The Great Damper/Shock absorber Confusion
The Great Damper/Shock absorber Confusion
Author
Discussion

gradeA

Original Poster:

651 posts

231 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Does it really bug anyone else that even people who should know better refer to suspension dampers as shock absorbers?

No, just me?

IGMC

Ennoch

371 posts

168 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
No you're not, it annoys the fk out of me too. As does Clarkson for having started the 'it's got so many torques' trend. FFS, torque's the measurement not the unit you fkwit! Unfortunately this now seems to be a standard unit of measurement among the idiots.

Major Fallout

5,278 posts

261 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Suspension Dampers, Friction Dampers, shocks, Shock Absorbers. Nope doesn't bother me one jot.

Im not even bothered that suspension no longer suspends.

monthefish

20,467 posts

261 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
gradeA said:
Does it really bug anyone else that even people who should know better refer to suspension dampers as shock absorbers?
No.

I couldn't give a fcensoredk.

SMGB

790 posts

169 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Major Fallout said:
Suspension Dampers, Friction Dampers, shocks, Shock Absorbers. Nope doesn't bother me one jot.

Im not even bothered that suspension no longer suspends.
Really doesnt bother me, isnt shocker an americanism?
A friction damper was an early form of the err shock absorber. They were horrid having exactly the opposite effect of what was wanted and if I can ever afford a pre-war blown MG J4 I would convert it to decent monotubes, and put hydraulic brakes on it too. Calling a brake disc a rotor here in the UK annoys me though.

EDLT

15,421 posts

236 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Ennoch said:
No you're not, it annoys the fk out of me too. As does Clarkson for having started the 'it's got so many torques' trend. FFS, torque's the measurement not the unit you fkwit! Unfortunately this now seems to be a standard unit of measurement among the idiots.
"pounds foot of torque" or "Newton metres of torque" doesn't roll off the tongue and "torques" annoys adenoidal car bores. There is literally no down side.

J4CKO

46,864 posts

230 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
But surely both are correct, it absorbs shocks from the road surface, it also damps the movement of the spring. both refer to the same metal tube with valves, air, oil or whatever in.

If someone said to me "I brought some new shockers the other day", the "Shocker" bit wouldnt be the part that causes me to gouge out their eyes.

smartphone hater

4,285 posts

173 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
I call a shock absorber a shock absorber & have been doing so for nearly 40 years, am I now wrong?

Major Fallout

5,278 posts

261 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
SMGB said:
Major Fallout said:
Suspension Dampers, Friction Dampers, shocks, Shock Absorbers. Nope doesn't bother me one jot.

Im not even bothered that suspension no longer suspends.
Really doesnt bother me, isnt shocker an americanism?
A friction damper was an early form of the err shock absorber. They were horrid having exactly the opposite effect of what was wanted and if I can ever afford a pre-war blown MG J4 I would convert it to decent monotubes, and put hydraulic brakes on it too. Calling a brake disc a rotor here in the UK annoys me though.
I wouldn't, its a pet hate of mine monotubes and hydraulic brakes on cars of that date. Makes them look like kit cars.

Ennoch

371 posts

168 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
EDLT said:
"pounds foot of torque" or "Newton metres of torque" doesn't roll off the tongue and "torques" annoys adenoidal car bores. There is literally no down side.
It's a useless word. 'my new car has 400 torques'. Great, you can read a spec sheet and remember figures but you're too dumb to actually understand the meaning of it. 400 'torques' means nothing given that lb.ft and nm are not interchangeable and thus 400 torques could mean either. Actually, you're right about people using the word - it shows up quickly and reliably who's a little bit 'special'.

I'm hazarding a guess here, but you like to use 'torques' don't you? wink

Back to the damper point; shock aborbers is at least more tolerable than 'shockies'...usually said in some thick local dialect and accompanied by the sound of knuckles scraping along the floor several feet behind the body projecting said word.

bicycleshorts

1,939 posts

191 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Ennoch said:
It's a useless word. 'my new car has 400 torques'. Great, you can read a spec sheet and remember figures but you're too dumb to actually understand the meaning of it. 400 'torques' means nothing given that lb.ft and nm are not interchangeable and thus 400 torques could mean either. Actually, you're right about people using the word - it shows up quickly and reliably who really hasn't a clue.

I'm hazarding a guess here, but you like to use 'torques' don't you?
Makes the car really nippy.

JREwing

17,550 posts

209 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
I'm usually a terrible pedant, but this doesn't bother me overly. Talking of which, my dampers are desperately in need of replacement.

jamieduff1981

8,092 posts

170 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
But surely both are correct, it absorbs shocks from the road surface, it also damps the movement of the spring. both refer to the same metal tube with valves, air, oil or whatever in.

If someone said to me "I brought some new shockers the other day", the "Shocker" bit wouldnt be the part that causes me to gouge out their eyes.
I don't agree with the first part - the spring is what absorbs the shock. The damper controls the spring.

I completely agree on the second part though. Is it a particular region of England or what? I've never heard a Scot, Irishman or Welshman fail to understand the difference between bringing and buying before.

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

32,031 posts

265 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
Not as bad a wing mirrors

jamieduff1981

8,092 posts

170 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
At least "wing mirrors" has some historical relevance. Shock absorbers is simply an indication of having no understanding of mechanical engineering principles.

_Neal_

2,954 posts

249 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
gradeA said:
Does it really bug anyone else that even people who should know better refer to suspension dampers as shock absorbers?
No, just me?
I don't actually know anyone who uses the term "suspension dampers". "Dampers" maybe, but more commonly "shocks" (as separate from springs). Doesn't annoy me.

"Torques" does though. As does "Petrolhead".

smartphone hater

4,285 posts

173 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
At least "wing mirrors" has some historical relevance. Shock absorbers is simply an indication of having no understanding of mechanical engineering principles.
Really laugh

JREwing

17,550 posts

209 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Not as bad a wing mirrors
What about 'rear windshield' and those who use an indefinite article with the word 'suspension'?
When I hear or read "a suspension" I wonder if that person means a suspension component, a suspension system, a hammock or a civil engineering project.

_Neal_

2,954 posts

249 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
Shock absorbers is simply an indication of having no understanding of mechanical engineering principles.
Or just using a phrase that's easily understood by the person they're speaking to.

jamieduff1981

8,092 posts

170 months

Friday 23rd November 2012
quotequote all
smartphone hater said:
Really laugh
Yes. When did you last use a "Shock absorbing coefficient" in a vibration mechanics equation?