, other 8 tanks later returned to Slovakia. After that, Slovak Army ordered another 27 tanks, and when Germans started withdrawing Panzer 38(t) tanks, Slovak Army received another 37 tanks from Germany. 13 tanks of this type were used by slovak insurgents during the Slovak National Uprising in 1944.

#second world war #world war ii #world war 2 #military history #wwii #history #german history #czechoslovakia #tank warfare #tanks #military equipment #panzer 38

39 notes · View notes

trailersprings · 4 years ago

Text

A Brief Guide on Caring For Trailer Leaf Springs

The constant jarring, turning, and rattling happening to a trailer puts the owners to worry about its suspension performance. When the suspension installations fail to work properly, the trailer is bound to experience every bump on the road. The best installation for such kind of vehicle is trailer leaf springs that ensure a smooth and comfortable ride on road.

The Importance of Trailer Leaf Springs

Even if you don’t feel bump, the cargo in your trailer will definitely get affected by the rough road if your suspension system is inefficient. Especially, the brittle cargo with pottery or glass products that require careful handling and transport would be damaged if the transporting trailer lacks an efficient suspension set-up.

When the suspension system gets damaged, it can cause a problem to the trailer’s driving efficiency. When the wheels fail to function smoothly, the vehicle has to drag with more effort on the road which affects its fuel mileage.

Taking Care of Trailer Leaf Springs

Trailer springs, wear out similarly to regular vehicle leaf springs; therefore their servicing and maintenance would be the same too. Regular cleaning from the ground level will give a clear glimpse of weak or damaged portion of the leaf spring.

Next, wash out all the grimes and dirt from the spring set after dismantling it so that the trailer does not have difficulty in smooth travelling on any roads.

Leaves can become loose, get cracked, rusty, or eroded, especially in the places where they have contact with other parts of the vehicle and chassis. Whenever you see any occurrences of the aforementioned conditions, get professional servicing done immediately.

To avoid rusting, waterproof coating can be used in trailer leaf-spring which will eliminate the chances of its oxidation. Regular oiling and frequent cleaning too can help you to keep the trailer leaf springs in good condition.

Choose Sonico Trailer Leaf Springs

Sonico is India’s one of the leading leaf spring manufacturers and exporters. With more than two decades of expertise in making parabolic and conventional leaf springs, they have garnered the goodwill of many companies as well as vehicle owners from across the country. Explore their wide range of products today.

#Trailer Springs #Leaf spring #Conventional Leaf Spring

1 note · View note

somar78 · 5 years ago

Text

A Brief History of the Austin-Healey Sprite – Everything You Need To Know

Introduction

The Austin-Healey Sprite’s most famous and perhaps most endearing feature was its uncanny resemblance to Kermit the Frog: and in fact both the car and the puppet were created around the same time with Kermit making his first appearance in 1955 and the “Frogeye” Sprite entering production and making its first public appearance in 1958.

Despite the sports car and Kermit sharing a similarly cute “Frogeye” character to the best of our knowledge Kermit has never owned or driven one, but perhaps he will one day.

The Background to the Austin-Healey Sprite’s Story

In 1952 a number of British car makers, including Austin, Morris, Wolesley, Riley, and MG, were merged together to form the British Motor Corporation. This merger pretty much ensured the survival of a number of British car names that would otherwise have quietly disappeared but also came at the cost of a merging not only of the companies, but also of designs.

This essentially meant that BMC would make a number of pretty much identical models but put different name badges on them along with different grilles and trim, thus rationalizing production and new model development costs. It was into this environment that the Austin-Healey Sprite was created, but in its first iteration it was created as a unique model, only to be “badge engineered” for the Mark II and subsequent models.

The Austin-Healey partnership also occurred in 1952 beginning at the London Earls Court Motor Show of that year. Leonard Lord of Austin was trying to find the right car for Austin to build and export to the United States to make lots of lovely money with while independent sports car maker Donald Healey had rather sensibly created a sports car based primarily on commonly available and affordable Austin parts.

Donald Healey’s car was called the “Healey 100” and when Leonard Lord saw it and realized the potential he and Donald Healey got together over dinner and entered into a partnership to build the cars under the Austin banner as the Austin-Healey 100. It was this partnership that paved the way for the creation of the smaller and much cheaper Austin-Healey Sprite.

Image: Leonard Lord (left) and Donald Healy sitting in an Austin-Healey 100/4.

Although the Austin-Healey 100 was a beautiful high performance car it was also expensive and BMC management understood that they needed a budget model which would sell in much greater numbers.

To this end, Donald Healey’s team were involved in creating a smaller sports car based on parts available from existing Austin and Morris models. Not only were they to create a new low cost small sports car but also to pioneer unibody construction rather than using a body on chassis design like the Austin-Healey 100.

The Austin-Healey Sprite’s Story Begins -1958 to 1961

The mechanical components that the Austin-Healey Sprite was to be built around began with the Austin “A Series” engine of 948cc capacity and fitted with twin SU 1⅛” carburetors producing 43hp @ 5,200rpm with torque of 52lb/ft @ 3300 rpm.

This engine was the same one as used in the diminutive Austin A35 which might not seem to be an inspiring vehicle unless you realize that the A35 van was a favorite of Formula 1 legend James Hunt.

The gearbox was a stock four-speed BMC unit with synchromesh on the top three gears while the excellent rack and pinion steering came from the Morris Minor 1000.

The suspension came from the Austin A35 which had a fully independent front with coil springs and lever shock absorbers and a half-elliptic leaf spring live axle at the rear, which for the Sprite was to have top links for stability.

These mechanical parts were the foundation handed over to Healey’s body and chassis designer Barry Bilbie. Bilbie was tasked with creating a rigid open sports car unibody, and with making it affordable.

His design was to be the first mass-production sports car with a unibody and his basic design was used for the Austin-Healey Sprite (and its badge engineered sibling the MG Midget) right up to the end of production of the last model.

Image: The Austin-Healey Sprite unibody chassis.

Barry Bilbie’s unibody design was based around front and rear bulkheads joined by “Top Hat” sill sections, reinforced by body stiffeners and the central transmission tunnel, all mounted onto a floorpan. The rear suspension forces were directed through the floorpan while the front suspension and engine/transmission were supported by two front chassis legs (meaning the design was not a full monocoque).

To obtain the right levels of stiffness the unibody was designed without an opening boot lid, so access to the boot was obtained by lifting the driver and passenger seats forward and then reaching into the luggage space.

This was somewhat inconvenient but at least meant that there was no boot lid for thieves to prise open, although unless the car was fitted with a hard top it could not be secured in any event. The bonnet/hood was the complete opposite with the wings and bonnet made as one piece and hinged at the rear so the whole thing lifted up to make access to the engine as easy as it gets.

The styling of the Sprite was done by Healey’s body designer Gerry Coker and the little car was made as aerodynamic as possible, complete with retracting headlights that would fold flat when not in use. As originally conceived the Coker styling was impressively clean and aesthetic.

Unfortunately the retracting headlights were one of the first casualties of BMC cost cutting and so the Sprite was given its Kermit the Frog lookalike “eyes” along with a nice friendly smiling front grille. Americans seem to have decided that the car looked rather like Jiminy Cricket from the movie “Pinnochio” and so they decided to call it a “Bugeye”.

BMC’s other effort at cost cutting involved reducing the thickness of the steel in structural areas of Barry Bilbie’s design for the first prototype. Upon testing the prototype at the Motor Industry Research Association facility however it was discovered that the prototype made with thinner than specified steel suffered from deformation and so the BMC engineers had to concede that Bilbie had got it right and they restored his original design specifications.

The little Austin-Healey Sprite was first made public on the 20th May 1958 in Monaco, in the wake of the Monaco Grand Prix. The car was made to be a modern successor to the Austin 7, a car that such notables as Bruce McLaren (of McLaren Racing Team) and Graham Chapman (of Lotus Cars) had both begun their motorsport careers with. The Sprite was said to be sufficiently small that “A chap could keep one in his bike shed”.

While the performance was not earth shattering, with its low seating position and diminutive proportions the Sprite felt fast and sounded fast, making it rather a lot of fun to drive. Its top speed was 82.9mph and it could accelerate from standing to 60mph in 20.5 seconds, so acceleration was not exactly neck snapping. The Sprite was quite miserly on fuel delivering no less than 43 miles to the imperial gallon (36 mpg US, 6.6 liters per 100 km).

While these performance figures might not be impressive by comparison with expensive high powered sports cars the little Sprite was an affordable way to get into motorsport at a club level just as the Austin 7 had been.

A bit of an industry was established making performance parts for the Sprite, notably by people such as John Sprinzel, Speedwell Motor Company and WSM. BMC were very quick to promote the car for motorsport by entering the 1959 Alpine Rally and achieving a class win. Following on from that was a trip “across the pond” to the United States where they achieved a first, second, and third trifecta class win at Sebring.

The Sebring Sprites

The 1959 Sebring Sprites were specially prepared by Donald Healey’s son Geoffery at Healey’s Cape Works in Warwick. the cars were fitted with larger SU 1¼” carburetors and prototype Dunlop disc brakes all around along with wire wheels.

The gearboxes for the cars were racing close ratio straight cut crash boxes and the cars were fitted with dual plate clutches. All this effort paid a handsome dividend in terms of publicity for the Austin-Healey Sprite in the United States and elsewhere.

Following on from the demand created by the Sebring success Donald Healey began offering a special “Sebring” modification package for the Austin-Healey Sprite targeted at those who wanted to use their car in competition.

These cars were fitted with a new Girling hydraulic braking system with “Type 9″ 8½” front disc brakes and 8″ drums at the rear. From 1960 onwards this work was being done by the Healey Speed Equipment Division at a small London workshop in Grosvenor Street.

youtube

A variety of kits and special equipment for the Sprite was made such as the Speedwell GT version which featured an aluminum coupe body created by aerodynamicist Frank Costin and made by Williams & Pritchard.

John Sprinzel featured prominently in these cars having been joint partner with Graham Hill in Speedwell Performance Conversions Ltd. before he went to work for a while in charge of the Healey Speed Equipment Division before leaving them and setting up his own business located in Lancaster Mews in December 1960.

The Sprinzel Sebring Sprites became much sought after at that time and have become a rare collector’s item in the decades since.

The Austin-Healey Sprite Mark II and MG Midget – 1961 to 1964

The Austin-Healey Sprite Mark II was introduced in May 1961 and although it was not mechanically greatly different to the original Sprite it was given a significantly different appearance, an appearance that the Sprite would keep until production ended in later years.

The Kermit the Frog look was gone and the Mark II was given conventional front wings/fenders with the headlights mounted in them, and a separate bonnet/hood. This made access to the engine less easy but made the look of the car much less controversial.

At the rear the car had conventional rear wings and a boot lid, making the process of stashing and retrieving things from the boot much easier and not at all like descending into a small dark cave as had previously been the case.

The provision of an opening boot required some structural changes including squared off rear wheel arches to provide enough steel for adequate stiffness of that rear part of the car. Front brakes were discs while at the rear were drums, and wire wheels were available as an optional extra.

The engine was kept the same except for the fitting of larger 1¼” SU carburetors and delivered 46hp @ 5,500 rpm with torque of 53 lb/ft @ 3,000rpm. This engine was only fitted until October 1962 when it was changed to a 1,098cc version of the Austin “A Series” producing 56hp @ 5,500rpm and torque of 62lb/ft @ 3,250rpm.

For the Mark II the four speed gearbox was changed and the new one was fitted with “baulk ring” synchromesh on its top three gears, first being left without back in those days when the British were rather averse to giving a driver synchromesh on first gear.

From its inception this version of the Austin-Healey Sprite was also sold “badge engineered” as the MG Midget, resurrecting a name that had been used on MG models since the 1930’s. The MG Midget would go on to outsell the Sprite by a significant margin despite the fact that the two cars were pretty much identical except for the badges on them.

The Mark III Sprite and Mark II MG Midget – 1964 to 1966

The Mark II Austin-Healey Sprite and its near identical sibling the Mark II MG Midget were subject to subtle changes and were manufactured from 1964-1966. The windscreen was changed and given quarter lights to go with the wind-up windows and external door handles with locks were also fitted.

The suspension of the car remained mostly the same but with the change to semi-elliptic rear leaf springs for the rear axle and elimination of the top links. This gave the car a more comfortable ride although possibly at the cost of some of the directness in the handling.

Engine power was slightly improved being 59hp @ 5,750rpm with torque of 65lb/ft @ 3,500rpm.

The Austin-Healey Sebring Sprite at Le Mans 1965

BMC was very active in motorsport during the 1960’s with the Morris Mini becoming a dominant force on the international rally circuit. Even the ponderous Austin 1800 was rebuilt into a rally car for the 1968 London to Sydney Marathon (Australia) rally and achieved second and fifth places despite being up against Australia’s V8 “supercars” in the form of a few GM Holden Monaros and Ford Falcon GTs.

But neither the Morris Mini nor the “land crab” Austin 1800 were suitable candidates for a crack at the 24 Hours Le Mans, for that job BMC decided to create a special version of the Austin-Healey Sprite (aka the MG Midget).

The bodywork for the Le Mans cars was created by Barry Bilbie using the new wind tunnel facility at Austin’s Longbridge factory. The sleek little aerodynamic body was made at Healey’s Warwick workshops in best of British “Birmabright” aluminum alloy, an alloy that was used on everything from the humble Land Rover up to the James Bond Aston Martin.

The engine of the Le Mans cars was increased in capacity to 1,293cc and rather substantially tweaked by the mavens of BMC’s Courthouse Green workshop so by the time they were done it produced almost double the power of the factory road car at 110 hp.

This engine was mated to a purpose-rebuilt MGB gearbox, some of which were fitted with an external fifth gear overdrive. The end result of all this boffin creativity was a car that could make 150 mph on Mulsanne Straight and that could keep up its performance for the full 24 hours of the Le Mans race. The Austin-Healey Sebring Sprite, driven by Paul Hawkins and John Rhodes, achieved a 12th place outright at the 1965 Le Mans.

Competition prepared Austin-Healey Sebring Sprites would go on to achieve class wins at Sebring driven by such notables as Steve McQueen, Sir Stirling Moss, and Bruce McLaren. The would also compete in many other events such as the Targa Florio.

The Mark IV Sprite and Mark III MG Midget – 1966 to 1971

The Mark IV Austin-Healey Sprite and its Mark III MG Midget stablemate were introduced in October 1966 at the London Earls Court Motor Show and had some substantial changes from the previous models. One of the most welcome was that the removable soft top was replaced with a folding soft top that did not need to be removed and stowed in the boot/trunk. The interior was also upgraded and gained the luxury of reclining seats.

The engine was changed to the same basic engine as used in the high performance Mini Cooper but in a slightly down-tuned version, which BMC said was to ensure better reliability. Many enthusiasts would of course have had their cars brought up to a higher state of tune as an aftermarket improvement.

The new engine was still an Austin “A Series” but with a capacity of 1,275cc producing 65hp @ 6,000rpm and torque of 72lb/ft @ 3,000rpm. At this stage of automotive history however the US was regulating emissions and so that larger engine was to be fitted with power sapping smog pumps etc.

Also in response to regulatory moves in the US the brake and clutch hydraulic systems were improved. In 1969 the car’s electrical system was changed from the dynamo and 12 volt positive earth system of the previous models to having a much preferable alternator and 12 volt negative earth electrical system. The cars were also fitted with reversing lights. This was the last year the Sprite would be exported to the United States.

1968 saw the merging of BMC into the British Leyland aglomerate with the result that the Mark IV Austin-Healey Sprite and Mark III MG Midget were given some stylistic changes in 1970. The appearance of the Sprite and Midget was brought even closer together so they really were best described as “Spridgets”. These cars had new badge work and the body sills were painted matte black, something that actually gave the car an even more eye catching stylishness. The 1970 cars were also fitted with new steel wheels made to look a bit like alloy wheels.

In 1971 the agreement between Donald Healey and Austin expired and so cars made after that time ceased to carry the Austin-Healey name, but were instead branded as the Austin Sprite for the last 1,022 cars manufactured. The MG Midget would continue in production until 1980.

youtube

Conclusion

The Austin-Healey Sprite was a “Little car that could” and it proved to be an unpretentious truckload of fun, an affordable entry into the world of motorsport, and an affordable sports car that a chap could not only keep in his bike shed, but a car that he could get a great deal of enjoyment from tweaking and fixing.

This was a car that really gave an owner a portal into customizing and personalizing their car to really make it everything that their imagination, and wallet, could accommodate. Over the years this hasn’t changed and the Austin-Healey Sprite, whichever model is chosen, still provides the same potential for simple enjoyment whether you just want to drive it, or personalize it, or use it for motorsport in club or higher level competition.

The old saying says “Good things come in small packages”, an Austin-Healey Sprite is a lot of car in a rather small package.

Images courtesy of RM Sotheby’s, BMC, and British Leyland.

The post A Brief History of the Austin-Healey Sprite – Everything You Need To Know appeared first on Silodrome.

source https://silodrome.com/history-austin-healey-sprite/

#cars

3 notes · View notes

bogiesprings · 4 years ago

Text

Significance of Leaf Springs

Leaf springs are a basic part of the vehicle's suspension framework. They are introduced to support the tension caused by the entire weight of the vehicle or truck. Leaf springs likewise help to keep proper grip of the tires and manage the wheelbase lengths when it is accelerating or slowing down. To control the stature of the ride, leaf springs are very important.

The leaf spring comprises a curve molded, thin piece of steel - stacked with similar material in small sizes and bolted together, making a strengthened bow-like thing. When the endpoints of the springs are connected to the back pivot and the chassis, it can then withstand a large amount of pressure & weight of vehicle and evenly distribute it.

In simpler terms, a leaf spring refers to a spring with numerous layers of metal organized together. They're basic to the suspension frameworks of vehicles. The general motivation behind a leaf spring is to offer help for a vehicle. It additionally makes a smoother ride by retaining any knocks or potholes in the street. Also, leaf springs find the axle and control the stature at which the vehicle rides, while keeping the tires adjusted and aligned.

On account of these advantages, leaf springs are very much sought after. Smooth and easy transportation is one of the contributions of Leaf Springs which have enhanced the automobile industry. Nowadays, leaf springs are more famous with Heavy Commercial vehicles like trucks, SUVs and vans.

Sonico is a leading and complete solution provider in the domain of Leaf Springs. The manufacturing facilities of Sonico are equipped with Automatic Parabolic Rolling Line, Robotic Heat Treatment Line, Stress Shot Peening Line, Automatic Paint Line and Automatic Assembly Line with on-line CNC Scragging machine. Major types of Trailer Spring manufactured and exported by Sonico are — Parabolic Leaf Springs; Air Links; Conventional Leaf Springs, Bogie Springs, Trailer Springs and Spring Assembly For E Rickshaw.

=======================================================

Company Name :Soni Auto & Allied Industries Ltd

Address: 467 & 468, Marshall House (4th Floor) 25 Strand Road, Kolkata-700001

Email : [email protected]

Phone :033-3028 4828

Fax: 033-2230 7828

Url : https://www.sonicoleafsprings.com/

#Bogie Springs #Leaf spring

0 notes

amansi1502-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Global Automotive Suspension Market is estimated to reach USD 128078.6 million by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 4.1 % between 2019 and 2027

Overview

Electric vehicles need a driveline system in order to convert and control the power supply from the battery of the electric vehicle. An electric propulsion engine utilizes an on-board rechargeable energy storage system for its operation. Increasing adoption of electric vehicles is projected to boost the driveline market during the forecast period. Rigorous norms imposed globally by regulatory bodies on carbon emissions of automobiles are also anticipated to propel the adoption of driveline in electric vehicles, as they are expected to eliminate the burning of fossil fuel and generated emission in gasoline vehicles, as there is no emission from electric vehicles.

Rapid usage of renewable sources of energy is a key driving factor that is boosting the driveline market. Manufacturing of a driveline is highly expensive and time-consuming; thus, posing a restraint to the global Driveline market. The major factors hampering the growth of the driveline market for automotive vehicle are the high cost of technology as compared to conventional IC engine-powered driveline and the lack of infrastructure development for charging in developing countries.

The global driveline market can be segmented into Series Driveline, Parallel Driveline and Power Split Driveline. The parallel Driveline for automotive hybrid vehicle was estimated to grow at the fastest rate during the forecast period owing to its benefits such as better efficiency and less complexity. Series driveline is linked in the series combination to transmit the motion. The power split device is a universal gear set. The electric motor is attached to the ring gear of the gear set. It is also directly attached to the differential, which drives the wheels. So, whatever speed the electric motor and ring gear spin at determines the speed of the car.

On application side, the global automotive driveline market is categorized into 45-100, 101-250, and >250kW. The performance of a motor is measured by its output, which is known as the traction output. The motor output differs from 12 kW to >250 kW and depends on the vehicle specification. The 45 to 100 kW market is projected to showcase the largest market volume over the forecast period due to high adoption in the Asian region. In terms of value, the >250 kW segment is expected to be the fastest growing segment during the forecast period.

Geographically, the global automotive driveline market has been divided into four major regions such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and The Rest of the World. Asia Pacific is expected to be the largest and the fastest growing market. The major reason for the fastest growth is heavy production and sales of hybrid and electric vehicles in the region, especially in China and India. Also, the rising per capita income of the region’s widespread consumer base has created a favourable environment for the growth of the electric and hybrid vehicle market in Asia Pacific. China is one of the leading player in auto component exports. North America is a rapidly expanding market for driveline for electric vehicles. Europe is expected to present growth opportunities to the driveline market for electric vehicle.

Driveline manufacturers have implemented the strategies of new product development and geographical expansion to gain grip in the driveline market for automotive. The key market players are ZF (Germany), Schaeffler (Germany), GKN (UK), BorgWarner (US), Robert Bosch (Germany), Volkswagen (Germany), Ford Motors (US), Toyota Motors (Japan), and Mahindra & Mahindra (India).

Major players in the Market are identified through secondary research and their Market revenues determined through primary and secondary research. Secondary research included the research of the annual and financial reports of the top manufacturers; whereas, primary research included extensive interviews of key opinion leaders and industry experts such as experienced front-line staff, directors, CEOs and Marketing executives. The percentage splits, Market shares, growth rate and breakdowns of the product Markets are determined through using secondary sources and verified through the primary sources.

Inquiry about report OR ask for Sample Report @

https://www.profsharemarketresearch.com/inquiry/automotive-suspension-market-report-inquiry/

Global Automotive Suspension Market: Component

· Coil Spring

· Leaf Spring

· Air Spring

· Shock Absorber

· Control Arm

· Rubber Bushing

· Link Stabilizer/Sway Bar

· Ball Joint

· Strut

Global Automotive Suspension Market: Application

· Passenger Vehicle

· Light Commercial Vehicle

· Heavy Commercial Vehicle

Global Automotive Suspension Market: Competitive Analysis

· ZF TRW

· Continental

· Benteler International

· ThyssenKrupp Automotive Systems

· Tenneco

· Magneti Marelli

· Wabco Vehicle

· Mando Corp

· BWI Group

· NHK Spring

· Rassini

· Sogefi

· KYB

· Multimatic

· TrelleborgVibracoustic

Automotive Suspension Market: Regional Analysis

· North America

· U.S.A

· Canada

· Europe

· France

· Germany

· Spain

· UK

· Rest of Europe

· Asia Pacific

· China

· Japan

· India

· South East Asia

· Latin America

· Brazil

· Middle East and Africa

Access Full Report @

https://www.profsharemarketresearch.com/automotive-suspension-market/

Automotive Suspension Market Report delivers comprehensive analysis of :

· Market Forecast for 2019-27

· Market growth drivers

· Challenges and Opportunities

· Emerging and Current market trends

· Market player Capacity, Production, Revenue (Value)

· Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import analysis

· End user/application Analysis

About Profshare

Profshare Market Research is a full service market research company that delivers in depth market research globally. We operate within consumer and business to business markets offering both qualitative and quantitative research services. We work for private sector clients, along with public sector and voluntary organisations. Profshare Market Research publishes high quality, in-depth market research studies, to help clients obtain granular level clarity on current business trends and expected future developments. We are committed to our client’s needs, providing custom solutions best fit for strategy development and implementation to extract tangible results.

For more information, visit https://www.profsharemarketresearch.com/

OR Email us at [email protected]

Contact :

Mia Cox

Sales Manager

[email protected]

0 notes

trailersprings · 4 years ago

Text

Significance of Leaf Springs

#leaf spring #Trailer Spring

0 notes

somar78 · 6 years ago

Text

A Brief History of the Mazda RX-3

Introduction

The Mazda RX-3 “Savanna” was a paradox of a car. Fledgling Japanese car maker Mazda built a pretty typical for the period small passenger car and dropped a twin rotor Wankel engine into it.

This had the effect of making the little RX-3 an exotic road rocket despite its semi-elliptic leaf spring live axle rear suspension. Undeterred by the car’s relative lack of sophistication it was the Wankel engine that captured enthusiasts imaginations, and the RX-3 was a car seized upon by many of those wanting a sports car, whether for the track or for a more fulfilling driving experience on the roads.

The RX-3 did not disappoint and proved to be wonderfully tweakable to bring out its best. The Wankel engine certainly proved to be a suitable little power plant for propelling competition cars and once the humble RX-3’s suspension had been lowered and sorted, commonly with the use of a Watts Linkage setup to stabilize the leaf spring live axle, and the RX-3 was race ready, and it did not disappoint.

In the video below we have a driver’s eye view of the Bathurst racing circuit from the cockpit of an RX-3 on the left and the later RX-8 on the right. As you will see the older RX-3 is just a tad quicker. This gives you a glimpse into what helped make the RX-3 into an automotive legend.

youtube

Background

Japanese car maker Toyo Kogyo “Mazda” seem to have gone from being a maker of three-wheeler commercial vehicles and passenger cars during the 1950’s to being the world’s only major manufacturer of Wankel powered automobiles by the 1970’s. Toyo Kogyo first began investing money and effort into the rotary Wankel engine when they took out a license to develop and manufacture the technology in November 1961, and put their first Wankel engine powered car, the Mazda Cosmo, into limited production in 1967, almost exactly ten years after Felix Wankel had created his first running prototype engine. To appreciate the magnitude of this achievement we should realize that German car maker NSU went broke trying to bring a Wankel engined car into production, and French car maker Citroën did themselves some significant financial damage attempting the same thing.

One might ask why did Mazda put so much effort into the high risk challenge of developing the Wankel rotary engine in the face of daunting technical challenges? Mazda were attempting to break into the car market against established competitors such as Toyota and Nissan/Datsun. They built their first four wheel car, the R360, in 1960 and it was powered by a diminutive 356cc engine. In order to build a public image of Mazda as a technically advanced innovator the company decided that the rotary engine would be the technology that they would use to identify the company and their cars.

The key to Mazda being able to successfully bring the Wankel design into production was the doggedly creative problem solving done by their engineers. The Wankel engine was notorious for problems associated with the rotor edge seals causing “chatter marks” in the housing and with poor sealing causing excessive oil consumption: not only that but vibration issues plagued the engine so much that the the electroplating of the rotor housing simply came off after as little as 200 hours of running. Mazda’s engineers decided to move from a single rotor to twin rotor engine design to mitigate the vibration problem, and developed carbon-aluminum edge seals with a quite complex process for creating the rotor housing which produced the right sort of hardened inner surface that would provide the necessary resistance to damage from impact by the edge seals. The development of the technology to make a Wankel engine reliable, and give it reasonable fuel consumption, took years and a number of development engine models before it was achieved. The first engine to use the carbon-aluminum edge seals with a cast aluminum rotor housing with chromed interior was the L10A, which also featured dual spark plugs in the combustion chambers and twin distributors. This engine was made by joining two 491cc rotors making total engine capacity 982cc and producing over 100hp with a little under 100lb/ft of torque. The L10A engine was first used in the Mazda Cosmo sports car before being used in a wider range of Mazda automobiles.

In 1967, the same year Mazda introduced their twin rotor 10A engine in the expensive Mazda Cosmo, they also installed it into the lightweight and diminutive Mazda R100 which was rather more affordable. Not only was the R100 affordable but it produced performance that put a number of other sports cars to shame, the MGB being one that it happily outclassed. The suspension of the R100 was something that tended to let it down however and so the car was not on a par with the fully independent suspension of the “poor man’s BMW”, the Datsun 510.

The RX-3 “Savanna”

With their success in developing the Wankel engine into a viable production engine in the Mazda Cosmo sports car, Mazda began the process of installing this technology in other less exotic production cars with the dual purpose of attempting to popularize the technology while at the same time testing the market to see how well the rotary engine would be taken up by regular car buyers. To achieve this Mazda offered selected car models with either a conventional reciprocating piston engine or a Wankel rotary. The cars were mechanically the same other than the engine, although some differences in body style were made between conventional and rotary models and they were given different names. One of the models that was chosen for this was the Mazda Grand Familia, which was a small car in the same class as the Toyota Corolla and the Mitsubishi Lancer.

Mazda used a variety of names for the Grand Familia models depending on the market that they were being sold in. In the US, Australia and New Zealand this model was called the Mazda 808 if fitted with a conventional piston engine, and the RX-3 if fitted with a Wankel rotary. For the Japanese, Australian and European markets the RX-3 was given the model designation S102A and was fitted with the 10A twin rotor engine that had been pioneered in the Mazda Cosmo. For the US the model designation was S124A and a larger 12A twin rotor engine was used. This unit had two 573cc rotors joined together to make a total displacement of 1,146cc giving it a power output of 125hp by comparison with the 10A which produced 109hp @ 7,000rpm and 96lb/ft of torque. The 10A and 12A engines had identical diameters but the 12A engine’s cylinder and rotor was made 10mm wider, thus providing the greater capacity.

The RX-3 appeared in dealer showrooms in September 1971 and was made in two series.

Series I (1971-1973)

The Series I RX-3 cars were made in three body styles; a two door coupé, four door sedan, and five door station wagon (this being the world’s first Wankel engined station wagon). The RX-3 was styled a little differently from its 808 sibling by having a slightly more protruding honeycomb front grill and twin round headlights. The rear end styling of the RX-3 was also a little different having round tail lights for the coupé and sedan models. The Mazda models that were made in both piston and rotary engine versions were fitted with the same size fuel tanks and so, because fuel economy of the rotary versions was not as good as for the piston engine models, a larger 60 liter (15.9 US gallon) fuel tank was used for both, meaning that the piston engine cars had rather better range than similar cars from other makers.

Front suspension of the RX-3 was independent with coil springs while at the rear was a live axle with semi-elliptic leaf springs. Brakes were discs at the front and drums at the rear. The Series I were offered with either a four speed manual gearbox or three speed automatic.

For the Japanese market in 1972 Mazda introduced the RX-3 GT fitted with the larger 12A engine producing 125hp. This model featured a slightly lowered suspension, wider 5.5″ wheel rims, and a five speed gearbox. Inside the dashboard was a completely new design and the car’s imitation leather seats featured headrests with “GT” impressed on them while the steering wheel was imitation leather covered as opposed to plastic “wood”.

It was also in 1972 that Mazda developed and put into engine production their new Transplant Coating Process (TCP). This process was created to completely solve the problems associated with the rotor housing plating and it involved spraying on steel which was then covered in chrome.

Series II and III (1973-1978)

The Series II version of the RX-3 was introduced for the second half of 1973 and it provided an engine upgrade from the 10A to the larger 12A, plus some styling changes. The new 12A engine was provided with the REAPS (Rotary Engine Anti-Pollution System) which reduced engine torque and as a result reduced the performance of the new RX-3. In 1974 the new 12B single distributor version of the engine was introduced into the RX-3 without any fanfare and remained the installed engine until the end of production in 1978. These engines had other engineering updates such as single rather than double side seals and relocation of the starter motor from the top of the engine to the lower left side. The 12B engine produced 130hp with 115lb/ft torque giving the RX-3 a standing to 60mph time of 10.8 seconds and standing quarter mile of 17.7 seconds.

1976 saw the introduction of the Series III cars and the ending of exports to Australia and New Zealand. The Series III featured a new front with a lower spoiler lip to improve high speed stability, and the rotor shaped badge on the front was replaced with a Mazda corporate style one.

Of the rotary engine Mazdas made prior to the introduction of the RX-7 the Mazda RX-3 was the most popular with 930,000 made of which more than half were in the coupé body style.

Specifications

Engines: Rotary twin rotor longitudinally front mounted driving the rear wheels. 10A: capacity 982cc with twin spark plugs and twin distributors producing 109hp @ 7,000rpm and 96lb/ft of torque. 12A: capacity 1,146cc with twin spark plugs and twin distributors producing 125hp. 12B: capacity 1,146cc with single spark plugs and distributor producing 130hp with 115lb/ft torque.

Transmissions: all synchromesh four speed manual or five speed manual, or optional three speed automatic.

Brakes: Discs at the front and drums rear.

Steering: Worm and roller

Suspension: Front, independent using coil springs and telescopic shock absorbers. Rear, live axle with semi-elliptic leaf springs

Body: Steel unibody. Length 160.4″ (4,075mm), Width 62.8″ (1,595mm), Height 54.1″ (1,375mm), Wheelbase 90.9″ (2,310mm), Curb Weight 2,050lb (930kg)

Motor Sport

In order to get the Japanese car buying public’s attention it was vital for Mazda to pour energy into motor sport and to rack up some victories against the established makers, especially Toyota and Nissan/Datsun. Success came in the 1972 Fuji Masters 250 with Mazda fielding an RX-3 driven by Japanese racing legend Yoshimi Katayama to go up against Nissan’s “Hakosuka” GT-R. Katayama had previously driven a rotary powered Mazda Cosmo at the 1968 Marathon de la Route (aka the 84 Hours Nurburgring). Mazda’s aim at the 1972 Fuji Masters 250 was to win the race and deny Nissan their 50th straight victory. Much to Nissan’s chagrin and to Mazda’s jubilation they succeeded.

The Mazda RX-3 fast became a weapon of choice for motor sport in Japan and elsewhere including the United States. Notably RX-3’s were fielded at the Australian Bathurst 1000 motor race in 1975 with the car driven by Don Holland and Hiroshi Fushida finishing in fifth place outright behind four V8 powered Holden Toranas driven by such racing legends as Peter Brock and Frank Gardner among others.

youtube

The Bathurst racing circuit presents its own set of challenges as the course winds up Mount Panorama “the mountain” for the first part of the circuit and then downhill via some tight and difficult curves finishing with the blast down “Conrod Straight”, so named because of all the engines that have broken conrods and blown up there. Yoshimi Katayama crashed his RX-3 spectacularly on Murray’s Corner in the 1978 race. He returned for a second place at Bathurst in a factory RX-7 in 1983 in partnership with Allan Moffat.

So popular for motor sport activities did the RX-3 become that it subsequently became near impossible for collectors to find an “unmolested” one.

Conclusion

The Mazda RX-3 put together some key ingredients that enabled it to become one of the most desirable and popular of all Mazda’s rotary engine automobiles. By the time of the introduction of the RX-3 Mazda had extensively debugged the Wankel engine so the 10A and 12A engines were demonstrating the potential of the technology. Added to this the RX-3 was affordable and, just as important, it looked like an exciting and purposeful sports car, the coupé especially, which is why more than 50% of all RX-3’s sold were coupés.

The Mazda RX-3 was the model that pointed Mazda in the direction of understanding how to best use the Wankel engine technology they had expended so much energy into developing. Mazda discovered that the Wankel engine was attractive to performance enthusiasts and so they created high performance sports cars around that engine. The RX-3 also achieved for Mazda that which they had hoped the Wankel engine would: Mazda became a prominent name in motor sport and the company gained its “street cred”, catapulting it from being a small obscure maker of three wheel mini cars and commercials to being one of Japan’s most respected auto makers. Were Mazda wise to invest so much into the development of the Wankel engine? The answer is very clearly yes, and the RX-3 was one of the most important vehicles in using that technology to the best advantage.

Photo Credits: Mazda, DNA Garage.

The post A Brief History of the Mazda RX-3 appeared first on Silodrome.

source https://silodrome.com/history-mazda-rx-3/

#cars

0 notes