If I remember there was a bit of a bish!Anyone else read "Jennings" . . . and Darbyshire, Mr Wilkins, and some railings . . . ?
Really rubbish hydraulics on those.As I said at the start, It's a Ford Hypathetic
And glass domes as space helmets, using the wrong paint to touch up the pool changing rooms in the dark, and something about thieves hiding their loot in a trice ... some sort of cupboardAnyone else read "Jennings" . . . and Darbyshire, Mr Wilkins, and some railings . . . ?
The definitive answer would be if the jack lifts it then it lifts it, if it's too heavy the relief on the jack will open and the jack won't lift it.So in essence, nobody can actually give a definitive. Hence the question.
Thats where I'm coming from. Interesting results. I was considering the theory, not the practice.I once bought a set of vehicle weigh pads for work, weighed my then co. car (Audi A5), front/rear balance was almost spot on 50/50, but diagonally there was a (from memory) 25kg+ difference
Yes. As soon as both fronts are off the ground. Unless you use a skyhook on one corner.As pointed out, the stiffness of a chassis could easily lead to a front engined front wheel lift actually lifting half the car but even then would it be lifting half the curb weight???
As soon as I saw "car jack" . . . one of them, I can't remember if its Jennings or Derbyshire, get's his head stuck in some railings - due to his ears, he can't get it out. They borrow a jack from an unlocked car, jack the railings apart, release the trapped person. When they go to take the jack back, the owner is there - Mr Wilkins tries to give him the jack . . . "this is your car jack . ." . . . "Yes, I know . . . how do you know my name . . . ?" . . . repeat . . .And glass domes as space helmets, using the wrong paint to touch up the pool changing rooms in the dark, and something about thieves hiding their loot in a trice ... some sort of cupboard
Been there and done that but luckily came out the other side. However if only changing a wheel for a flat no need to be underneath.....really fussy about being "squashed" - the minimum you are looking for it the wheel you took off under the sills - then to get nearer a decent standard - block of wood on the wheel.
But placing axle stands - and letting the car down on them - it not hard work - getting "squashed is not fun"...
Hypothetically: My car has a kerb weight of 4 tons. My jack is rated at 1ton. I have a flat tyre so need to jack up one corner. Is the said jack up to the job?
Nick
Thats the theory I was looking at. Well explained.Given the choice, jacks and axle stands would be rated to the full weight of the vehicle, no need to worry about weight distribution or any other factors. Unless you measure the load there is no way of knowing how much weight there is on a jack.
For the example assuming a lack of choice and just changing the wheel, I would probably want a 2 ton jack for under the sills but for something that can be jacked up under the lower suspension arm or axle then maybe 1.5ton on the theory of not unloading the adjacent suspension as much as jacking under the chassis, but then it is closer the the centre of the vehicle so would it take more weight?
I didn't consider skyhook in the equation to be fair. Though they would probably eliminate the use of a standard jack and be a safer proposition, Unfortunately though, Ford decided not to put a provision for sky hooks on the Hypothetical to try and save weight.Yes. As soon as both fronts are off the ground. Unless you use a skyhook on one corner.
Don't forget Temple, who, thanks to schoolboy logic ended up with the nickname "Bod"As soon as I saw "car jack" . . . one of them, I can't remember if its Jennings or Derbyshire, get's his head stuck in some railings - due to his ears, he can't get it out. They borrow a jack from an unlocked car, jack the railings apart, release the trapped person. When they go to take the jack back, the owner is there - Mr Wilkins tries to give him the jack . . . "this is your car jack . ." . . . "Yes, I know . . . how do you know my name . . . ?" . . . repeat . . .
Still causes a moment of hilarity, 45 yrs after I read it