Armstrong shocks: original?

[mbell]

I removed these Armstrong shocks from my car today. Wondering if they are the originals or a replacement set?

Still work but very little resistance on compression and one seemed to be leaking.

[StressCraxx]

I'm pretty sure they are replacements of the originals. When I removed my rear dampers 40 years ago, the cap came off and everything came out as the piston rod, piston,some smaller pieces and dirty oil. There was no cartridge as I recall.

Of course, it was 40 years ago....

[mbell]

I think but not sure but by the time they got to building my car they where using inserts rather than building the shocks in to the tube. But might be wrong.

Cosmetically they are in very good condition, which made me think they were replacements. Until I saw the 010672 number, which I wondered if it was 1st June 1972.

There was no obvious signs of multiple punch marks in the top of the tubes you might get if they'd been opened before.

If they are replacement they likely would have been fitted in 1990 or 1991. Not sure if Armstrong was still around at that point. The front shocks are spax that I believe we're fitted around then. So was kind of expecting spax at the rear too.

[rgh0]

They may be original.

The shocks that assembled in the rear strut tube with no insert were only used on S1 and maybe some S2 cars. They moved to using the inserts as original fitment in the mid 60's. You can tell the strut tubes they were used without inserts originally as they had a small plug for the oil in the side about half way up so the oil could be checked or filled once the shock was assembled in the tube. You find them in narrow inner bearing Issue 16 struts

cheers
Rohan

[elans3]

Original at that year. many were Armstrong, who were a company that produced high quality kit. As we all know, Chapman used whatever he could get, or from a supplier point of view, whoever didn't want the bill paying, but pretty much always good quality stuff.
Armstrong closed the shock absorber business in 1981.

[SENC]

In case you are interested in having them rebuilt, I'll share my experience.

I searched for a good while for someone to help rebuild the original Armstrongs on my Seven, to no avail. I did have them tested and they are still in spec, so back on they have gone.

In researching, I found a lead that Harvey Bailey Engineering, http://www.harveybailey.co.uk/, is the closest thing to a successor and that they can and do rebuild some Armstrongs (mine were a sealed type they could not rebuild). Very responsive and pleasant by email and phone, though, and they were the only source I could find for the right shock-eye bushings for mine.

[oldelanman]

They may be original.

The shocks that assembled in the rear strut tube with no insert were only used on S1 and maybe some S2 cars. They moved to using the inserts as original fitment in the mid 60's. You can tell the strut tubes they were used without inserts originally as they had a small plug for the oil in the side about half way up so the oil could be checked or filled once the shock was assembled in the tube. You find them in narrow inner bearing Issue 16 struts

cheers
Rohan

My S4 has Issue 18 struts and did not have the inserts and there is no filler plug either.

Original rear damper

[RichardHawkins]

When I took my 1968 S4 apart, I had one strut as shown in Rogers photo and one insert. Of course I have no idea what previous owners had done.

Richard Hawkins

[Hawksfield]

My 1971 +2 had non insert shocks when I removed them in 1986

[mbell]

Thanks everyone, my conclusion is these are the original shocks for the car. Thought someone might have pulled a similar set it off there car.

If these are original there's no wonder there was a lack of damping...

Only had a quick look but they didn't look like they would be serviceable. I have a set of ttr "comfort" ready to go back in (will in to new shock tubes). So not planning to rebuild these. They will be kept with the stash of parts I have removed/replaced on the car.

Mark

[rgh0]

My 1971 +2 had non insert shocks when I removed them in 1986

I have never seen a non insert shock on an issue 18 casting, either with or without a oil plug in the tube but it appears that they have existed. Just goes to show that we cant be 100% certain about anything Lotus may or may not have done originally when building cars and potentially running short of "normal" components for some reason (like not paying the bill):lol:

cheers
Rohan

[StressCraxx]

My 1971 +2 had non insert shocks when I removed them in 1986

I have never seen a non insert shock on an issue 18 casting, either with or without a oil plug in the tube but it appears that they have existed. Just goes to show that we cant be 100% certain about anything Lotus may or may not have done originally when building cars and potentially running short of "normal" components for some reason (like not paying the bill):lol:

cheers
Rohan

Mine are Issue 18 castings, had component dampers inside and did have a threaded plug to fill them with oil. S3SS invoiced 24 July '67. I think Chunky used whatever supplier would give him good pricing and generous credit terms.

[Hawksfield]

Yes Rohan
Lotus mix and match nothing new there. It would be great to know the background stories as my car was built? March 71 has no oil plug and is issue 18 hub. it has also got the text on the cam cover reading from the front.
All part of the interesting Lotus ownership, how boring to have a modern car when there is no secret past.

[ceejay]

It appears that Lotus did use these original shocks later than S1/S2... I have a strut in my workshop from a S3 SE elan that has same using an "issue 18" hub housing, see photos. The details (Only legible with a magnifying glass) stamped on the outer strut tube are:
Armstrong.
Patent.......
Sequent RS (Right Side)
Unit No: AS1509
Date: 6/67.
If you think the colour of the aluminium housing looks a bit strange, it is because the previously bead blasted housing was clear lacquered... but I have just made a series of videos showing how to remove and replace the steel strut tube, the discolouration being caused by the mild heat applied to the housing to expand the critical shrink fit that secures the tube into the cast aluminium housing.

If you wish to explore this process... it can be accessed here:
http://elantrikbits.com/lotus-elan-blog/lotus-elan-rear-strut-hub-and-tube/

[mbell]

If you wish to explore this process... it can be accessed here:

Thanks that is very interesting and agree the correct way to do the job.

However having attempted to change shock tubes over the weekend, there one thing overlooked in this approach. A lot of shock tube will still have the standard spring mounts fitted. These are particularly troublesome as they prevent mandrels being easily fitted to the tube and also the prevent the tubes being inserted in a standard hydraulic press(es) (20T) as the gab between supports is too small for tube/housing to pass through.

The spring mounts can be cut off, but that would defeat the point of swamping the tubes for me which is to keep the original ones so my mod can be reversed. If i was cutting the spring mount off I'd just weld on a threaded spring mount to avoid this job.

I'll be having another go (or two) at this job, likely trying my bearing removal kit and propane torch along some spacers made from sheet steel.