I’m sure that Peter Mulberry will be thrilled to be told that his leaf springs are badly made.
You should merely have asked for clarification Paul, but so few people do these days. And is that the point you wish to add to this
discussion? I will answer both.
Peter is one of my very dearest friends. We are both retired and correspond constantly, on everything from Morgans to life. Right or
wrong, we are heroes to each other. I will not go on for fear of embarrassing him. In any event, both Rob and Peter have done so
much for the marque they are pre-forgiven for all time. Neither ever failed to explain something to me.
And Peter never made leaf springs, IIRC. I spoke to an addon, shackles made at Rob's insistence. Considering Peter and Rob's
relationship, I understand that completely.North American truckers do that often to support heavier loads. They are not interested in sports
car handling and comfort.
Shackles, their type, the number of them and their placement change how the leafs act. They most often change the spring rate drastically.
One can also use the steel spec and thickness to achieve the same thing. One chooses springs for every vehicle by their spring rate. Yes
you can make leaf springs so stiff that they become, virtually, tramp preventers. The price is the loss of proper leaf spring dynamics. Rob's
addon only sold for a short time before it was removed from the market. The bad back plague ended. I have an old Morgan mate whose wife
wrote me to thank me 20 years ago when her husband removed the device. What should one assume when the vendor will not tell you his
resultant leaf spring rate? That being said, an improvment in steel quality is a HUGE step in the right direction.
I use 140-145 rear springs, the same spring rate of my front main springs (marked "Plus 4") even in 2002 when they were not making Plus 4s
How about you? The MMC has played around with lower springs rate since PM passed, along with many suppliers. What have you chosen to
use?
gmg
