That's just it, Jeff. There is no requirement.

As to the spring, I don't know yet, and I don't even know if one can be made to work, but I suspect that one can be.

 

Why are you absolved from the legal requirement for the part required?

Why would anyone use yours, and not one designed to limit damage to the chassis?

The idea was "rebuild" but you wont engage in the energy discussion...or the cost one.


So..lets keep the lab coats on...how big of a spring are you going to need?

 

I think there is no requirement regarding the part I am involved with, at least not relating to me or anyone else except the original manufacturer. There is no law that I can find that would preclude me from installing the other crushable bumper mounts Porsche made, welding up the original struts, or pulling failed struts out with a portapower, as reported recently at Frenzy, even though I think we all know, or at least I know, they are still failed and not subject to restoration. There is no requirement to ever prove how your 928 bumper is mounted. Period. In fact I suspect that aside from the manufacturer showing with testing and certain documentation about what they say they are installing in a Porsche, when the car leaves the factory there never is any form of testing or even any inspection to prove that the car has shock struts. There is none at the loading dock where they are loaded for shipment, none when they are received across the ocean, none at the distributor and none at the dealership. That is not to mention that at any state's annual or other periodic inspection for SAFETY equipment there is no need for proof, and probably, if anything, nothing but at most a visual inspection, and I doubt even that.

As to the spring idea, many of us seem to have forgotten that car and truck bumpers, most of them anyway, have been mounted on springs for over a century; and in fact for the very many that are currently exempt from the 581 regulation, I suspect many of them still are.

 

...

 

That's where the process is broken.

You think.

You don't know. I read the manufacturer requirement for _this part_ to meet _specific_ needs, with a test procedure identified.

If a specific rule on the function of a part in the US market exists, you think someone can sell a part that bypasses that and not inherit the liability?

Something about a lawyer representing themselves yada.yada yada.

So how big of a spring?

 

Myles, why don't you do the focking test taking into consideration the strength of the springs relating to the toy car,and then report back to us the results.

P.S. do the test at both 5 mph and 2.5 mph so we can see that the car is moving at only about the speed of a person walking, scaled down of course.

 

Myles, I think you are going to have to make the springs out of something like human hair

 

That is really the question, Jeff. The regulation only applies to the original manufacturer. The Focking Regulation does not apply. Get a life.

 

It is really nice to have input here from someone who has a real focus on the law. Jeff is certainly one of those, even though his focus is only on the law that applies to the original manufacturer. Nevertheless is is nice to notice that someone here is TOTALLY obedient to the focking law; so I think we are assured that Jeff has probably never even exceeded the speed limit on one of our roadways. DUH

 

Jeff and Myles both need to get a life about this topic. There is absolutely no reason that these original failed struts cannot be recycled to function with a spring rather than the failed hydraulic system they were originally designed and created with. I think that the stated concerns with the spring recoiling is simply a WHO-GAS.

What the spring may amount to is in fact simply the spring that is 7 inches long, 1 1/4 inches in diameter and made with the spring rod big enough to allow for collapse of up to 3 inches. Whatever that spring amounts to is what my recycled mounts will have and anyone else desiring such might also have them available. The only variable in this is the diameter of the spring rod and the number of winds; and Son, Tim, will be helping me with that. If it turns out that my design upper limit is too heavy of a spring, then I will adjust, because, as I mentioned before, I need the spring to collapse fully on the 5 or 2.5 mph impact before causing any damage to the car structure. If the spring is too strong that might not be accomplished.

Again, the recoil is a WHO-GAS. We have been living with that for over a hundred years.

 

Quite frankly the whole argument about legality is silly. Not only because there are plenty of products sold for our cars that are not legal for various reasons (I don't see you folks waving the legal card in those threads), this was very much a US thing. Ever see a 1980's Countach versus ROW? Those gigantic bumpers were US only for our 5mph impact rating which were cooked up by the insurance companies to cut down on repair costs from low speed impacts. I converted a 90's Audi to Euro Spec. The factory parts included a bracket to eliminate the US bumper shocks.

Let's be thankful the 928 didn't suffer from the US vs Euro bumper differences so many other cars from the 70's design era had to deal with.

Alright, here's a thought. If you don't have anything constructive to add to this topic, just let Jerry and company work through this exercise of trying to refurbish these.

 

Here is the right shock I removed yesterday , it appears to be fully compressed.
though I would have to put it into a press to confirm this.

I put this in a press and it wont move. so its been fully compressed from the accident.

This shock was very hard to remove from the right side,
as the long bolt would unscrew from the anchor nut and the head would drop down and hit the hole for the tow hook,
I had to fight with the 2 shock mount bolts as the limited space behind the bumper made it difficult to get a wrench on the bolts.

I fitted a good used 70 mm shock to the right side and after refitting the PU cover the left shock also shows its been compressed.
So that side will get replaced when the PU gets painted.
also the 3 grill supports were broken off at the tops and the bottoms.

NOTE the distance left is 34 MM so it looks like the shock travel is 36 MM

 

" the whole argument about legality is silly."

It is..until the right family sues you.

Most stuff we do are not consumer safety issues.

Auto accidents get -all- kinds of eyes on the prize.

Who;s responsible for air bag deployment cost and lost-value claims when a -simple- bumper bounce sets them off prematurely?

I'm concerned about jerry, not the "law".

If jerry is not concerned about jerry, and his next-of-kin now part of the process either.

Then I don't care..

But I need part that WILL do the right job, it exist for $75. If you want part that will cost you $200 and not do the job...that's not my problem either.

 

I should get a life.

Ok, first tell me the spring that will operate like a hydraulic damper...

Then I'll go worry about something else. My concern is a fellow owners value..why yours is not, I can't begin to imagine. It's not like 5mph and under incidents are rare..they're not. They're just not chassis damaging incidents...because of the right parts involved.

I cant think for the life of me a 2" OD spring you can use here..once you do the energy math. What spring are you going to use to capture that energy, before the chassis take the impact. As designed.

YOUR job is preventing damage to the chassis at LEAST to the limit the OE part does...for $75.

 

Eric (Hacker) is correct.

The thread is titled with the words "can you", not "should you"!