Jump to content

Mariehamm Arms Presents New Suspension


Uberstein
 Share

Recommended Posts

MariehammLogo.jpg

The Mariehamm Arms Company presents a new suspension for any tracked vehicle. It is a simple, elegant solution to the problem of vehicle flotation and ride quality. With a single visit to our workshops, any of your caterpillar track vehicles, military or civilian, will be able to cross any terrain, no matter how extreme, using classic bell crank and coil spring technology with a strategically placed shock absorber.

SturmpanzerwagenBayernMk1CSuspen-4.png

The Mechanism

SturmpanzerwagenBayernMk1CSuspen-6.png

Suspension with the patented 4-wheel system

Purely mechanical, this system is simple and effective, unlike those costly electric alternatives.

Another simply effective solution from your friendly neighborhood arms company.

Edited by BaronUberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a simple levered spring. There is no benefit to using this system compared to a single vertical spring

The engineers from New Zealand prove their lack of knowledge, the bell crank design with twin springs and the placement of the shock absorber allows more dampening effects, a single vertical spring would not do as well as this design.

If we remember correctly, you designed something quite absurd some time ago.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=42362&hl=

We suggest you improve your own designs before attempting to find flaws in ours.

OOC: I designed this with the help of a Green Beret and an Italian who knows about cars. :P

It's also just as good as modern tank suspensions if you look at their designs.

Edited by BaronUberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norsvea would like to send over one of its Type 90 tanks to be fitted with this suspension as a test subject. Upon our satisfaction, which Mariehamm never loses, we may have all of our tanks fitted with this.

However, one question: Are the suspension levers armored or open?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norsvea would like to send over one of its Type 90 tanks to be fitted with this suspension as a test subject. Upon our satisfaction, which Mariehamm never loses, we may have all of our tanks fitted with this.

However, one question: Are the suspension levers armored or open?

If you include the 4 wheel design with the refit, we will provide the wider 3-tooth treads and the suspension is covered by the wheels. It is guaranteed to stand up to at least 1 RPG round directly and still be able to drive thanks to the multi-wheel and multi-tooth system.

The cost will be $500,000 because it is not a bulk order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engineers from New Zealand prove their lack of knowledge, the bell crank design with twin springs and the placement of the shock absorber allows more dampening effects, a single vertical spring would not do as well as this design.

If we remember correctly, you designed something quite absurd some time ago.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=42362&hl=

We suggest you improve your own designs before attempting to find flaws in ours.

OOC: I designed this with the help of a Green Beret and an Italian who knows about cars. :P

It's also just as good as modern tank suspensions if you look at their designs.

You understand as the system rotates around the fixed point, the arms of the L crank become levers, creating a mechanical advantage, so that the further the arm turns the greater the advantage, increasing the force applied to the springs, and in effect making it easier to depress them. If your shock absorber is fixed to the arm at a point, then with rotation that shock absorber will be brought into contact with the sides of the spring, damaging them both. Finally these two strings should be chosen so that their natural oscillation periods are not linear multiples, else the shock absorber will have quite a workout when it has to contend with interfering beat frequencies.

OOC: 2nd year university mechanical engineer in my flat disagrees. BTW, your 'references' are rather ambiguous and without personal knowledge cannot be counted.

Edited by LeVentNoir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: 2nd year university mechanical engineer in my flat disagrees. BTW, your 'references' are rather ambiguous and without personal knowledge cannot be counted.
OOC: I designed this with the help of a Green Beret and an Italian who knows about cars. tongue.gif

It's also just as good as modern tank suspensions if you look at their designs.

OOC: You kids and your "engineering"

Can't you just both shout "SCIENCE!!!!" and be done with it? that way arguments like this won't happen :3

Edited by Lord Frost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: You kids and your engineering.

Can't you just both shout "SCIENCE!!!!" and be done with it? that way arguments like this won't happen :3

OOC: Cos then we would be like religious people. This way when the shouting is over, the person whos physics wins shall be all good, and the other dude will normally take it in good grace. Anyway, I'm off out of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You understand as the system rotates around the fixed point, the arms of the L crank become levers, creating a mechanical advantage, so that the further the arm turns the greater the advantage, increasing the force applied to the springs, and in effect making it easier to depress them. If your shock absorber is fixed to the arm at a point, then with rotation that shock absorber will be brought into contact with the sides of the spring, damaging them both. Finally these two strings should be chosen so that their natural oscillation periods are not linear multiples, else the shock absorber will have quite a workout when it has to contend with interfering beat frequencies.

OOC: 2nd year university mechanical engineer in my flat disagrees. BTW, your 'references' are rather ambiguous and without personal knowledge cannot be counted.

OOC: Your reference is just the same way, for all I know you could be bluffing. Also, if you leave this thread before finishing the argument I will take it as an admittance of defeat on your part.

IC:

Your claim that there would be mechanical advantage is invalid, for the horizontal spring is for dampening that movement. Also, your assumption that the compression rate will not be in synch with the dampening effects is incorrect, as is your claim that the angle arm has completely free movement, it is a swing arm with limited free movement that pivots at the angle hole.

OOC: I can understand your free movement assumption, I forgot to put a bolt in to show that it pivoted there in sketchup.

Edited by BaronUberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: You kids and your "engineering"

Can't you just both shout "SCIENCE!!!!" and be done with it? that way arguments like this won't happen :3

OOC: That is the greatest thing I have ever heard you say, Frost.

IC: ADI will hold off on outsourcing our labor to another company for the time being, and when we do, we intend fully to outsource it to the third world... or maybe even the fourth.

However, we find this service a good step forward towards knitting together the occasionally patchy international relations of Northern Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: Your reference is just the same way, for all I know you could be bluffing. Also, if you leave this thread before finishing the argument I will take it as an admittance of defeat on your part. I can understand your free movement assumption, I forgot to put a bolt in to show that it pivoted there in sketchup.

OOC: You can walk away simply because the fight is not worth it, not because you are losing. (WWI anyone?) Of course, the other side will see this as a victory to them and so it shall be remembered, (WWI again) but you know you had better things to be doing (I'm off to a fondue party.)

Also, I assumed the bolt was there, and yes, there would still be a advantage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: You can walk away simply because the fight is not worth it, not because you are losing. (WWI anyone?) Of course, the other side will see this as a victory to them and so it shall be remembered, (WWI again) but you know you had better things to be doing (I'm off to a fondue party.)

Also, I assumed the bolt was there, and yes, there would still be a advantage

OOC: Hey, this argument helps both our educations, we are talking about a non-existent suspension system.

As for WWI, Germany was tearing up pipes from the streets to make bullets, and if you look at what happened after WWI, it's clear that they lost.

Besides, I'm going off formal debate rules. :P

Edited by BaronUberstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...