Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 2007, week 4)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:56:00 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: Upon seeing bostig's handiwork
Comments: To: neil N <musomuso@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <c4e7c5f90707261025y1ef7aa5ct5e87e20af6167625@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

As you point out, this is an important distinction. I was thinking perhaps measuring from the crank centerline would be the best way to measure ground clearance potential. The crank centerline and therefore input shaft centerline will always be the same relative to each other, and therefore provide a great absolute measure. If the distance below the crank centerline for one engine is greater than for another, it's ground clearance potential is lower, it will then only be the implementation/cradle mounting that will determine actual clearance. I have a strong interest in eliminating as much speculation on this type of thing as possible and I'm glad that others are interested in doing so as well.

In our 3d point cloud setup. Everything is taken relative to the frame rails of the van itself, so that also eliminates the springs or indeed wheels/tires in the comparison. I'm going to get my point cloud data to Clint and see if he can't help get the undercarriage "mappings" into 3d contours to aid in comparison.

Jim Akiba

On 7/26/07, neil N <musomuso@gmail.com> wrote: > I might be totally missing the point on what you said Jim, but to > simplify things re ground clearance..... > > Could one give a spec for distance from bottom of sub frame where > cradle or engine bar mounts to, to the bottom (centre) of a given > engine? > > Obviously not of interest to most customers, but would take the > sagging springs etc. out of the equation and would give a consistent > point to measure from. > > Neil. > > 81 air cooled Westy. > > > On 7/26/07, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > Here are some answers: > > SNIP > > > I've been thinking > > about ways to provide a better and more accurate way to measure/show > > ground clearance, > > SNIP > > > > > > > > On 7/26/07, Jim Felder <felder@knology.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Oxroad@aol.com wrote: > > SNIP > > > > > > To the Bostig: > > > > > > > > The literature says it has better than stock ground clearance. In > > > > photos on the website it looks like it dips a little lower. This > > > > may be because the configuration of the waterboxer muffler in the > > > > stock set up creates certain optical "allusions" that break of the > > > > site line. So is the ground clearance truly better? > > > > > > SNIP >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.