text:
Karl Kling

Karl Kling (16 September 1910 – 18 March 2003) was a motor racing driver and manager from Germany. He participated in 11 Formula One Grands Prix, debuting on 4 July 1954. He achieved 2 podiums - the first German ever to achieve a Formula One podium - and scored a total of 17 championship points.

It is said, that he was born too late and too early. Too late to be in the successful Mercedes team of the 1930s and too early to have a real chance in and. Unusually, Kling found his way into motorsport via his first job as a reception clerk at Daimler-Benz in the mid-1930s, competing in hillclimb and trials events in production machinery in his spare time. During the Second World War he gained mechanical experience servicing Luftwaffe aircraft, and after the cessation of hostilities he resumed his motorsport involvement in a BMW 328.

Kling was instrumental in developing Mercedes' return to international competition in the early 1950s, and his win in the 1952 Carrera Panamericana road race, driving the then-experimental Mercedes-Benz 300SL was a defining point in assuring the Daimler-Benz management that motorsport had a place in Mercedes' future. Called up to the revived Mercedes Grand Prix squad in 1954 he finished less than one second behind the legendary Juan Manuel Fangio on his Formula One debut, taking second place in the 1954 French Grand Prix at the fast Reims-Gueux circuit. This promising start was not to last, and with the arrival of Stirling Moss at Mercedes in 1955 Kling was effectively demoted to third driver. However, away from the World Championship, Kling took an impressive victory in the Berlin Grand Prix at AVUS, another high-speed circuit.

Having won all world championships they competed for, F1 in 1954 and 1955, plus sports cars in 1955, Mercedes retired from international racing after 1955 to focus on road car development. Kling succeeded Alfred Neubauer as head of Mercedes motorsport, with stock models only. He was in this post during their successful rallying campaigns of the 1960s, occasionally taking the wheel himself. On one such occasion he drove a Mercedes-Benz 220SE to victory in the mighty 1961 trans-African Algiers-Cape Town Rally.

He died in 2003 at the age of 92.

Complete Formula One World Championship results
(key) * Shared drive with Stirling Moss and Hans Herrmann.

Non-championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

title: Karl Kling


text:
Lucien Bianchi

Lucien Bianchi (10 November 1934 – 30 March 1969), born Luciano Bianchi, was an Italian-born Belgian racing driver who raced for the Cooper, ENB, UDT Laystall and Scuderia Centro Sud teams in Formula One. He entered a total of 19 Formula One World Championship races, scoring six points and had a best finish of third at the 1968 Monaco Grand Prix.

He died in a testing crash in preparation for the 1969 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Personal life
Bianchi was born in Milan, Italy, but moved to Belgium in 1946 when he was still a child, with his father who was a race mechanic working, before the Second World War, in the Alfa Romeo competition department. His brother, Mauro Bianchi, also became a racing driver. They drove to victory together in the 1965 Nürburgring 500 km. Mauro later won the P1.6 class at the 1967 24 Hours of Le Mans. His grandnephew, Jules Bianchi, who made his Formula One debut with the Marussia team for the season competing under the French flag, also died as a result of injuries sustained in a racing accident.

Racing career
Lucien Bianchi's first race event was at the Alpine Rally in 1951. He won the 1957, 1958 and 1959 Tour de France as well as the Paris 1000 sports car race in the latter two years. He entered Formula One in 1959, although only with sporadic appearances at first. He drove various cars under the banner of the ENB team, including a Cooper T51, a Lotus 18 and an Emeryson. After a couple of races for the UDT Laystall team in 1961, driving another Lotus, he returned to ENB for whom he drove their ENB-Maserati. He finally secured a more regular drive in Formula One in 1968, with the Cooper-BRM team, although success was elusive despite a bright start. Bianchi managed his best Formula One performance, finishing third at the 1968 Monaco Grand Prix, in his first race for Cooper.

Bianchi also raced touring cars, sports cars and rally cars, being successful in all disciplines, his biggest victories coming in the 1968 24 Hours of Le Mans, behind the wheel of a Ford GT40 with Pedro Rodríguez and at Sebring in 1962 with Jo Bonnier. He was also leading the 1968 London–Sydney Marathon when his Citroën DS collided with a non-competing car on the closed course near Nowra, 100 km south of Sydney.

He was killed when his Alfa Romeo T33 spun into a telegraph pole during Le Mans testing in 1969.

At Circuit Zolder, the fourth turn of the circuit, entering the back stretch, is named LucienBianchiBocht in his memory.

Formula One World Championship results
(key)

Complete British Saloon Car Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap.)

Other race results

 * Tour de France Automobile, 1st: 1957, 1958, 1959, 1964 / 2nd: 1961, 1963
 * Spa 24 Hours, 1st: 1964 (in Class 5) overall 4th
 * 12 hours of Sebring, 1st: 1962
 * 12 Hours of Reims, 1st: 1965 (in class P1.3) overall 7th
 * Targa Florio, 1st: 1965 (in class GT1.6) overall 7th
 * 6 Hours of Nürburgring, 1st: 1965
 * 6 Hours of Watkins Glen, 1st: 1968
 * 1000 km of Nürburgring, 1st: 1965 (in class S.16) overall 13th, 1967 (in class P+2.0) overall 4th
 * 1000 km of Paris, 1st: 1960 / 2nd: 1961, 1967
 * Mugello Grand Prix, 1st: 1968
 * 9 hours of Kyalami, 1st: 1968
 * Grand Prix of Angola, 1st: 1962 / 2nd: 1964
 * Grand Prix of Zolder, 1st: 1964
 * 500 km of Nürburgring, 1st: 1965, 1963 (in class T1.0)
 * Trophée d'Auvergne, 1st: 1963 (in class S/P+3.0)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lucien Bianchi


text:
Talk:Car suspension

Put the "rear suspension" page in here...

What is a lift kit?
I find this happening more and more on Wikipedia, where I put a term in the search box, like "lift kit," and I get redirected to long entries where the term isn't even used. Do not combine articles if you are then going to kill the term that directs one to the combined page. I'm sure there's a point in damaging Wikipedia's usefulness that I'm just not grasping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.84.99 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated the redirect for deletion per WP:R reason #10. Thanks for pointing this out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"are more compliant. "
I don't agree with this change. David R. Ingham 07:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have changed it in the first place if you'd spelled rigid correctly! But to be honest there's no point in messing about with weasel words like 'perhaps more ridged' (quoting from memory) - the quarter elliptics will be more compliant than anything but the most grotesque of suspension arms. Anyway, by all means, have another go. Greglocock 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What about...
What about the unique Ford twin I-beam independent front suspension? This system doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

careful reading of names
Please note that the edit at 07:27, 27 February 2006 by David R. Ingharn was not by myself but someone who chose a name that resembled mine. David R. Ingham 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusion regarding semi-active suspensions
This article mentions Hydragas and Kinetic systems as examples of semi-active suspensions; yet neither of these systems is inherently semi-active. In their base form, both systems (Kinetic actually have a number of systems) are passive interconnected schemes, whose advantages lie not in their ability to vary springing and damping parameters, but rather in their capacity to provide different springing and damping depending on the suspension mode in operation. Wade Smith 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion really comes about because semi-active may once have meant something but has been diluted into meaninglessness by the marketing boys. Hydragas in particular is just another passive suspension. Do you know of a formal definition for semi-active, or for that matter, active? It used to be whether external power was required, yet that seems a useless definition.Greglocock 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would take "active" to mean that the suspension uses external power to move the car. However, the active component article includes things that depend on the direction of the current, which would suggest including shock absorbers with valves as active. David R. Ingham 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of definitions available, some better than others. I think the definitions given by Sharp & Crolla will suffice here, with some minor clarifications based on Gillespie’s work.

Passive Suspensions: consist of spring and damping properties which are time-invariant, or, at least, quasi-time-invariant. Thus most self-levelling systems could be categorised under this heading, since their capacity to fulfil their dynamic requirements is not affected by any adaptive capacity.

Active Suspensions: describe the replacement of springs and dampers with actuators that act as force producers according to some control law. The control bandwidth is usually sufficient to handle the natural frequencies of both the sprung (1-3 Hz) and unsprung masses (10-15 Hz).

Semi-Active Suspensions: contain spring and damping elements, the properties of which may be changed by external control. Most commonly, only the damper has adjustable parameters, but Gillespie makes the point that the springing may also be adjustable. The parameters may be varied either continuously or between a number of discrete settings. Perhaps a clear distinction between these and active suspensions is that semi-active systems lack the capacity to supply work. That is, the parameters that control the system’s reaction to an input (specifically, relative displacement or velocity) can be adjusted, but a more general ability to produce an arbitrary force is not apparent.

Slow-Active Suspensions: behave like active or semi-active suspensions, but only over a limited bandwidth. Sharp and Gillespie give different definitions here: Sharp sees slow-active suspensions as a sub-group of fully active systems, whereas Gillespie claims they’re included in the semi-active family (with the distinction of having discrete parameter settings, in which a switch in one direction is almost instantaneous, but the reverse switch is much slower). I think a definition which loosely encompasses both these views is possible. So, we might say that slow-active systems (or, more precisely, limited bandwidth suspensions) are simply active or semi-active systems, in which the capacity to fulfil dynamic requirements is limited to a certain bandwidth. But even fully active systems have limited bandwidths, so a further distinction is necessary. I think the most convenient one would be to say that these systems have the capacity to handle the sprung mass motions (1-3 Hz), but not the unsprung mass motions (10–15 Hz).

Interconnected Suspensions: are defined, by Smith & Walker, as suspension systems in which a displacement at one wheel station can produce forces at other wheel stations. Well-known examples include anti-roll bars, the Hydragas system, Kinetic systems etc. The advantage of these schemes is that one can achieve more control over the stiffness and damping of each suspension mode, instead of being entirely reliant upon single-wheel parameters to implicitly define modal characteristics. I can’t see why these systems couldn’t fit into any of the aforementioned categories, but a fully active interconnected scheme is probably not a meaningful concept, seeing as an active controller inherently has the capacity to adjust the actuator force in accordance with modal operation anyway.

So, in summary: active, semi-active and slow-active systems generally require external power which influences their dynamic operation; whereas passive systems generally do not require external power, or, if they do, it does not influence their dynamic operation. Active systems can supply work and handle sprung and unsprung mass motions; semi-active systems can’t supply work, but can cover sprung and unsprung mass frequencies; and slow-active systems can belong to either the active or semi-active group, but have limited bandwidths. Interconnected schemes can belong to any of those categories, but are more meaningfully conceptualised in either a passive or semi-active context.

References:

Gillespie, T. D. 1992, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.

Sharp, R. S. and Crolla, D. A. 1987, ‘Road Vehicle Suspension System Design – a review’, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 16, pp. 167-192.

Smith, M. C. and Walker, G. W. 2005, ‘Interconnected Vehicle Suspension’, Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 219, no. 3, pp. 295-307.

These definitions might not be entirely robust, but they’re a start. Hope that helps. Wade Smith 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions?
They suck. How exactly are the term being defined here?

It looks as though the signature above should be "03:41, 26 April 2006 70.26.11.45".

Which term or terms would you like someone to define better? (I won't ask for a clear definition of "suck", which has always seemed poorly defined to me.) David R. Ingham 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ride comfort data
Hai friends.,

I am doing project work on "Damping force variation reduction for front fork of two wheelers using Design of experiment". can you give me the Anthropometric data for riding comfort, for two wheeler in indian road condition.

Help!
Road vehicles are not the only wheeled vehicles requiring suspension systems. Some of us are interested in railway suspension. Does anybody know anything about it? Gordon Vigurs 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Wiki is not a place to ask for advice. For suspension related questions, I recommend the newsgroup sci.engr.mech, or, IF you are a professional engineer, not a student, www.eng-tips.com in the appropriate forum.

Greglocock 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, but I have access to appropriate sources - my point is that suspension is not just an automotive issue. The article should have gone from general (i.e. seismic oscillations) to particular (the details of specific vehicle suspension system designs), rather than jumped into the specifics from the outset. Please excuse my naive assumption that an encyclopedia should be a source of knowledge. Gordon Vigurs 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops sorry, I was referring to the Indian guy asking for help, not you. You are right, the article does need a section on other forms of suspension.

Greglocock 09:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Armoured fighting vehicle vs tracked vehicle
I gather from the article that the suspensions of armoured fighting vehicles face design challenges in the form of land mines and other explosive devices. Beyond this, are there appreciable differences between the suspension of a late model tank and, say, a civilian bulldozer, which faces similar terrain and is also a heavy, tracked vehicle? If not, would the article be improved by making armoured fighting vehicles a subsection of a section on tracked vehicles? Also, I remember (perhaps falsely) hearing about wheeled (non-tracked) armoured fighting vehicles - how do they connect with this section? Thanks --Badger151 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Armoured Fighting Vehicles have different priorities for their suspension systems, obstacle clearance being one, that is why military tracked vehicles usually have the front and rear wheels positioned higher on the hull, allowing the vehicle to climb-up and over obstacles. These two wheels are technically known as the 'idler' and the 'drive sprocket', and depending on whether the vehicle is front or rear-engined, can be at either end. On bulldozers and similar non-military vehicles obstacle clearance is of lesser importance, and so the front and rearmost wheels are usually at the same level as the road wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Kneeling" busses, &c.
Many of the public busses I now see are equiped to lower their front ends, reducing the height of the step into the bus from the pavement (and making it easier for people with movement limitations to enter the bus). Around here (NYC area) I've seen it called "kneeling", though it may have other names in other places. I'm also familiar with some ambulances that lower their back ends to ease loading and unloading of the stretcher. Is this a function of these vehicles' suspensions? If so, does it deserve treatment in this article? Thanks --Badger151 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Isn't kind of weird that the picture for this article that deals with suspension for the car comes from a vehicle which was designed 98 years ago? Can we get a picture of a more modern car's suspension, as that picture only shows control arms and a spring on a very very antiquated design. BMan1113VR 04:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a better picture:

(resized) BMan1113VR 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. This article needs more pictures to illustrate modern car suspension systems. -- 193.211.5.90 (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And you don't have a camera? Don't be so lazy. Greglocock (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Automotive suspension design merge
Automotive suspension design seems redundant (or close to it) with this. I have suggested we merge it here. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. One is about the process, the other is about the hardware. There again, I'm biased (since I design suspensions)! Greglocock 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess redundant is the wrong word. Might it make sense to include the design information in a section here.  (I didn't mean to dis your profession!) The design article is rather short.  (John User:Jwy talk) 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It was a requested article, so I created it, but it obviously included just enough information to escape being a stub. I'll expand it at some point. If you can make some suggestions on its talk page I'll gladly do that. Greglocock 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * okay. While I'm glad I have a suspension on my car, I'm not savvy enough about it to help much.  I'll back off and check up after a while. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sprung Weight Transfer
A while back I contributed several sections based on years of engineering knowledge of vehicle dynamics and suspension design.

The discussion about Sprung Weight Transfer was changed so much as to make the entire discussion wrong. One major concept in SWT is the roll moment arm. This entire section was removed. The "helper" did not understand the concept and figured it was unimportant.

A drawing really should be added but I don't have the time now figure out how to add it.

The drawing needs to be a nicely drawn and added to the discussion. Here is rough drawing to help with the idea.

http://www.onthetop.com/images/weighttransfer.jpg

There needs to be a few others to clarify the ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imfinenu (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Top (or Bottom) links
I'm looking for somewhere to link 'top link' from the description of the rear suspension on the Brabham BT19. The rear suspension is described (in all sources) as a reverse lower wishbone (ie single link on the chassis side) with single top link and two trailing radius rods. Not an unusual design for that time. Exactly what the top link was doing in that little lot is a bit hard to tell, but I guess mainly controlling vertical movement of the top end of the uprights. Although top link is used quite a lot as a term in writing about cars of that era, the meaning is taken to be so obvious (it's a link at the top!) that it's never defined. Any ideas where in the range of suspension articles I could most usefully link this term? The set up almost sounds like a crude multi-link design.... 4u1e 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Control Blade rear suspension
I'm looking for a good explanation, with pictures, of the famous Control Blade independent rear suspension used in the Ford Focus and the latest Mondeo, how it works and why is it (supposedly) better than ordinary multi link suspensions. Anyone care to help?

http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html - the pictures are good, the words are anywhere between wrong and unreliable. Sorry, I don't think anything has been published, why would it be? Greglocock 02:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the words are anywhere between wrong and unreliable. I'm afraid, in my experience, that applies to the majority of stuff written about vehicle suspension systems.

I'm not sure whether this enough to help with your query, but I can offer this much (some of which I have picked up from elsewhere, so see previous note, and it may be oversimplified for your purposes).

The Ford Control Blade suspension system is a system in which the behaviour of the rear wheels of the suspension system is changed from the geometrically orthodox in order to impart a degree of passive steer. That is, as the vehicle rolls in cornering, the geometric changes aid the vehicle in steering round the corner. There are a number of (potential) advantages to this approach: - It can be used on a vehicle which has an inherent tendency to understeer in order to make it more neutral (understeer less or even oversteer, although most would not consider that an advantage in most circumstances) - It can be used to contribute a degree of understeer compensation that decreases at increased cornering loads in order to maintain a basically neutral stance when the vehicle is driven at 'five tenths' but reverting to a 'safe but dull' understeering stance when driven at 'ten tenths'.

Note that these advantages are likely to be useful on a front engined, front wheel drive car. Note also that there are other measures that you take to counter understeer and I am making no comment about which measures would be best either in particular circumstances or generally. Yet another note: I am not going to write a wikipedia definition of 'ten tenths'.

There are also disadvantages

- Static suspension loads (e.g., a 'full boot') steer both rear wheels equally and increase the overall rolling resistance of the vehicle (actually you could set it up for minimum rolling resistance at full load and then it would deteriorate at low load, or vice versa. Note that full 'rear steer' systems do not have this effect.) As both rear wheels are steered equally if the deflections are equal, the effects on vehicle course cancel (except for split u surfaces...).

- The system is equivalent in some ways to bump steer and it tends to reduce steering accuracy (or the feeling of steering accuracy) on heavily textured road surfaces

You should also note that Ford is not alone in having such a system: At the very least, Volkswagen use a system which is similar in principal and for which they have their own brand name.

Mark w69 10:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Mostly drivel. Greglocock 11:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to unsprung weight and total weight section
I'm not sure what this is getting at. It is confusing as worded. There are several interpretations as to what they are trying to say...

"These are usually small, except that the suspension is related to whether the brakes and differential(s) are sprung."

The topic heading would seem to be about how suspension contributes to unsprung weight and vehicle total weight. But the information is far from meaningful, complete or informative. Maybe the heading should be Contribution to unsprung, sprung and total weight.

"These are usually small..." Not a true statement with respect to unsprung weight! Suspension accounts for the majority of the unsprung weight in most vehicles (60%-90%). Suspension accounts for a small part of the vehicles sprung weight and maybe as low as 10% of the vehicles total weight. But this is not clear and may be wrong the way it is written.

It is unclear if they are actually trying to state that "suspension" may refer to whether or not the brakes and differential(s) are sprung. (I personally have not heard it used this way.) If so, then the heading should be about the slang use of the word suspension. It should then also clarify that "suspension" is short slang term for "independant suspension" in the same way that "anti-lock" is often used as the short slang term for "anti-lock brakes" or "strut" for "Macpherson Strut" or "independant" for "independant rear suspension".

The part after the "...except..." would seem to be pointing out a case in which the contribution to unsprung and total weight is large. The writer doesn't mention whether or not they are refering to independant suspension or not or if they are trying to point out that in the case of non-independant suspension the differental and brakes will contribute a larger amount to the vehicles unsprung weight.

It may be restating parts of the beginning of section 2.4.1 in a confusing way.

If the meaning is to point out that a differential in an independant suspension is part of the sprung mass of the vehicle, the comment/note should be included within the discussion of sprung weight 2.4.1 and not it's own topic located too far from that area.

Since the meaning of the section is unclear to me, I will not change it. I will leave it to others to decide whether or not it would be best to modify/clarify, delete and/or add it to section 2.4.1.1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

This is close to unreadable...
The main page (not the discussion page) is close to unreadable with poor grammar and confused sections. I want to re-write it, but I guess it would just get reverted by the original authors. Mark w69 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark w69, as a contributer myself, I appreciate a careful rewording of my work. However, take great care to retain the contributer's ideas and meaning. Unless you understand the subject at least as well as the person that wrote it, leave it alone. One last comment about rewriting, be careful not to simply change things because the writer uses a style or terms common to their country. I have written areas on other topics and later had someone change a correctly spelled word using U.S. English to a European spelling. Wikipedia is a global resource and contributors should be welcomed from all nationallities points of view. However, when a contributor writes a word like "tire" as apposed to "tyre" it should be understood that the topic is written from a US point of view in contrast to a British point of view. Example: A contributor may be discussing a concept and uses an example of a European sportscar's tyre to illustrate his point. When a reader reads the passage it is clear what the point of view is. It would not be propper to change the spelling of tyre to tire in this case or change the BMW to a Corvette simple because of a preference of one's own nationallity.

 * Sorry, but this violates the Wikipedia policy of "Consistency within articles":
 * "Each article consistently uses the same conventions of spelling and grammar (e.g., British, Canadian); for example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are:
 * quotations (the original variety is retained);
 * titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); and
 * explicit comparisons of varieties of English."
 * -Manual_of_Style
 * As contributors, it appears to be our job to see what spelling is used in an article and match it. -AndrewDressel 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Points of view can differ because of differing design goals as is the case of European Rally Car suspension design vs U.S. Pike's Peak Run cars or perhaps Baja 1000 offroad suspension design. A Baja 1000 suspension designer would be much more concerned with suspension travel and traversing large road surface irregularities than ultimate cornering speed. Discussing using tire surface temperature distribution while critical to suspension alignment and tire pressures of a F1 car may be pointless to add to a discussion of tire compliance over extremely rough muddy or powdery courses seen in the Baja 1000 events. I don't think many people would have a problem with making improvments but make sure they are improvments and take extreme measures as to not eliminate a contributors ideas. Doing so may put off an expert from contributing further even if their grammer leaves a bit to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.129.85 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reads like a book
This article reads like a Carroll Smith book. "A lot of well paid engineers assume this", "Ignorant people show up to the track with such and such a set up and wonder why their cars don't perform" and so on.

sorted. Greg Locock (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

bose linear motor suspension?
on Bose.com is a description. I'd cut and paste, but it's copyrighted. They've been trying to get their foot in the door at an OEM for a while but the expense doesn't appear to be equivalent to performance. It's best chance would have to be a marketing gimmick to ever get in a vehicle, kind of like the LED headlamp.

http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_STATIC_PAGE_EVENT&url=/learning/project_sound/suspension_components.jsp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article way too technical - needs complete rewrite
I've read the article top to bottom, and the current state is rather badly mangled and grossly much too technical in the way it discusses the topic.

I am going to start a rewrite - input welcome.

We also still need more images of current suspensions. Both photographs and diagrams would be useful. I can make diagrams and I take photos, but I haven't got a car that has multilink or wishbone suspensions. The image that was pasted in above is a possible one, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Can I suggest that you start with a structure or outline first? The big problem with this trainwreck of a page is that every man and his dog has heard some piece of priceless wisdom about suspensions and feels compelled to share it with the world. Incidentally what references are you intending to use? Most of the websites out there are about as authoritative as a high school paper. Some of the textbooks have glaring errors as well. Greg Locock (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't use any of the websites out there. None of the references are really set up right as a great source for an intro "encyclopedia" overview, but in terms of source material...  Costin and Phipps; Bastow, Howard, and Whitehead; Reimpell, Stoll, Belzer; Staniforth; Dixon; Milliken; Gillespie...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Please don't use Staniforth on Ackerman. Did you nick all those books from my house? Grins Greg Locock (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey, at least you've heard of Costin and Phipps. I'm a little young for it technically, but my dad had a copy from when he was racing (amateur) in the 60s, so I got one when I started getting interested in it.  I don't do it professionally, just for fun.  At least this topic has less textbooks than spacecraft and launch vehicle design, which unfortunately I do professionally, and have something like low five figures in reference materials at home 8-( ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New subtopic - should we split the tank / armored vehicle suspensions out into a separate article? There is a bit of overlap - a few trucks and very few cars use torsion bar suspension - but they're generally very different design problems. Move them to a separate new page focused on that, with a brief subsection here and a main tag pointing to the new article? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Galant Active claim
Can anyone find a technical description of this suspension? I strongly suspect it is just switchable shocks, ie semi-active. Greg Locock (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * yes, that's why the original author changed the claim from active to semi-active, see history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.230.92 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim is not correct as Mazda had electronically controlled suspension available as an option from 1983. Mitsubishi offered an almost identical system on the Gallant 4 years after that. Although I do not have the sources available I am certain Mazda was also not the first to offer the technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.185.116 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, when you get a cite for that we'll put it in. I was working with prototype active suspension from 1986 onwards, we didn't regard switchable shocks as any sort of threat, so to me its bragging about a bad solution. The high frequency switchable shocks we get now (Magnaride and the Hitachi system) are fast enough to be interesting, but the early switchable shocks were slow. Greglocock (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Push rod suspension
Nothing in here about the push rod suspension setup used in just about every race car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integracer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to mention pushrods as part of a suspension system. The pushrods are simply a way to place the dampers and/or springs remotely. The geometry of the suspension as well as the type is still defined by the links. So a double A-arm suspension is still double A-arm if you use pushrods or not. However, this would be a good addition if concepts such as damper and spring locations/types were added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What about trains?
This article claims to be about the suspension of "vehicles", not "road vehicles", yet it makes no mention of trains at all, and has no links to articles about conventional trains (only to maglevs). Does someone imagine that trains don't require suspensions or something?

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Center of Percussion
I seem to recall reading that Chrysler claimed to have pioneered the concept of adjusting the weight distribution in a vehicle so that the axles would fall on the "center of percussion." Does anybody have any further data on this? Supposedly all vehicular suspensions now try to achieve this balance.98.170.203.252 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RAV4 suspension answer...
References: 1996 sales brocure, found at: http://rav4world.com/brochure/1996/1996main.html, pp 22 - 23.

It's double wishbone.

I can't see the upper wishbone in that photo, but apparently that's it.

All in favor of removing the photo as it's actually reducing the useful information on the page? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * To which photo are you referring? Independent rear suspension AWD.jpg ? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Have we had a long running dispute (polite) over another suspension photo? Yes, that one...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is unintelligible for a layman
It lists different types of suspension in a difficult to understand way for a layman. I would like this article to be rewritten, and I think the following structure will help the layman understand suspension better:

1. What are the functions of suspension? 2. How does it work? [It has spring that compresses when the wheel hits a bump and expands when the wheel goes into a depression... shock absorber, etc.] 3. History: What were the first suspensions? What problems did they solve, why were their needs felt? What problems they could not solve or what problems did they create? What was the next significant improvement, what problems it solved/not solved/created and then what happened next? 4. The modern suspension types: How is performance of a suspension measured? Passive, semi-active, active, regenerative... spring, air, magnetic, variable viscosity, ... What are the best suspension today? How do they rank by cost? What are their maintenance requirements, their life, and which suspensions are most robust? 5. Special applications: Suspensions for army vehicles, heavy trucks, busses, aircraft, ... 6. Future: What are the latest research areas in suspensions, what are the latest bright ideas...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A n k u r (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

, I would be interested in helping out with this rewrite if you are interested. I think many of the suspension related articles could use some improvement. Let me know Springee (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I've made some major improvements with punctuation, so that should help better with understanding the flow of text. - Mardus /talk 21:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Suspension (vehicle). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics03.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics04.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics05.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.initialdave.com/cars/tech/suspensionbasics06.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230102112/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/Galant.asp to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/Galant.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041122000000/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/1980-1989.asp to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/1980-1989.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324014435/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2005/17e_02.pdf to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2005/17e_02.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515053535/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/history/1980/e/index.html to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/history/1980/e/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kinetic.au.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Belleville Suspension
I notice there is no entry for the Belleville suspension. It was the proposed suspension for the E-series of tanks of Nazi Germany. While no other examples immediately spring to mind (oh, pardon the pun the please!), I'm sure people much smarter than me might be able to complete this series on vehicle suspensions? -- 74.46.19.3 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Car suspension


text:
Talk:Wilmot Proviso

Untitled
Much of this article is still awkwardly worded; I will try to fix this after examining it for a bit longer. Furthermore, it would be worth noting that the proviso bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, passing in the former and being rejected in the latter. However, I am not familiar enough with the details behind this to comment. Matthew Plough

I completly agree. The last paragraph is very poorly worded and i'm not exactly sure what it even means. I'll look into some and see if i can decipher what the intent was. --Tainter 09:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It says the "recently completed Mexican-American War," which is innaccurate, as the Proviso first came into existence in 1846, the same year the war began. I'll be changing that now.

Democrats with their northern base of support? I wish I knew more for certain about party politics in the 1840s, but I'm tolerably sure this is nonsense. Since the Jackson days, Democrats had actually had a northern and western appeal. (New York state was, and has nearly always been, a Democratic stronghold, but this is just New York being different.) The Whigs – a party starting to fall apart at the time of the Wilmot Proviso – were the party more commonly associated with anti-slavery sentiments, and their base was primarily Northern and mercantile, although they had a certain Southern following in places like Kentucky where Henry Clay was popular. Wilmot was actually doing something unusual for a Northern Democrat by making a strong stand on the slavery issue. QuartierLatin1968 18:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Needs some change...
I just finished reading a book largely dealing with the subject matter here: The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War by Michael F. Holt. I don't reccommend anyone read it, as the book is incredibly dry and uninteresting, but I had to for class. I think the original author of this article knew relatively what he was talking about, but happened to be less than elegant in expressing it. I'll rewrite the section, unless anyone has any serious objections. -revwolfe Dec. 15th

Vis a Vis Burgundy Declaration
Quite ironic that nobody has mentioned the Burgundy Declaration at all... I think at a minimum, that should be included as a counterpoint. 71.194.6.238 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What?
Southerners saw slaves as property, and since their rights y was expanding.

I tidied up some grammar and questionable word choice, but I can't make out what this somewhat crippled sentence was meant to say. . . . --Michael K. Smith 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know what that sentence was supposed to mean, but historically, both some Northerners and some Southerners thought that if the territory in which slavery was allowed didn't keep on expanding, then eventually slavery would stagnate economically, and those who supported the continuation of slavery would find their political position weakened. Many Southerners had fantasies of the U.S. acquiring Cuba, and large chunks of Mexico and Central America, as slave territories (some to be eventually admitted as slave states to balance out the votes of northern states in Congress) -- which is why they were so vehemently opposed to restrictions on slavery in newly-acquired territories, such as the Wilmot Proviso.  In 1861, the Crittenden compromise basically failed because of a dispute about whether slavery would be forbidden in territories which might be acquired in future -- there was no disagreement about continuing slavery in the the states where it then existed, and little dispute that New Mexico was pretty much the only existing territory possibly suitable for slavery (in the aftermath of the Kansas fiasco), but the real sticking point was whether or not slavery should be allowed in territory "hereafter acquired"... AnonMoos 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Entry
If you come to this article without prior knowledge of the proviso, the introduction to the article doesn't make sense. Is it possible someone knowledgeable about this topic could add an brief introductory statement describing what exactly the proviso is?

Jocmckin (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you want to know but can't figure out. The Mexico vs. U.S. war had recently started, and some opponents of the war (especially Northern Whigs) suspected that some supporters of the war (especially Southern Democrats) were in favor of the war mainly to expand the U.S. territories in which slavery was allowed, and ultimately the number of slave states.  Therefore congressman Wilmot offered his amendment that would prohibit slavery in lands to be acquired from Mexico. It's all there in the article, as far as I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilmot Proviso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209104259/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1848 to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1848

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wilmot Proviso


text:
Ilhas Cagarras

The Ilhas Cagarras (Cagarras Islands) are an uninhabited archipelago located 5 km off Ipanema, a major beach of the southern coast of the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They have been designated a federal natural monument since 2010.

Location
The archipelago is in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro, in the state of Rio de Janeiro. It has an area of 523 ha. It is an important area for fisheries and tourism, and is subjected to upwelling of cold waters during summer. The water quality is relatively poor due to its close proximity with Rio's city waste water disposal. The islands are nonetheless frequented by day excursions of eco-tourists. The archipelago consists of the following islands ("ilha" in Portuguese means island, "ilhota" = islet):

 * Ilha Cagarra
 * Ilha de Palmas
 * Ilha Comprida
 * Ilha Filhote
 * Ilhota Grande
 * Laje de Cagarra

The first three are the largest. Ilha Cagarra, the island group's namesake, is the tallest (79m/259 ft.) and most visible from land. Although the islands Ilha Redonda and Ilha Redondinha are located nearby, they are not part of the Cagarras archipelago.

Origin of the name
There is no consensus among authors about the origin of the name of this archipelago. The most commonly accepted version says that the toponymy would be due to the large amount of excrement (in Portuguese, "cagádas" ) of seabirds that live, nest and feed on these islands. After feeding mainly on fish, these birds excrete their feces, rich in calcium, on the rocky slopes of the islands, staining them white. This hue is clearly visible from the shore of Ipanema, one of the south beaches of Rio de Janeiro

In 1730, its main island, appears on a nautical chart with a Frenchified name "Island Cagade." In another letter, dated 1767, the same appears with the island carrying its name in Portuguese: "Crappy Island." "Ilha Cagáda"

Another possibility for its name, is that Portuguese sailors wrongly identified the frigatebirds (fragatas in Portuguese) that nest on these islands, with the Scopoli's shearwater (cagarras in Portuguese) seabirds that live in the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores (Portuguese territories): the shearwater or cagarra (Calonectris diomedea) is not found on Brazilian islands.

History of the Archipelago
The islands are situated in proximity to the discharge in the sea of sewage from almost all the South Zone of Rio de Janeiro, through the Ipanema canal, an important work of sanitary engineering built in the 1970s in accordance with the Protocol of Annapolis. CONAMA proposed making the Ilhas Cagarras Archipelago and Area of Relevant Ecological Interest on 14 September 1989, but nothing was done at the time. Creation of the natural monument was due to the initiative of Mr Fernando Gabeira of the Green Party.

On 13 April 2010 the incumbent vice president José Alencar signed a decree creating the Cagarras Islands Natural Monument. The purpose was to preserve the remnants of the island ecosystem in the Atlantic Forest domain, to preserve the scenic beauty, and to maintain a refuge and nesting area for migratory shorebirds. The monument consisted of the Cagarras, Palmas and Comprida islands and the Filhote da Cagarra islet, as well as the water for 10 m around the land. Any activity that could damage the ecosystem or disturb the aquatic fauna and sea birds was prohibited. The consultative council was created on 14 December 2010. The natural monument is part of the Carioca Mosaic, created in 2011.

title: Ilhas Cagarras


text:
Talk:Climate forcing

Separate article
A separate article on this is not needed or helpful. Forcings are best discussed within specific contexts, since the choice of what is called forcings is situational. If a model for predicting vulcanism or solar variability is developed, then these are no longer forcings but become internal variability. If a model experiment is run that attempts to see how other variables repond to a change in the assumptions about carbon sinks (because they can't be modeled yet, etc.), then carbon sinks become a forcing. Any non-ab-initio parameterizations within models can be considered forcings. You should step into the fray and try to swim before assuming that what has already been achieved is insufficient.--Silverback 00:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But why can't we just put that explanation on the Climate forcings page? Obviously "non-ab-initio parameterizations within models" could be dumbed down a bit to something like "anything which concurrently effects climate but which acts from outside current climate models," which I gather from the content and context is what you mean, though it still needs elaboration. It's not like "climate forcings" doesn't mean anything or is not used in the science.

And just to add, I even put a section for that in the proposal, the "Differences from Internal factors." That is one of the parts I find confusing, though I think it could be explained easily by someone who knows more about it than I do.--Ben 00:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scientific Defintion
I added the scientific definition. The source is http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUTQ4/$File/nas_ccsci_01.pdf but Wiki isn't linking to the PDF correctly. I'll find a better way to link it soon. --Ben 22:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am surprised by this definition and wonder if it is outdated and from a time of simpler models, there are lots of climate forcings that would not be covered by watts per sq meter, and I would think greenhouse forcing would be more sophisticated now.--Silverback 00:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You should look at radiative forcing, which contains the IPCC defn. The question to ask is, what is this defn being used for; why has it been called into being? In the case of the IPCC and rad forcing, the answer is, because its a simplifying concept that people have found useful in analysing climate.

 * removed the added definition. if it is actually the definition of radiative forcing it doesn't belong here. Could someone explain the difference between climate forcing and radiative forcing? I gather that radiative forcing describes certain types of climate forcings, like solar variation, but not CO2 sinks, since heat energy is not a part of the forcing itself?

 * (William M. Connolley 09:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)) CO2 is definitely a radiative forcing. The precise IPCC defn on that page should make it clear.

 * Does its impact vary with lattitude and cloud cover? It seems like it should.  I assume mixing is good enough, that there is not much geographical variation because of carbon sinks.--Silverback 13:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed the stub to a science stub, and I also added many links in the See Also section. Maybe the list could give you a better idea of what I think should go on this page? --Ben 10:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cloud forcing (merge suggestion)
I think it would be better to try to keep the more indepth explanations off the page and keep it general. If clouds are generally considered "aerosols," (right?) then cloud forcing should go in the "Aerosols" section and keep its current page. It can be explained in general though underneath "Aerosols" about how aerosols can reflect sunlight and retain heat. Clouds as a forcing would be a really good example of an aerosol forcing seeing as aerosols basically end up being clouds anyway, they just have different sources than natural clouds. This is also because I'm sure clouds as a forcing can be expanded upon. --Ben 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And upon further review, it looks as though "Cloud forcing" wouldn't be considered a climate forcing itself, just Clouds would be the forcing involved which then cause what is called "Cloud forcing". Sort of like how greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. At least that's what I get from it. I think this is the equivalent theory for the effect of aerosols (I was wondering if there was one too). Should be checked out before any merge.--Ben 08:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reading, clouds are usually treated separately from aerosols. (which makes sense, some aerosols are not always cloud like, are not part of the natural weather system). That being said, I think "Cloud forcing" is a specific theory like the greenhouse effect. I've moved it back so cloud forcing can have it's own article (there's probably more that can go on that page). But it would be good to expand on it here and have a comparison to "aerosol radiative forcing" which is apparently the name for aerosol forcing.--Ben 00:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-radiative indirect effects
"Non-radiative forcings can indirectly affect the total energy within the global climate by redistributing energy or substances in such a way that it affects a radiative forcing."

This sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to have a real-life example. It sounds a bit too academic (not the writing, just the theory). I have doubts about what exactly could accomplish this seeing as we're talking about a closed system here. If you could move/transform the energy from being "trapped" in the system to an energy outlet where it could be released, yes it sounds reasonable, but whether that can be affected is just a theory without observation.--Ben 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It occurs in a variety of documented ways. For an example, see greenhouse effect, where a paragraph states:
 * When present, convection does contribute to cooling of a greenhouse, just as it contributes to the cooling of the Earth, by redistributing thermal energy. In the absence of convection to the global greenhouse effect, average temperatures would be 72 C, rather than the current temperature 15 C, which is actually closer to the blackbody temperature of the Earth, -18 C, which would occur in the absence of any global greenhouse effect. This difference in temperatures is because convection facilitates redistribution of heat energy, sometimes raising hot air above much of the greenhouse gases in the same way that convection through a window of a greenhouse would move heat energy outside of the IR absorbant surface of the greenhouse.
 * — Cortonin | Talk 10:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Convection" is not generally considered a "forcing" of any kind, it is a variable which responds to temperature differences. Vulcanic releases of aerosols, which are input to models rather than derived or predicted variables. --Silverback 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Atmospheric circulation" and "oceanic circulation" are both "convection" by the definition of convection .    — Cortonin | Talk 18:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but the issue here is forcings?--Silverback 18:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Those two are both listed on this article as forcings. Do you think that's incorrect??     — Cortonin | Talk 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In general yes that is incorrect, however, if an atmospheric model does not simulate ocean circulation and temperatures and allow changes in ocean temperatures and circulation, then ocean circulation would be used as a forcing in that model. It is difficult to imagine a respectible atmospheric model, that just imposed atmospheric circulation as a forcing rather than model it. If it did it would not be allowing for or be able to predict any changes in circulation.  In a fuller, more physically accurate simulation both the ocean and the atmospheric circulations would be modeled, from some selected initial conditions.  Neither would be a forcing.  Of course, in most weather modeling, the ocean temperatures are a forcing and ocean circulation is not considered, but longer term climate simulations over periods of decades, in a context one considers to be changing, should model both.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So would it be correct to say something like "Natural atmospheric circulation can result in heat loss or retention. For example, through the process of convection, warm air can move above the greenhouse gases which normally retain heat. The heat from the warm air which would normally be kept by the greenhouse effect can then be lost to space. This movement is not considered a climate forcing as it is simply the natural physical process of radiation which many climate forcings interact with." I don't know if that characterization is correct, but maybe it's something to work with. --Ben 23:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * This is more accurate, of course, you are not talking about a model here, but a natural process by which energy is trasported to higher levels in the atmosphere where it is more easily radiated, with less dimunition by the greenhouse effect. A "forcing" is something being applied to or imposed upon a system that is being modeled or analyzed.  Necessity requires that models be simplified, which usually requires that less of the physics be modeled and more forcings being used.  Human behavior is used as a forcing in climate models, usually simplified to greenhouse gasses.  It would be too difficult to model the possible feedback of climate changes on human behavior, although sometimes the impact of hypothesized future changes in human behavior such as treaties that are complied with are forcings in a model.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Climate Forcings and Climate Forces
When I changed the intro a bit to reflect some stuff that I read, it seems to me that maybe some of the usage of "climate forcings" should be changed to simply "climate forces." Forces is simpler and there is less confusion I think. For example, we'd have "Non-radiative forces" rather than "Non-radiative forcings." Comments?--Ben 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That was a bad example, I think "Non-radiative forcings" is ok. I think the difference is "Deforestation" is a "Climate Force" while "Greenhouse gas forcing" is the forcing. So it can be said that "deforestation" is a climate force which forces climate via the theory of "greenhouse gas forcing" which is a type of "climate forcing."--Ben 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I edited it, I hope its clear. I think this is how it is usually discussed. Someone may want to change the "Some of the forces involved in this type of forcing are:" to something like "Examples of phenomena which cause this kind of forcing" (actually I like that better, so if noone steps up then I'll change it to this or something like that later)--Ben 06:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Move
I suggest moving the article to climate forcing and having this page redirect there (right now climate forcing redirects here. When I first created the page I figured "climate forcings" was the same as "climate forces" (they're talked about that way it seems, that should probably be mentioned). But it seems to me that they aren't, rather "climate forcing" is the name for the theory of forcing climates. I won't do it for a while, or if anyone objects, maybe my current interpretation is wrong too :P.--Ben 06:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * A quick google search shows respectable people using both "climate forcings" and "climate forcing", but the one without the "s" seems to dominate by a factor of five. So I would say go ahead with the move.     — Cortonin | Talk 07:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Categories
New Category:Climate forcing and Category:Climate forcing agents --Ben 22:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notice
CC: from Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley

I withdraw my proposal for mediation. WMC you "win" if that's what you'd rather have than discussion. Someone else can deal with you. I will cease discussing or arguing with you. I also will cease working on climate forcing and any and all related climate articles. WMC you might as well just erase climate forcing, since you never wanted it and never edit it,

 * (William M. Connolley 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Not true - see the RFC to avoid duplication
 * I think I, not WMC, was the one who never wanted the article, it is a poorly defined concept.--Silverback 15:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and you have declared yourself comptroller of these pages. I, for one, don't have time for this (I don't know how you do WMC, but whatever) nor do I have time for continuing the argument. You are the "winner" of global warming. Nobody seems to care about the state the articles are in, nor do outsiders notice your tendency to incite and enflame contributors, nor do they notice your tendency to force the issue through rhetoric rather than science. This is, of course, due to an emotional reaction to skeptics (witness those who claim I am a skeptic simply based on my support of this RFC) rather than science, but that's hardly surprising.

Down the road, I'd like to see articles where the reader creates his or her own argument with the methodology of climatology and the NPOV facts discovered. The reader is free to challenge the methods and the facts without having to pick apart rhetoric calculated to exclude their ideas from the article. The argument is not forced upon them, the methods and facts used are provided so they may discover for themselves, whatever their opinions may be. I also would like to see the politics dealt with separately from the science. I hope that this will happen soon, considering the ever-increasing urgency in educating people about the science of climate change, but I fear it will not be due to the style of writing and the personalities involved.

Good luck Corontin. I may not be on your "side" when it comes to the validity of the science, but I'm still on your "side" when it comes to the way these articles are written (and WMC's conduct of course). I for one, have no need to exclude skeptics like you from the argument, since I believe the science can speak for itself--if only WMC would let it. And hey, maybe it can't. Considering WMC's vicegrip he's obviously worried about something, either the science, or the power and control. Just so you know, I think it's the latter. --Ben 22:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
Copied here from Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin      by William M. Connolley      Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sub standard
Hi - I just saw this article and for several reasons it is really, well, let me call it "sub-standard". I think it should be totally removed and perhaps replaced by a short and simple mathematical discussion of short- and long wave radiation balances. Common stuff for Geo science and Astronomy students (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlungsbilanz). Further concepts could be explored under climate modeling. I think lobby talk and ideological aspects should be kept out of these articles. The "scientific definitions" (how about: findings? Research results?) are readily available in countless widely used standard textbooks. Maybe I shall quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which doesn't go away, when you stop believing in it." But I shall not meddle in here. Greetings from Europe, Stefan

 * Hi Stefan (is that The Stefan or A Stefan?). Anyway, I agree. Any article that starts Note: This Wikipedia article is a work in progress. Some terms may be misrepresented. and has nonetheless not seen any progress at all for months is in trouble. This article was the creation of Ben. For various reasons he never improved it. No one else seems to want it. I'm going to redirect it, again. William M. Connolley 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

title: Talk:Climate forcing


text:
File:CodexAureusEmmeramDetAdorat.jpg

Image from the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram.

title: File:CodexAureusEmmeramDetAdorat.jpg


text:
Ace of Spades (Motörhead album)

Ace of Spades is the fourth studio album by English rock band Motörhead, released in October 1980 via Bronze Records. It is the band's most commercially successful album, peaking at number four on the UK Albums Chart and reaching gold status in the UK by March 1981. It was preceded by the release of the title track as a single in October, which peaked in the UK Singles Chart at No. 15 in early November.

It was the band's debut release in the United States, with Mercury Records handling distribution in North America. In 2020, the album was ranked at 408 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.

Background
By 1979, Motörhead had released two extremely successful classic albums, Overkill and Bomber, and had gained a loyal fan following by constant touring and television appearances. Their ferocious, loud proto-thrash playing style appealed equally to punks and heavy metal fans, but in 1979 Sounds writer Geoff Barton coined the term "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" (NWOBHM) to classify a slew of newer bands such as Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, and Saxon. Motörhead – a band that resented being labeled anything other than rock 'n' roll – was placed in this new genre, which would go on to influence the emerging thrash metal movement that would include bands like Metallica and Megadeth. In the 2011 book Overkill: The Untold Story of Motörhead, Joel McIver quotes vocalist and bassist Lemmy: "I like Iron Maiden and Saxon out of the new mob, and that's about it, really... We were too late for the first metal movement and early for the next one... Motörhead don't fit into any category, really. We're not straight heavy metal, because we're a rock 'n' roll band, which no-one knows how to market anymore."

Regardless, the association with NWOBHM would be another positive element in the increasing momentum that would lead to the band's most successful commercial period at the beginning of the new decade. In fact, United Artists decided to finally release the band's "lost" first album at this time under the title On Parole, which had originally been recorded in 1976 but shelved because it was deemed commercially unviable. Next, the Big Beat label, which had taken over Chiswick's catalogue, released Beer Drinkers and Hell Raisers, packaging four extra tracks that the band had laid down for their debut album. Further evidence of Motörhead's nascent mainstream success was the release of the EP The Golden Years in May 1980 on Bronze Records, which became their highest charting release to date, peaking at No. 8.

Recording
Motörhead recorded Ace of Spades with Vic Maile at Jackson's Studios in Rickmansworth in August and September 1980. Maile, who had worked with the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and the Who, had crossed paths with Lemmy when he was a member of Hawkwind. The bassist recalls in his 2002 memoir White Line Fever: "He used to own a mobile studio – Hawkwind hired it out to do Space Ritual and he came with it... Vic was a great man and a great producer, really brilliant... Those were good times; we were winning, we were younger, and we believed it."

As Steffan Chirazi observes in the liner notes to the 1996 reissue of Ace of Spades: "Vic Maille at the production helm used an expert ear to translate the monstrous live sound and feel of the band to vinyl."

Maille, who was affectionately nicknamed "Turtle" by the band (for his resemblance to the reptile), was critical in giving Motörhead a sleeker sound on record without sacrificing its raw power. Diminutive and soft-spoken, Maille was well equipped to deal with the trio, who were notorious for in-fighting and general unmanageability. In the documentary The Guts and the Glory, drummer Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor remembers: "Even if he was angry, he was angry like this: (assumes soft-spoken tone) 'You're not supposed to do it like that,' or 'Stop that boys .'" Lemmy concurs, "Vic was great. He was the first one who told us we were all cunts and work harder. He had a very dry personae: 'Is that really the best shot you've got?'"

In 2015, Clarke recalled to John Robinson of Uncut: "He didn't drink, he didn't smoke, and he was very delicate because he was diabetic. He had to have his Ryvita at six o'clock. We couldn't get heavy with him, couldn't fucking shake him, you know what I mean? He might die! So we had to listen to him."

Whereas the band had previously had an input at the mixing stage, Maile took sole responsibility here, Clarke explaining that the result was "you can finally hear everything that's going on." Of the performances, Lemmy stated "Vic got me singing instead of just shouting all the time", while Taylor added "and he got me playing more solid."

Composition
The album includes some of the band's most popular songs, including "The Chase Is Better Than the Catch", "(We Are) the Road Crew", and the hit single "Ace of Spades", which rose to No. 15 on the UK Singles Chart. In his autobiography, White Line Fever, Lemmy speaks at length about the tune:"I used gambling metaphors, mostly cards and dice – when it comes to that sort of thing, I'm more into the slot machines actually, but you can't really sing about spinning fruit, and the wheels coming down. Most of the song's just poker, really - 'I know you've got to see me, read 'em and weep, Dead man's hand again, aces and eights' - that was Wild Bill Hickock's hand when he got shot. To be honest, although "Ace of Spades" is a good song, I'm sick to death of it now. Two decades on, when people think of Motörhead, they think "Ace of Spades." We didn't become fossilised after that record, you know. We've had quite a few good releases since then. But the fans want to hear it so we still play it every night. For myself, I've had enough of that song."

In 2011, Lemmy admitted to James McNair of Mojo: "I'm glad we got famous for that rather than for some turkey, but I sang 'The eight of spades' for two years and nobody noticed."

The song "(We Are) the Road Crew" was written as a tribute to the band's roadies. In the 2004 Classic Albums documentary on the making of the album, guitarist "Fast" Eddie Clarke declares: "They were a good crew, and they were proud of how good they were. I would put them up against any crew in the world."

In the same film, Lemmy, who worked as a roadie for Jimi Hendrix and the Nice, recalls that he wrote the song "in ten minutes" and that when roadie Ian "Eagle" Dobbie heard the song "he had a tear in his eye". Many of the songs, such as "Love Me Like a Reptile". "The Chase Is Better Than the Catch", and "Jailbait". blatantly reference sex, which drew the ire of some critics and feminists. Clarke explained to Classic Albums in 2005: "We only thought of ourselves as a good time rock 'n' roll band, really... But we weren't trying to get a message across, apart from have a good time, you know: get pissed, get stoned, and fuck a chick. And that'll do."

The Mercury Records vinyl release has an entirely different track order, which many fans feel is a better delivery of the album as a whole.

Release
Motörhead appeared on Top of the Pops twice in October to promote the single "Ace of Spades", and were guests on the ITV children's morning show Tiswas on 8 November. The band undertook a UK tour from 22 October through to 2 December under the banner Ace Up Your Sleeve, with support from Girlschool and Vardis. After the Belfast show on 2 December, hijinks resulted in Taylor breaking his neck forcing him to wear a neck-brace and curtailing any further band activity. The other members of the band took the opportunity to collaborate with Girlschool for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre EP.

Artwork
Like the song "Shoot You in the Back", the Ace of Spades artwork employs a classic wild west motif. Originally the idea for the album cover was to have it in a sepia tone and have gunfighters at a card table, but the band decided against it. They decided instead to have themselves in the desert dressed as cowboys. The 'Arizona desert-style' pictures used on the album sleeve and tour programme were taken during a photo session at a sandpit in Barnet. Each of their cowboy outfits were based on different type of Western protagonist. Eddie was based on Clint Eastwood's character, The Man with No Name from the Dollars Trilogy. Phil's costume was based on Marlon Brando's character Rio in One-Eyed Jacks. Lemmy's costume was claimed by Phil to be inspired from Bret Maverick from the TV show Maverick. Contrary to popular belief, the sky was not real and was airbrushed in due to it being very cloudy that day.

Critical reception
The album has been described as "one of the best metal albums by any band, ever" and a significantly influential "hard rock classic". Robert Christgau stated: "Punks have never bought his leather jacket and indie connections because Lemmy Kilmister's grizzled-biker-born-to-rock is metal without the heavy—no preening solos or blow-dried bullshit. I recommend the bit where he promises to get fast and loose with his latest receptacle as soon as he finishes the song about it (not her, of course not), and note that his writing is more one-note than need be, wit and all--fucking for the hell of it can drive anybody into a rage, and tuneless fucking for the hell of it is really pointless." AllMusic calls it "rock-solid, boasting several superlative standouts" and insists it "rightly deserves its legacy as a classic". Sid Smith of BBC Music enthused in 2007: "When Lemmy sings the lyrics to '(We Are) The Road Crew' it's the sound of a grizzled veteran who has been there, done that and gone back for second helpings... If ever a piece of music was a manifesto for the mad, bad and dangerous to know party then the title track is it. Unrepentant and full of hell, there's not one note out of place."

Despite the band always referring to their music as rock 'n' roll, the album, and particularly its title track, have been considered amongst the most influential in the development of thrash metal. The title track is, for many, the definitive Motörhead anthem.

The album is listed in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. In 2020, it was ranked at 408 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.

Classic Albums documentary
On 28 March 2005, the documentary about the album (a part of the Classic Albums series) was released on DVD by Eagle Vision. The in-depth look at the making of the album includes interviews with and performances by Lemmy, Phil Taylor and Eddie Clarke.

Sanctuary Records 2005 2-CD deluxe edition
Disc one includes the original album without bonus tracks.

 * Dirty Love is an official release by Eddie Clarke on Receiver Records Ltd. in 1989 (which nonetheless features the name "Motörhead" on the front and back album covers), which had various outtakes from the Ace of Spades sessions on it. It includes the tracks "Hump on your Back", "Waltz of the Vampire", "Bastard" and "Godzilla Akimbo", which are all demos that never got to be mastered at the time, but were done so in poor quality later for this release. These four tracks are also credited to Clarke solely on this release, even though it is the three members of Motörhead playing on the tracks.
 * The 1996 reissue is missing Girlschool covering "Bomber", and the 2005 reissue is missing the tracks completely, from the St. Valentines Day Massacre EP the bands did in 1981 for their shared label Bronze Records.

BMG 40th anniversary deluxe edition
On 30th October 2020, BMG released a deluxe box set of the album, which includes seven 12" LPs, one 10" EP and a DVD. Beside the normal album, which is presented in a special 40th Anniversary Master, the box set included the album Riders Wearing Black, which is a live recording made on 23 December 1981, at the Whitla Hall in Belfast. Another live recording, made on 5 March 1981, at Parc Expo in Orleans, is called Dead Man's Hand. The rarity collection is called The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. The set comes with a 10" EP, which includes seven instrumental demos, titles A Fistful Of Instrumentals. Pre-orders from the official shop of the band were able to receive a Dutch replica of the Ace Of Spades single, with the instrumental of the song on the b-side.

Personnel
Per the album's liner notes.
 * Lemmy – vocals, bass, backing vocals on "Emergency"
 * "Fast" Eddie Clarke – lead guitar, lead vocals on "Emergency"
 * Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor – drums except on "Please Don't Touch" & "Emergency"
 * Kim McAuliffe – rhythm guitar on "Please Don't Touch"
 * Kelly Johnson – co-lead vocals & co-lead guitar on "Please Don't Touch"
 * Enid Williams – bass on "Please Don't Touch" (Note: Enid and Lemmy play bass on the track, making it a six piece for this song)
 * Denise Dufort – drums on "Please Don't Touch" & "Emergency" (Note: Dufort plays all the drums on the EP because Taylor had a broken neck at the time)

Production
 * Vic "Chairman" Maile – producer, engineer & mixing
 * Giovanni Scatola – mastering (2005 remaster)
 * Martin Poole – design
 * Alan Ballard – photography
 * Curt Evans – 2005 cover design
 * Joe Petagno – Snaggletooth

2005 deluxe edition remaster
 * Steve Hammonds – release coordination
 * Jon Richards – release coordination
 * Malcolm Dome – sleeve notes
 * Mick Stevenson – project consultant, photos and archive memorabilia

Release history

 * The labels on the 1986 GWR re-issue had the GWR logo and "A" on one side, and side two on the other. The tracks were also erroneously listed in the order of the US release.

title: Ace of Spades (Motörhead album)


text: User:ThomasWinwood

title: User:ThomasWinwood


text:
Talk:Ace of Spades (Motörhead album)

Infobox
There seems to be something wrong with the infobox. It displays as raw text rather than formatted.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Ace of Spades the first album released in the United States?
I don't know what happened to the rest of the Talk page for this album but here's my original question.

I've never seen a US release of any of their previous albums and I've looked hard. All I can find are imports, none of them being the Mercury label their US-released counterparts were released on. So was this the first Motorhead album released in the US? 108.81.33.59 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ace of Spades (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405101709/http://www.bnrmetal.com/groups/moto.htm to http://www.bnrmetal.com/groups/moto.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202035817/http://www.classicrockrevisited.com/Interviews/08/Interview_with_Lemmy.htm to http://www.classicrockrevisited.com/Interviews/08/Interview_with_Lemmy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Genre
Seeing some reverting over genre going on. Any sources to verify any of them? Any without a source should be removed... Sergecross73  msg me  01:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they're just fine the way they've been. when dealing with genres consensus can trump sources. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, no, that’s not how we handle something subjective like genre. But even if we did, there’s no consensus yet either. No discussion at all, just arguing through edit summaries. I’m surprised experienced editors are trying to handle it like this. If there’s a good-faith doubt, then we need a source. Sergecross73   msg me  01:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ace of Spades (Motörhead album)


text:
Écurie Nationale Belge

Écurie Nationale Belge (also known as Équipe Nationale Belge or ENB) was a Formula One and sportscar racing team in the 1950s and 1960s, which was formed through a merger of Jacques Swaters' Écurie Francorchamps and Johnny Claes' Écurie Belge.

In Formula One, the team used a variety of different chassis through the years: Ferrari, Cooper, Lotus, Emeryson as well as a car of their own construction, the ENB, which participated in a single World Championship Grand Prix, the 1962 German Grand Prix and was designed by one of the teams co-founder's Jacques Coune.

Complete Formula One World Championship results
(key)

title: Écurie Nationale Belge


text:
Local ecumenical partnership

In England and Wales, a local ecumenical partnership (or project) is a partnership between churches of different denominations. First piloted in 1964, over 850 now exist to promote unity between different Christian denominations.

The missiologist David Bosch in his Transforming Mission recognised ecumenism as the most recent paradigm of mission emerging from the worldwide Church. The main thrust of ecumenism is that despite the theological and cultural differences evident between denominations, the mission of any local Church is made more effective through a united witness. In some cases this has meant that a Christian presence has been retained in areas where neither denomination would be able to continue on its own. In addition, ecumenism encourages the sharing of different worship styles, the development of mutual understanding and the ability for the Church to speak with a united voice on social justice issues. Materials from organisations with a strong ecumenical emphasis, such as the Iona Community and Taizé, are evidence of this.

As a result of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant, Anglicans and Methodists are committed to working in partnership with an end goal of achieving full visible unity.

title: Local ecumenical partnership


text:
Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême

Louis Antoine of France, Duke of Angoulême (6 August 1775 – 3 June 1844) was the elder son of Charles X and the last Dauphin of France from 1824 to 1830. He is identified by the Guinness World Records as the shortest-reigning monarch, reigning for less than 20 minutes during the July Revolution, but this is not backed up by historical evidence. He never reigned over the country, but after his father's death in 1836, he was the legitimist pretender as Louis XIX.

He was a petit-fils de France at birth, and was initially known as Louis Antoine d'Artois. After his father's accession to the throne, he became Dauphin de France, and his surname changed to de France, following the royal custom for princes with such rank.

Early life
Louis Antoine was born at Versailles, as the eldest son of Charles Philippe, Count of Artois, the youngest brother of King Louis XVI. He was born one year after the death of his great-grandfather, King Louis XV and 7 years after the death of his great-grandmother, the charitable Queen Marie Leczinska. His mother was Princess Maria Theresa of Savoy (known as Marie Thérèse in France), daughter of Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia and Maria Antonia of Spain. From 1780 to 1789, Louis Antoine and his younger brother, Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry, were educated by their gouverneur Armand-Louis, Marquis of Sérent in the château de Beauregard 5 km from Versailles. On the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, the two young princes followed their father into exile first to Turin, then Germany, and finally England. In 1792, Louis Antoine joined the émigré army of his cousin, the Prince of Condé.

In June 1795, his uncle, the comte de Provence, proclaimed himself King Louis XVIII. Later that year, the 20-year-old Louis Antoine led an unsuccessful royalist uprising in the Vendée. In early 1797, he joined his brother and uncle in the German Duchy of Brunswick, hoping to join the Austrian Army. The defeat of Austria by France obliged them to flee, and they took refuge in Mittau, Courland, under the protection of Tsar Paul I of Russia.

There, on 10 June 1799, Louis Antoine married his first cousin, Marie Thérèse of France, the eldest child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and the only member of the immediate royal family to survive the French Revolution. Since her release from the Temple Prison in 1795, she had been living at the Austrian court. They had no children.

Military service
In April 1800, Louis Antoine took command of a regiment of cavalry in the Bavarian army and took part in the battle of Hohenlinden against the French, showing some ability.

In early 1801, Tsar Paul made peace with Napoleon Bonaparte, and the French court in exile fled to Warsaw, then controlled by Prussia. For the next ten years, Louis Antoine accompanied and advised his uncle, Louis XVIII. They returned to Russia when Alexander I became Tsar, but in mid-1807 the treaty between Napoleon and Alexander forced them to take refuge in Britain. There, at Hartwell House, King Louis reconstituted his court, and Louis-Antoine was granted an allowance of £300 a month. Twice (in 1807 and 1813) he attempted to return to Russia to join the fight against Napoleon, but was refused by the Tsar. He remained in Britain until 1814 when he sailed to Bordeaux, which had declared for the King. His entry into the city on 12 March 1814 was regarded as the beginning of the Bourbon restoration. From there, Louis Antoine fought alongside the Duke of Wellington to bring about Napoleon's overthrow.

Flight to Britain and return
Louis Antoine was, as chief of the royalist army in the southern Rhône River valley, unable to prevent the return of Napoleon to Paris, and he was again forced to flee to Britain during the "Hundred Days". He loyally served Louis XVIII after the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. In 1823, he commanded a French army sent into Spain to restore the Spanish King's absolute powers, known as the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis. He was victorious in the Battle of Trocadero, after which the reactionary power of King Ferdinand VII of Spain was firmly restored. For this achievement, he was offered the title of Prince of Trocadero.

Upon the Louis XVIII's death in 1824, his father became King Charles X and Louis Antoine became Dauphin, heir-apparent to the throne. He attended his father's coronation in Reims in May 1825.

July Revolution
In the July Revolution of 1830, masses of angry demonstrators demanded the abdication of Charles. He reluctantly signed the document of abdication on 2 August 1830. It is said that Louis Antoine, who relinquished his right to the throne, became king "Louis XIX" between his father's signature and his own, but in the abdication document he is only referred as "Louis Antoine". The document was signed in favour of his nephew Henri, duke of Bordeaux. For the final time he left for exile, where he was known as the "count of Marnes". Louis Antoine and his wife travelled to Edinburgh, Scotland, in November 1830 and took up residence in a house at 21 (now 22) Regent Terrace near Holyrood Palace where Charles X was staying.

Emperor Francis I of Austria offered the Prague Castle in Prague to the royal entourage in 1832, so Louis-Antoine and Charles X moved there. Francis I, however, died in 1835, and his successor Ferdinand I told the French royal family that he needed the palace for his coronation in the summer of 1836. The exiled French kings and their entourage therefore left and eventually arrived at the palace of Grafenberg in Görz, Austria on 21 October 1836.

Many legitimists did not recognize the abdications as valid, and recognized Charles X as king until his death in 1836, with Louis Antoine succeeding him as Louis XIX. Louis Antoine died in Görz in 1844, aged 68. He was buried in his father Charles X's crypt in the church of the Franciscan monastery of Kostanjevica in Nova Gorica, Slovenia. Upon his death, his nephew the Duke of Bordeaux became head of the Bourbon royal family of France under the regnal name Henry V, although he used the title of Count of Chambord in exile.

In fiction and film
The newborn Duke of Angoulême is portrayed by an uncredited child actor in a brief scene in the movie Marie Antoinette. This scene contains an error as it mistakenly names his parents as Louis XVIII and Marie Josephine Louise of Savoy, who never had children.

title: Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême


text:
Ludovico Scarfiotti

Ludovico Scarfiotti (18 October 1933 – 8 June 1968) was a Formula One and sports car driver from Italy. Just prior to entering Formula One, he won the 1963 24 Hours of Le Mans for Ferrari. He later participated in 12 World Championship Formula One grands prix, and many non-championship races. He won one World Championship race, and scored a total of 17 championship points. A motor sports competitor for a decade, Scarfiotti won the 1962 and 1965 European Hillclimb Championship. He was proclaimed Italy's best driver in both 1962 and 1965.

Early life
Scarfiotti was born in Turin. Scarfiotti was associated with cars from his youth. His grandfather was the first president and one of the nine founders of the Fiat automobile company.

Sports car competition
Scarfiotti competed in the 1,000 Kilometres de Paris sports car race in October 1962. He finished third with teammate Colin Davis. The event was won by Pedro Rodríguez and Ricardo Rodríguez driving a Ferrari. Partnered with Lorenzo Bandini, Scarfiotti was victorious in the 24 Hours of Le Mans in June 1963. Their factory Ferrari achieved an average speed of 117.99 miles per hour over a distance of 2832 mi. The victory was worth almost $20,000 in various prize money along with prestige, and gave Ferrari its fourth consecutive Le Mans victory. In 1965, John Surtees and Scarfiotti shared a Ferrari 330 P2 Spyder which gave the marque a fourth consecutive victory at the 1000km Nürburgring race. They led throughout the 44 laps, posting a winning time of 6 hours, 53 minutes, and 5 seconds, for an average speed of 90.46 mi/h. Scarfiotti and Bandini drove a 2-litre Dino 206 S to second place in the 1966 running of the 1,000 kilometre Nürburgring in which first place went to Phil Hill and Joakim Bonnier driving a 5.4-litre Chevrolet-powered Chaparral. The Dino was 90 seconds behind the Chaparral that debuted the automatic transmission in European competition.

Surtees severed relations with the Ferrari racing team following their decision to replace him with Scarfiotti at the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans. Scarfiotti would go on to finish 31st, retiring after 123 laps. Scarfiotti joined Mike Parkes in a Ferrari P4 for the 1000 km Spa in May 1967. They finished a lap behind Jacky Ickx and Richard Thompson, who drove a Ford Mirage (race car). The winning team averaged 120.5 mi/h and posted a time of 5 hours, 9 minutes, 46.5 seconds.

Teamed with Mike Parkes, Scarfiotti took the new Ferrari P4 coupe to second place behind the sister car (a P4 spyder) driven by Lorenzo Bandini and Chris Amon at the 24 Hours of Daytona, with Ferrari taking the first three positions. The same result took place at the Monza 1,000 km in April. Scarfiotti, again teamed with Parkes finished second at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, this time behind the Ford Mark IV driven by A.J. Foyt and Dan Gurney. Scarfiotti raced a Ferrari factory car in the September 1967 200-mile Canadian-American Challenge Cup race held on a 2.85 mi course near Bridgehampton, New York. His sponsor was the North American Racing Team of Luigi Chinetti.

After Günter Klass was killed in July 1967, Ferrari retired the two-litre Dino 206S prototypes that were also used in hillclimbing. After a fast 1967 24 Hours of Le Mans race won by a 7-litre V8-powered Ford ahead of Scarfiotti/Parkes, the big engines were banned for the 1968 WSC season in which prototypes were limited to max 3-litre engines, same size as in F1, but those were designed to last for 300 km, not 1000 km or 24 hours. Ferrari was forced to retire the 4-litre V12 Ferrari P series, and in protest to the rule change, did not enter the 1968 World Sportscar Championship. With the Germans also being active in hillclimbing, Scarfiotti joined Porsche.

Scarfiotti entered the 1968 Targa Florio, but wrecked his Porsche 907 (#230) on the first day of qualifying and was forced to race with Porsche's T-car which did not last the 720 km road race.

Formula One
Enzo Ferrari signed Scarfiotti to the Ferrari Formula One team of drivers for along with Surtees, Willy Mairesse, Bandini, and Nino Vaccarella. Scarfiotti placed sixth in the second Ferrari in the 1963 Dutch Grand Prix at Zandvoort. He was a lap behind victor Jim Clark in a Lotus. John Surtees piloted the first Ferrari to third place behind Dan Gurney in a Brabham. Scarfiotti finished fifth in the non-championship 1965 Syracuse Grand Prix on the island of Sicily.

Scarfiotti became the first Italian in fifteen years to win the Italian Grand Prix when he drove his Ferrari to a track record speed of 136.7 mi/h at the 1966 event. As of the end of the 2023 Formula One season, Scarfiotti is also the last Italian to win it.

Following the death of Bandini from burns sustained during the 1967 Monaco Grand Prix, Ferrari entered two F1 cars for Scarfiotti and Parkes in the non-championship 1967 Syracuse Grand Prix. Scarfiotti drove a 1966 3-litre Ferrari 312 whereas Parkes drove a 1967 with the 1966 nose to accommodate his long frame. They shared the victory when they crossed the finish line in an unusual dead heat. They were clocked at 113.65 mi/h, recording an official time of 1 hour 40 minutes 58 seconds for the 191.2 mi race. At the GPs of Zandvoort and Spa, both Parkes and Scarfiotti were part of a three-car Scuderia, with a 4-5-6 place finish at the Dutch GP suggesting equal speed of these three drivers, but both Parkes and Scarfiotti were one lap behind Amon, despite Parkes qualifying only 0.1 sec slower than Amon, with Scarfiotti being a full second off pace. At Spa, Parkes had a career-ending accident, while Scarfiotti was 4 laps behind and not classified. For the rest of the 1967 F1 WC Season, Ferrari entered only one car, for Chris Amon. For his home GP at Monza, the winner of the 1966 event secured a drive in the second All American Racers Eagle Mk1, a quite promising move, as Dan Gurney had won the race at the very fast Spa circuit. However, both Weslake V12 failed early in the race.

With Ferrari hiring Jacky Ickx and Amon for 1968, there was no place for Scarfiotti, who entered F1 races for Cooper instead. Brian Redman and Scarfiotti came in third and fourth respectively at the 1968 Spanish Grand Prix in Jarama, both driving for Cooper. In his final Formula One appearance, Scarfiotti placed fourth in the 1968 Monaco Grand Prix, an event marked by mechanical breakdowns that eliminated 11 of 16 starters before the race was completed.

Death
Ludovico Scarfiotti died in 1968 at a hillclimbing event on the Roßfeldhöhenringstraße near Berchtesgaden, Germany, in the German Alps. He became the third Grand Prix driver to die in 1968, following Jim Clark and Mike Spence. Scarfiotti wrecked his Porsche 910 during trials when the car veered abruptly off the Rossfeldstrasse track and catapulted ten yards down a tree-covered slope. The Porsche hung in the trees and Scarfiotti was thrown from the cockpit. He was discovered, badly injured, fifty yards away. He died in an ambulance of numerous fractures. Huschke von Hanstein, the team manager of Porsche, stated that he had never been associated with a fatal accident during the eighteen years he had been in charge of the team. 60 yd of burned rubber braking indicated that Scarfiotti had slammed on his brakes at the final moment.

Scarfiotti was married to Ida Benignetti and had two children from a previous relationship.

Complete Formula One World Championship results
(key) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Non-championship Formula One results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

title: Ludovico Scarfiotti