At 04:44 PM 1/25/2007, Rick Karlquist wrote:
> >>Another thought on the subject: It may be more convenient to mount the
> >> shock
> >>absorber under the rotor between the tower and rotor.
>I bought a used tower with an M2 rotor installed in it.
>It had a rubber shock mount system under the rotor.
>The rubber was all beat up and falling apart. I asked
>M2 about it, and they said that was kind of a failed
>experiment because the rubber only lasted 6 months.
>They said forget about it and go back to a rigid mount.
>I am wondering about these rubber donut things: how
>well does the rubber hold up in the sun?
Very poorly, I would imagine... even the UV inhibited rubber tends to
degrade after a few years. I'll bet there are elastomers that could
be used, but, there might be a better system solution to taking up
misalignment, buffering the slings and arrows of shock loads, and
damping vibrations. The couplings that look like a spring would do
the first two.
> They never
>see UV in a car.
At least if you keep the greasy side of the car towards the
road. Erik "on the roof" Carlsson might have different experiences.
TowerTalk mailing list