Talk:Shock absorber

Shock absorber - not a misnomer, just regional usage

An analogy is made in the Article between a vehicle's suspension system and an electrical RLC circuit, where the resistive component is the damper's equivalent, and the LC is the spring's.

In both systems it is the latter, i.e. the spring (or LC), not the R (or damper), which absorbs shocks (and temporarily stores the energy.) The damper slowly dissipates that energy.

Take the basic child's go-kart; a shallow wooden box with a wheel nailed to each corner.

Now, to improve the ride you may choose to add either a set of dampers ("shock absorbers") or a set of springs.

It would be rather pointless to ask which one you would choose, so let's ask why would you (inevitably) choose the springs?

Because they would absorb the shocks. The dampers, the so-called "shock absorbers", wouldn't.

It is my contention that "shock absorber" is one of the most misunderstood and mis-used terminologies.

Syncopator 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is very misleading as it deals with Suspension damping units NOT Shock absorbers.

This page really should be deleted or re-titled. Wikipedia should be educating its users, this page does the complete opposite by re-enforcing a common misnomer without any attempt at correction.Morr (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I am a mechanical engineering student and I hopped over here looking for a specific link. the correct term is not 'schock absorber' its 'Damper' the shock loads are absorbed by the spring, the damper smoothes out oscillations. The correct terminology is mostly used in europe and racing circles but never seems to have caught on here

Don't be so provincial. In the United States, these devices are universally referred to as "shock absorbers" because they prevent the sudden jerks (shocks) that unrestrained springs on a moving vehicle generate as they reach their limits of expansion or compression when traveling over obstructions or holes. They are marketed, sold, repaired, and designed under that name. In the United Kingdom, these are called "dampers" or "dampeners". Both terms are legitimate regional usage and neither one is exclusively "correct" regardless of what your Mum told you, eh?  ;) I have worked on British cars in the USA and it's the same issue as hood .vs. bonnet, or trunk .vs. boot. Regional variation in language is normal, but if one page must be deleted or merged, I will point out that the term "shock absorber" is used by more people than "damper". That's just a fact... borne out by Google's 46,700,000 results for "automobile shock absorber" versus 3,260,000 results for "automobile damper". Note that the results for damper are high, because anti-sway bars are also called dampers. Shock absorber is the most common name for these devices, globally. Obviously Wikipedia should contain all this information.

"In the United Kingdom, these are called "dampers"

Nope. Not in the UK they aren't. Dampers is far more commonly a US term. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Both my 1500 MGA and BJ8 Healey shop manuals referred to them as dampeners. "Shock absorbers" do not absorb the shock of the suspension bottoming, they prevent it from happening. TVR (I had 3500 M (Oldsmobile) and 3900 S (Rover) TVRs) solved the bottoming problem by placing fat O-rings on the damper shafts, preventing the suspension from bottoming. Koni, in their aftermarket devices, didn't have the O-rings and the Koni devices quickly failed.Joninpalawan (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Hysteresis

According to this article, hysteresis is internal friction within springs and the chassis of a vehicle that dampens oscillations, but according to the hysteresis article, it is lag in a system, such as an inductor's reactivity or a piece of iron retaining a magnetic field for some time after leaving the field that originally magnetized it. These seem to be two different uses of hysteresis and I am confused as to whether they are the same or this article is using incorrectly and should be using "internal frictional forces" or something similar. 136.176.8.16 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Legend for illustration

The picture Gas_damper_mov.gif looks like a nice enough picture but it needs a legend explaining what parts A, B, C etc are. Nibios 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added them to the best of my knowledge. Hacktivist (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"B - the piston with seals" Well, it needs some kind of hole to let the oil pass trough, otherwise it won't dampen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebikesweden (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other types of shocks?

The Trophy Truck article mentions coil-over, internal and external bypass shocks. Can someone explain these three types of shocks?--68.188.157.172 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated image is incorrect, cleanup required

The animated GIF image is misleading. It shows large changes of volume of the air (and the hydraulic fluid) in the damper / shock absorber as the piston moves. IMPORTANT: The volume of hydraulic fluid in monotube shock absorbers is constant. The piston usually has ports in it, allowing it to move with resistance through the fluid. The displacement of fluid within the cylinder is slight, being caused by the change in volume of the rod (which is shown over-size) that the piston is attached to within the cylinder, and the gradual expansion of the hydraulic fluid with temperature.

The piston has constricted ports, so that when a force is applied to it, the piston moves through the fluid, encountering resistance. The energy dissipated in the fluid being forced through the piston ports heats it, causing it to expand.

Please amend the diagram

• reduce the thickness (diameter) of the piston rod
• show that the volume of air within the cylinder only changes a little as the piston moves
• indicate that the fluid passes through ports in the piston.

See also [1] (see monotube shock absorbers section)

GilesW (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC), clarified GilesW (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Description

I suggest revising the article along these lines: Any comments?

Comparing a worn out shock absorber with a new one shows that the worn one offers little resistance to the motion of the piston, but the good one is much stiffer.

When the wheel encounters a bump, a worn shock absorber's piston provides little resistance to deflection, moving quickly through the fluid. This allows the wheel to bounce up and down (oscillate) relative to the car, and the car to oscillate relative to the road. Excessive movement of the springs and suspension joints increase the stress on other parts of the suspension, causing failures (often on the corner of the vehicle opposite to the faulty shocker). Vehicle handling and braking are also affected.

The resistance to movement provided by a good shock absorber allows the spring to deflect only relatively slowly. The shock absorber both transmits much of the shock load directly to the chassis, and damps the resulting oscillation of the wheel-suspension-vehicle system. The friction of the piston moving through the fluid converts the kinetic energy into heat, heating the hydraulic fluid in the shock absorber. The terms shock absorber and damper are thus both valid, though in engineering the latter is preferred.

[2] (see monotube shock absorbers section)

GilesW (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Generality is good, but most people want info on modern cars' shock absorbers

It's fine that this article has lots of information about the history, etc. However, most people visiting this page would like info primarily on modern cars' shock absorbers.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is because this article suffers from an overdone round of group-think with too many editors contributing random bits of information without considering the overall article flow or intent. Honestly, I think the entire article should probably be gutted and rewritten from the beginning, with an emphasis on vehicle shock absorbers and a list of the myriad different kinds of shock absorbers in a "See also" section at the end. KDS4444^Talk 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Air shock picture annotation

I've removed the annotation, because it was obviously not correct, pneumatic shock absorbers don't have oil in them, and even if some types do, the volume of the oil cannot change in the way shown.

I would have replaced it, but I don't know the correct terms used. Does anyone have a reference for this?Teapeat (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Refer reader to "Dashpots"

The article on "Dashpot"s explains the function and application of the shock absorber, making this article of no use.Longinus876 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion to Dashpot

Discussion about replacing this article with dashpot. See Talk:Dashpot#Discussion_for_merging_shock_absorber_to_here Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And wisely, that did not happen. KDS4444^Talk 06:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate link

I had added a link to Cushioning in the 'See also' section. This was removed without reason. It would seem obvious that the two subjects are related. Readers of this article might be interested to know of the article on cushioning as used in packaging to isolate shock. Please explain the deletion. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does "Shock Absorber" redirect to "Dashpot"?

For some reason typing "Shock absorber" into the search bar brings you here, while typing "Shock Absorber" brings you the article on Dashpot, which seems kind of silly to me. I don't know how to change that, or I would do it myself..45Colt 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Shock absorber.stl

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Spiral shocks -

Could someone please research the rationale and physical function of spiral shocks, which seem to have been installed on GM and Nash cars in the 50s and 60s?

https://www.oldsobsolete.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DSCN6953.jpg 70.190.209.23 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, these Delco shocks had a spiral formed into the case in order to stiffen and strengthen the case (longer than previous designs, as there was more suspension travel) and because earlier models had been failing prematurely: a distorted case soon causes the seals to fail. The spiral had no function in relation to damping.

Once a simpler straight case of adequate longevity was available, the spiral was abandoned. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)