Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35622 is a reply to message #35546] |
Sun, 15 February 2009 16:32   |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We should have the new Duel Bag units
available by March.
It will cost not much more than the standard bags, but not need to use
the out dated bags.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Len <B52Rule@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Any new words on the new 2/4 bagger coming out?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Len and Pat
> 78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
> Fallbrook, CA
>We
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
>
> www.bdub.net/novak/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35625 is a reply to message #35622] |
Sun, 15 February 2009 16:36 |
Len Novak
Messages: 676
Registered: February 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
I really don't want to start a war with that comment.
Cheers,
Len and Pat
78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
Fallbrook, CA
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kanomata
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:33 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
We should have the new Duel Bag units
available by March.
It will cost not much more than the standard bags, but not need to use
the out dated bags.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Len <B52Rule@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Any new words on the new 2/4 bagger coming out?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Len and Pat
> 78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
> Fallbrook, CA
>We
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
>
> www.bdub.net/novak/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Len and Pat Novak
1978 GMC Kingsley
The Beast II with dash lights that work and labels you can see!
Las Vegas, NV new email: B52sRule@Gmail.com
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35633 is a reply to message #35625] |
Sun, 15 February 2009 17:23 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Duel Bag unit is no more than a cross for the original unit.
Quadra Bag is an independent rear wheel suspension where each bag
controls the wheel. Spring rate is changed so decrease the sway in a
way that is hard to see until you install one on the coach.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Len <B52Rule@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
>
> I really don't want to start a war with that comment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Len and Pat
> 78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
> Fallbrook, CA
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
>
> www.bdub.net/novak/
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
> [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kanomata
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
> We should have the new Duel Bag units
> available by March.
> It will cost not much more than the standard bags, but not need to use
> the out dated bags.
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Len <B52Rule@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> Any new words on the new 2/4 bagger coming out?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Len and Pat
>> 78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
>> Fallbrook, CA
>>We
>> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
>>
>> www.bdub.net/novak/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
> jimk@appliedairfilters.com
> http://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35723 is a reply to message #35625] |
Mon, 16 February 2009 13:32 |
Rick Denney
Messages: 430
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Len writes...
> Jim,
> Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
This was discussed quite a lot recently.
Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
without risk of being proprietary.
The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
expensive than the Harrison system.
Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
noticed no improvement in coach handling.
The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
Denney
'73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
Northern Virginia
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
'73 Glacier 230 "Jaws"
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35724 is a reply to message #35723] |
Mon, 16 February 2009 13:38 |
Ray Erspamer
Messages: 1707
Registered: May 2007
Location: Milwaukee Wisconsin
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I also think it's great to have good engineers in the group to keep as many options open as possible. Everyone in the group is at a different financial level. Some can afford to buy a coach and stick $100k into it, some have to stretch themselves to buy their 30 year dream and then peck away at improvements. But that's what makes this group of people so incredible, the diversity and seeing the many ideas that people come up with to solve various problems.
I think this is one fine group of people !
Ray
Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale Center Kitchen
The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
----- Original Message ----
From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
To: Len <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 1:32:16 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
Len writes...
> Jim,
> Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
This was discussed quite a lot recently.
Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
without risk of being proprietary.
The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
expensive than the Harrison system.
Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
noticed no improvement in coach handling.
The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
Denney
'73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
Northern Virginia
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ray Erspamer
78 GMC Royale Center Kitchen
403, 3.70 Final Drive
Holley Sniper Quadrajet EFI System,
Holley Hyperspark Ignition System
414-484-9431
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35729 is a reply to message #35724] |
Mon, 16 February 2009 14:19 |
Kurt Luthy
Messages: 20
Registered: January 2009
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I was following the 4 discussion. But I'm wondering if it affects comfort,
because the fixed column does not allow the suspension to "walk" over bumps
on the road? What is the experience in this regard?
thanks Kurt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Erspamer" <78gmc-royale@att.net>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> I also think it's great to have good engineers in the group to keep as
many options open as possible. Everyone in the group is at a different
financial level. Some can afford to buy a coach and stick $100k into it,
some have to stretch themselves to buy their 30 year dream and then peck
away at improvements. But that's what makes this group of people so
incredible, the diversity and seeing the many ideas that people come up with
to solve various problems.
>
> I think this is one fine group of people !
>
> Ray
>
> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> 78 Royale Center Kitchen
> The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
> 414-745-3188
> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
> To: Len <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 1:32:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
> Len writes...
>
> > Jim,
>
> > Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
>
> This was discussed quite a lot recently.
>
> Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
> without risk of being proprietary.
>
> The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
> bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
> smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
> maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
> main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
> heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
>
> The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
> that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
> maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
> does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
> expensive than the Harrison system.
>
> Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
> interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
> know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
> noticed no improvement in coach handling.
>
> The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
> OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
> therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
> hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
> provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
> bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
> bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
> It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
> one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
> benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
> coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
> It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
>
> Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
> Denney
>
> '73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
> Northern Virginia
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35731 is a reply to message #35723] |
Mon, 16 February 2009 14:28 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rick,
You do a great job of putting thing in print.
I'm always struggling to put thing on paper.
Only thing I want to add is that Firestone is still making the bags
for the orders in place. We have no idea as to how many we will
receive before the end production in June.
We will have the Duel Bag unit at the end of the month.
Cost will be $200 more than the price of 2 standard bags..
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com> wrote:
> Len writes...
>
>> Jim,
>
>> Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
>
> This was discussed quite a lot recently.
>
> Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
> without risk of being proprietary.
>
> The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
> bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
> smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
> maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
> main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
> heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
>
> The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
> that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
> maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
> does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
> expensive than the Harrison system.
>
> Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
> interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
> know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
> noticed no improvement in coach handling.
>
> The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
> OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
> therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
> hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
> provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
> bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
> bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
> It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
> one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
> benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
> coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
> It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
>
> Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
> Denney
>
> '73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
> Northern Virginia
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35802 is a reply to message #35729] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 07:27 |
Steven Ferguson
Messages: 3447
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kurt,
It still "walks" over bumps. Each wheel has an independent air bag.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Kurt Luthy <kulu@cox.net> wrote:
> I was following the 4 discussion. But I'm wondering if it affects comfort,
> because the fixed column does not allow the suspension to "walk" over bumps
> on the road? What is the experience in this regard?
> thanks Kurt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Erspamer" <78gmc-royale@att.net>
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
>
>> I also think it's great to have good engineers in the group to keep as
> many options open as possible. Everyone in the group is at a different
> financial level. Some can afford to buy a coach and stick $100k into it,
> some have to stretch themselves to buy their 30 year dream and then peck
> away at improvements. But that's what makes this group of people so
> incredible, the diversity and seeing the many ideas that people come up with
> to solve various problems.
>>
>> I think this is one fine group of people !
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
>> 78 Royale Center Kitchen
>> The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
>> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
>> Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
>> 414-745-3188
>> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
>> To: Len <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 1:32:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>>
>> Len writes...
>>
>> > Jim,
>>
>> > Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
>>
>> This was discussed quite a lot recently.
>>
>> Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
>> without risk of being proprietary.
>>
>> The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
>> bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
>> smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
>> maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
>> main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
>> heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
>>
>> The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
>> that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
>> maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
>> does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
>> expensive than the Harrison system.
>>
>> Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
>> interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
>> know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
>> noticed no improvement in coach handling.
>>
>> The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
>> OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
>> therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
>> hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
>> provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
>> bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
>> bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
>> It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
>> one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
>> benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
>> coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
>> It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
>>
>> Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
>> Denney
>>
>> '73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
>> Northern Virginia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Steve Ferguson
'76 EII
Sierra Vista, AZ
Urethane bushing source
www.bdub.net/ferguson/
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35808 is a reply to message #35802] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 08:30 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kurt is correct
someone should talk about the benefits of the original design using the
bogie technology. The original system effectively cut the bumps in half
with the airbag to soften what was left of the bump. when you go over a
speed bump you get a big hit with the front wheels, and almost nothing from
rear bogies.
the 4 bagger effectively lifts the whole rear of the coach on the first set
of wheels to reach the bump, ( with a tiny leak to the rear bag) , this
eliminates the gain of the bogie design and turns it into a dual axle
design.
different with different features.
gene
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Steven Ferguson <botiemad11@gmail.com>wrote:
> Kurt,
> It still "walks" over bumps. Each wheel has an independent air bag.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Kurt Luthy <kulu@cox.net> wrote:
> > I was following the 4 discussion. But I'm wondering if it affects
> comfort,
> > because the fixed column does not allow the suspension to "walk" over
> bumps
> > on the road? What is the experience in this regard?
> > thanks Kurt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ray Erspamer" <78gmc-royale@att.net>
> > To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> >
> >
> >> I also think it's great to have good engineers in the group to keep as
> > many options open as possible. Everyone in the group is at a different
> > financial level. Some can afford to buy a coach and stick $100k into it,
> > some have to stretch themselves to buy their 30 year dream and then peck
> > away at improvements. But that's what makes this group of people so
> > incredible, the diversity and seeing the many ideas that people come up
> with
> > to solve various problems.
> >>
> >> I think this is one fine group of people !
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> >> 78 Royale Center Kitchen
> >> The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
> >> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> >> Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
> >> 414-745-3188
> >> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
> >> To: Len <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 1:32:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> >>
> >> Len writes...
> >>
> >> > Jim,
> >>
> >> > Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
> >>
> >> This was discussed quite a lot recently.
> >>
> >> Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
> >> without risk of being proprietary.
> >>
> >> The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
> >> bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
> >> smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
> >> maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
> >> main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
> >> heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
> >>
> >> The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
> >> that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
> >> maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
> >> does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
> >> expensive than the Harrison system.
> >>
> >> Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
> >> interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
> >> know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
> >> noticed no improvement in coach handling.
> >>
> >> The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
> >> OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
> >> therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
> >> hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
> >> provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
> >> bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
> >> bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
> >> It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
> >> one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
> >> benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
> >> coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
> >> It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
> >>
> >> Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
> >> Denney
> >>
> >> '73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
> >> Northern Virginia
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ferguson
> '76 EII
> Sierra Vista, AZ
> Urethane bushing source
> www.bdub.net/ferguson/
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35817 is a reply to message #35808] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 09:23 |
Ray Erspamer
Messages: 1707
Registered: May 2007
Location: Milwaukee Wisconsin
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I am so happy I put in brand new bags when I purchased my coach in spring of 06. By the time I need new bags all of these new ideas/options should be well perfected.
Again, thanks to all of you working on these great ideas.
Ray
Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale Center Kitchen
The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
----- Original Message ----
From: Mr.erf ERFisher <mr.erfisher@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:30:16 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
Kurt is correct
someone should talk about the benefits of the original design using the
bogie technology. The original system effectively cut the bumps in half
with the airbag to soften what was left of the bump. when you go over a
speed bump you get a big hit with the front wheels, and almost nothing from
rear bogies.
the 4 bagger effectively lifts the whole rear of the coach on the first set
of wheels to reach the bump, ( with a tiny leak to the rear bag) , this
eliminates the gain of the bogie design and turns it into a dual axle
design.
different with different features.
gene
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Steven Ferguson <botiemad11@gmail.com>wrote:
> Kurt,
> It still "walks" over bumps. Each wheel has an independent air bag.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Kurt Luthy <kulu@cox.net> wrote:
> > I was following the 4 discussion. But I'm wondering if it affects
> comfort,
> > because the fixed column does not allow the suspension to "walk" over
> bumps
> > on the road? What is the experience in this regard?
> > thanks Kurt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ray Erspamer" <78gmc-royale@att.net>
> > To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> >
> >
> >> I also think it's great to have good engineers in the group to keep as
> > many options open as possible. Everyone in the group is at a different
> > financial level. Some can afford to buy a coach and stick $100k into it,
> > some have to stretch themselves to buy their 30 year dream and then peck
> > away at improvements. But that's what makes this group of people so
> > incredible, the diversity and seeing the many ideas that people come up
> with
> > to solve various problems.
> >>
> >> I think this is one fine group of people !
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> >> 78 Royale Center Kitchen
> >> The Malosco Cruiser (TZE368V101144)
> >> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> >> Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
> >> 414-745-3188
> >> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Rick Denney <rick@rickdenney.com>
> >> To: Len <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 1:32:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> >>
> >> Len writes...
> >>
> >> > Jim,
> >>
> >> > Are you going to give us the pros and cons of each 4 bag system?
> >>
> >> This was discussed quite a lot recently.
> >>
> >> Since I don't any of the four-bag systems, I'll offer some comments
> >> without risk of being proprietary.
> >>
> >> The Harrison system works by providing a stiff column between the two
> >> bogies to eliminate interactions between them. It uses a slightly
> >> smaller bag that requires higher pressure than the factory bag to
> >> maintain ride height. It reportedly reduces total travel a bit. The
> >> main issue is that the center column is not strong enough to support a
> >> heavy coach on only one bag, and it will distort if asked to.
> >>
> >> The Quadrabag system works similarly. It has a stronger center column
> >> that will support the coach on one wheel. It uses a larger bag that
> >> maintains ride height at a lower pressure, similar to the OEM bag. It
> >> does not limit travel at all. But it's several hundred dollars more
> >> expensive than the Harrison system.
> >>
> >> Both of the above systems improve rear stability by eliminating the
> >> interaction during suspension travel between the two bogies. I don't
> >> know anyone who has bought either one who has complained that they
> >> noticed no improvement in coach handling.
> >>
> >> The 2/4 system that Chuck Aulgur has designed is a replacement for the
> >> OEM system. Though it uses four bags, it does not isolate the bags and
> >> therefore cannot support the coach on one wheel at all. It uses a
> >> hinged plate between the two bags to keep them in line, but it still
> >> provides complete weight transfer of suspension action between the
> >> bogies. It's designed as a low-cost solution for people who need new
> >> bags and don't desire to upgrade to an independent four-bag system.
> >> It's just a way to keep from being forced to spend $1200-1600 when all
> >> one wants to do is replace bags. It is not intended to provide the
> >> benefits of an independent four-bag system, but rather just to keep
> >> coaches in service now that Firestone is no longer making the OEM bag.
> >> It's a replacement, not an upgrade.
> >>
> >> Rick "glad we have good design engineers like Chuck in our midst"
> >> Denney
> >>
> >> '73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
> >> Northern Virginia
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Ferguson
> '76 EII
> Sierra Vista, AZ
> Urethane bushing source
> www.bdub.net/ferguson/
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ray Erspamer
78 GMC Royale Center Kitchen
403, 3.70 Final Drive
Holley Sniper Quadrajet EFI System,
Holley Hyperspark Ignition System
414-484-9431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35837 is a reply to message #35830] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 12:44 |
Rick Denney
Messages: 430
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bruce Hislop writes...
> Maybe whats needed is a "Hybrid" design. The center of the airbags
> could be allowed to move back and forth a limited amount to allow
> for "Bogie action"... but if a bag or tire blew, then the remaining
> wheel could take over to get you to a service center.
There is some confusion about the interaction between the bogies.
The advantage of the tandem suspension over a single dually axle is
that it provides the same load-carrying ability without being limited
to a single point of suspension. That means that a given bump only
affects have the rear suspension at a time, rather than all of it, and
the rear of the coach will therefore only move half as much in
response to the given bump (but it will do it twice).
This advantage remains as long as we have a tandem design. It is not
affected by the connection (or not) between the bogies, as long as
both wheels stay on the ground. I can think of nothing about the
single bag connecting the bogies that would provide an advantage over
the two bogies being fully independent, as long as each bag in a
four-bag system doesn't undermine the suspension compliance compared
to the single large bag.
There are differences in the details of the dynamic response, based on
effective spring rates and such caused by having a stiff center
column, but not in the conceptual advantage of tandem wheels.
The only advantage to providing the hinged plate between two bags, as
is currently being developed, over the four-bag upgrade systems is
that it's cheaper. The only advantage the new system has over the
original is that uses bags that will continue to be available.
Everyone I know who has a four-bag upgrade system thinks it makes the
coach ride better, not worse.
Rick "thinking the single double-convoluted bag was a design
convenience" Denney
'73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
Northern Virginia
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
'73 Glacier 230 "Jaws"
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35838 is a reply to message #35834] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 12:42 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually chuck's new single bag design, is the hybrid
, because it appears to use a moveable center arm which still will keep the
bogie action
We will see at GMCWS rally ( I hope)
gene
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Gary Worobec <gtw5@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We have a hybrid design. It's called the Quadra bag.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary and Joanne Worobec
> Anza, CA
> 1973 23' Glacier
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Hislop" <bruce@perthcomm.com>
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
>
> >
> >
> > Maybe whats needed is a "Hybrid" design. The center of the airbags
> could
> > be allowed to move back and forth a limited amount to allow for "Bogie
> > action"... but if a bag or tire blew, then the remaining wheel could take
> > over to get you to a service center.
> >
> > Just an idea.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Hislop,
> > S. Ontario Canada
> > 77PB, 455
> > http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1906
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35839 is a reply to message #35838] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 12:51 |
Gary Worobec
Messages: 867
Registered: May 2005
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not really. Unless I'm reading the design wrong that if one of the bags
blows you still lose that entire side. The big advantage with the Qbag is
that if one bag blows or a tire blows or a wheel bearing seizes you could
still get somewhere on the existing bag and wheel albeit slowly but you
would not be stranded. To me that is a big advantage. It's the 3/4"
thickness of steel that makes up the center support of the Q-bag that makes
all the difference in the systems. Without that you might as well run the
existing system as designed.
Thanks,
Gary and Joanne Worobec
Anza, CA
1973 23' Glacier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr.erf ERFisher" <mr.erfisher@gmail.com>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
> Actually chuck's new single bag design, is the hybrid
> , because it appears to use a moveable center arm which still will keep
> the
> bogie action
>
> We will see at GMCWS rally ( I hope)
>
> gene
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Gary Worobec <gtw5@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We have a hybrid design. It's called the Quadra bag.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gary and Joanne Worobec
>> Anza, CA
>> 1973 23' Glacier
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce Hislop" <bruce@perthcomm.com>
>> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe whats needed is a "Hybrid" design. The center of the airbags
>> could
>> > be allowed to move back and forth a limited amount to allow for "Bogie
>> > action"... but if a bag or tire blew, then the remaining wheel could
>> > take
>> > over to get you to a service center.
>> >
>> > Just an idea.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bruce Hislop,
>> > S. Ontario Canada
>> > 77PB, 455
>> > http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1906
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GMCnet mailing list
>> > Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
> "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
> -------
> http://gmcmotorhome.info/
> Alternator Protection Cable
> http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35841 is a reply to message #35840] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 13:09 |
Gary Worobec
Messages: 867
Registered: May 2005
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm confused, if the center connection can move forward and aft and you blow
a bag..... what supports the good bag? I'm not knocking Chuck's design but
isn't it simply two new style bags end to end with a hinge to provide some
articulation?
Thanks,
Gary and Joanne Worobec
Anza, CA
1973 23' Glacier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hislop" <bruce@perthcomm.com>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
>
> What I was trying to say is something like a cross between Chuck's new
> design and the quadra-bag. The center connection could move back and
> forth as in Chuck's design, but within a limited range within uprights as
> in the Quadra-bag.
>
> This would allow "walking beam" action over bumps as in the original
> design, while in the case of a blown bag, the remaining bag could be
> pumped up to carry the coach on one wheel as in the quadra-bagger.
>
> I think I am digging a hole here and opening a can of worms again.
>
>
> --
> Bruce Hislop,
> S. Ontario Canada
> 77PB, 455
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1906
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger [message #35842 is a reply to message #35841] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 13:21 |
Rick Denney
Messages: 430
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gary Worobec writes...
> I'm confused, if the center connection can move forward and aft and you blow
> a bag..... what supports the good bag? I'm not knocking Chuck's design but
> isn't it simply two new style bags end to end with a hinge to provide some
> articulation?
Nothing supports the good bag. Chuck's new system is not intended to
fulfill the requirement of standing the coach on one wheel. If you
blow a bag, the ends of the bag will collapse against each other just
like with the factory bag.
And yes, the design is not intended to provide any advantage over the
OEM system except continued bag availability and a relatively low
price.
The bags require lateral support on the ends, and the hinged plate
provides that. Otherwise, you could just bolt the ends of two bags
together as was suggested a while back. If it was stiff and strong
enough to provide longitudinal support (as does the Harrison and
Quadrabag systems), it would cost a lot more (as do the Harrison and
Quadrabag systems).
Rick "being careful understand the options with respect to
requirements" Denney
'73 230 Ex-Glacier "Jaws"
Northern Virginia
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
'73 Glacier 230 "Jaws"
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 17 14:49:33 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06545 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
