Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms The pros and cons of sliding pillar suspension.

As a new boy to Morgans, I would genuinely be interested to hear a discussion on the pros and cons of sliding pillar suspension.

My thinking is that if it was that good, then others would have bought the rights to use it, so, are Morgan continueing with it just because they want to make an old fashioned and outdated car to satisfy demand or do they really think it is better?

Cars can still, look and be traditional without using old and possibly outdated technology, but be modernised gradually, retaining their essential character, like the Porsche 911 series and Lotus /Caterham Sevens. I know the new Plus 8 has more conventional suspension, taken from the Aero, but this is a really new venture for Morgan, is it likely to work?

It's a good question.

I do not see why anyone should have to pay to use sliding pillars, since Morgan did not actually invent the system...and it has been used by one or two other manufacturers, notably Lancia.

On the other hand, Porsche had to pay a licence fee to Mitsubishi for the use of harmonic balancer shafts, even though the concept had been invented by Frederick Lanchester.

As to your main point, I cannot see any reason why a Plus 4, for example, would be spoiled in any way by having a good wishbone system at the front.

I shall now put my hard hat on and would hide in the cellar if I had one.

Except Morgans don't have a sliding pillar system - the pillar is fixed. A mis-nomer...
Lancia did actually have sliding pillar suspension (pre-war?) for a while.

Advantage? Camber remains the same, so no matter how much the suspension compresses the tyre footprint remains the same. Simplicity could be argued as another...

I think Peter Mulberry and Rob Wells and Dave Rutherford would agree with you

Hi Graham

Do you recall the debate on EgoMog? Arguments put forward that if you consider the wheel as the base datum point as it follows the road its the car and therefore the pillar that does the moving, one bright spark even argued that if the car is stationary and you push the wing the stub axle stays still and the frame and pillar moves proving its a sliding pillar. I think the same person believed everything revolves around the earth mind you, me, I just checked to see if my ears were bleeding yet and hit delete..... Happy days!

I'm also new to Morgan and I'm not sure I have much to contribute, but this is my personal view:
Apart from being easily manufactured (short series) and easily maintained, it is a simple lightweight construction and an integral part of the vehicle chassis basic function. To replace it with a completely different system would probably mean developing the whole car, at a cost. All types of independent (front end-) suspension have their limitations and requirements and could prove hard to fit inside the tight and light body of a traditional Morgan.
To me the 'sliding hub/pillar' suspension is a clever and well performing system in tune with the Morgan traditional car concept, especially when enhanced with the Suplex kit.
with all due respect

The stillborn Triking-Morgan commissioned by Merz und Pabst - and abandoned after only one had been half-built - was designed with sliding pillars (er, or not exactly). I have been told (by people who should know) that the sliding pillar "would never work" on the modern three-wheeler, one reason being that it would be too heavy.

It would be interesting to know what has become of this intriguing Guzzi-powered machine. I understand that it is now somewhere in Germany, perhaps gathering dust in the back of someone's garage. Triking actually supplied a double-wishbone front end for it as a replacement for the sliding (or not) pillars that were judged unsuitable.

It was used on other cars, but not in quite the same form. I knew that Lancia used a type of sliding pillar suspension for many years. I went looking in Wikipedia to see just when they stopped using it. It was 1963. Nobody ever accused the Lancia of being a poor handler.

Wikipedia has an entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_pillar_suspension

The last of the Lancia with sliding pillar suspension is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Appia

I also started following links, the way one does, and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_suspension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_wishbone_suspension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_long_arms_suspension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_steer

Whilst not being engineering texts they make interesting reading. Wikipedia may often have items subject to dispute but I see it as a valuable resource that can form a part of the research on many subjects.

I knew Tony Divey during the period of development of this machine. It was intended to build 100 units for the 100th anniversary of Morgan.

Tony was really not very well at the time, he never really fully recovered from a stroke, and I am sure that did not help. Also we did try to introduce Tony and someone from Merz & Pabst to the right people at Guzzi. Unfortunately they were going through one of their many transitions at the time and those responsible were too short sighted to see the possibilities and asked spare parts prices for the necessary Guzzi parts. I think that was a major discouragement for the project.

Work at Triking gradually slowed as Tony became more unwell and in time Triking was taken over by Alan Layzell who had worked for Triking for many years. Somewhere along the line the unfinished Morgan replica prototype was passed to another cycle car manufacturer, Arthur Rayner of Aero Cycle Cars. Arthur originally intended to complete the project but latter sold it.

Incidently Tony was an ex Lotus employee who worked with Colin Chapman so he knew a thing or two about suspension and steering. Suffice to say that when he designed the Triking he did not use the Morgan sliding pillar design.

Posted by Dan Lockwood in the Three Wheeler forum:

Actually the MacPherson strut comes very close to the sliding pillar design, albeit a self-contained strut compared to lots of smaller sliding parts. Being all pre-lubed internally for up/down right/left motion, it places the ball joint pivot centerline on the center line of the tire much easier than about any other setup. You don't have to have a wide rear offset wheel to accomplish this feat.

Even though there is a lower control arm and ball joint to allow for the rotational axis of the strut, it's still a very simple design. VW was very successful with it when they came out with the Super Beetle in '70.

Or even if you look at the first link that Gambalunga listed, the one with the pillar and red external shock, think how easy it would be to take this simple design to the next level. What if you just removed the coil springs, compression/rebound, from the pillar and replaced the shock with a coil over that would be fully adjustable. With front steering linkage place the coil over on the rear and place rubber boots on the exposed pillar for protection.

There are so many designs it boggles the mind.
_________________________
Dan

2009 FHTRSE3 Harley Road Glide
1976 FLH Shovelhead Restored
www.picturetrail.com/Dan_Lockwood