Advanced Search

Blow-in wrote: wrote:

David, I won't quote your post 3 up here as it is quite long but I do agree with the fundamental thrust of it. It reads like an ad. I was thinking about it before your post and what else I don't like about the article is the 'doomsday' approach. By that I mean hydragas spheres are bound to fail, there are no new ones left on the shelf, ergo MGFs will be scrapped as soon as units fail - BUT, there is salvation - it's called Suplex. There is no mention of other alternatives such as converting to TF sub-frames & suspension or the various attempts to re-gas units. There is little mention of a ready stock of used parts. I'm considering how I might respond to the MGOC (I am otherwise a happy member).

Richard

Let us know what they say Richard. They also ignore the fact that there are MK1 Minis, Landcrabs, and a host of other ancient Austins that are still driving round on their spheres! In comparison our cars are mere babies! Plus I believe you can have the spheres regassed now too.

Also does the 'article' mention 'thousands of happy customers'? If so then that is likely hogwash! Suplex themselves may have thousands of happy customers overall but there is no way thousands of F owners, whose cars are probably worth half of what the kit costs, have stumped up the money for that kit. If it is mentioned like that then that in itself is very misleading.

David, I won't quote your post 3 up here as it is quite long but I do agree with the fundamental thrust of it. It reads like an ad. I was thinking about it before your post and what else I don't like about the article is the 'doomsday' approach. By that I mean hydragas spheres are bound to fail, there are no new ones left on the shelf, ergo MGFs will be scrapped as soon as units fail - BUT, there is salvation - it's called Suplex. There is no mention of other alternatives such as converting to TF sub-frames & suspension or the various attempts to re-gas units. There is little mention of a ready stock of used parts. I'm considering how I might respond to the MGOC (I am otherwise a happy member).

Richard

Posted this on their Facebook:

Can I ask why there is an 'article' on Suplex suspension for the F in your magazine that reads more like sales literature, advertises a standard set up - known to damage F bodyshells - yet shows a modified setup which doesn't, and more importantly makes no mention of the many UNSATISFIED customers who have been left high and dry by Suplex (damaged bodywork etc). Roger Parker knows the full story about one of our members cars on 'the-t-bar' and yet chooses to not mention any possible issue with body damage. Maybe to regain any kind of credibility those unsatisfied views should be aired?

Let's see how long it stays on the page! It's under reviews - so people better get on it and start replying!

I am going to highlight it on their Facebook page - bet it gets pulled! OK if i post your post up David and say there is a discussion on T-Bar?

An MGOC member has been kind enough to send me a copy of this article. After reading it I have to admit to two feelings about it.

1/. I am appalled that this blatant advert should be included as an article. The author should be ashamed of himself. He is looked on as a guru by most of the MG community and to allow himself to be used in this way is terrible. He mentions the issue with dampers (especially rear dampers) without saying how this kit avoids the problem, while clearly showing the botched up rear damper in the attached photo.(note great lump of expanded foam on the damper rod) If he or anyone can explain to me how a damper can work when there's a great internal bumpstop preventing any possible compression I would be astonished. Further if he could explain how this doesn't direct excess forces directly through the top damper mounts, I will nominate him for the Nobel prize for Physics.

2/. I am disgusted that it is not made clear that the author was provided with his various kits and upgrades FOC by the company. Further it is not made clear that he doesn't run the actual basic kit he is promoting. He runs a modified setup with adjustable dampers.

There is no mention of dissatisfied customers, of which there are many, who have been left high and dry having spent a lot of money to have a system that in no way is as good as a functioning hydragas system. He is not ignorant of the problems; he was privy to all my records on the issues.

There is no mention of bottom bushes on their dampers squirming out after a few miles due to an obvious design fault. A fault that was only corrected (I presume they corrected it) after I pointed it out to one of the Suplex engineers. I don't know because they refused to communicate with me after Dan White the MD got involved.

This article is a blatant biased advert and If I had been a member of MGOC, I would resign forthwith.