TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: rear wiper blade - not fully engaged Page: Previous  1, 2
61Scout Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:39 pm

OP, you might also consider trying a wiper blade that is a "beam style" type. So instead of the traditional blade with individual points of pressure, this type of blade uses a wider spring over the entire length of the blade. One that looks like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Anco--22-M-Profile-Wiper-Bla...beam+style

-Kevin

ragnarhairybreeks Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:28 pm

Edit I have a typo in my message. What I meant to say is that I shortened the c clip, not the spring



I was hesitant to post to their thread, the signal to noise ratio seems awry :-)

But for what it's worth here is my experience with fixing one of my front wipers.

Over the last few years I have been using beam type ( Michelin and Bosch brands) wipers up front. The passenger side wiper never made good contact in the middle of the wiping area with either brand.

Oh I bent the arms, cleaned the glass and wiper blades. More than you can imagine. But I'd still get a small un wiped patch with the passenger wiper.

But what fixed the issue was taking the spring out of the arm, and then the "C" shaped wire bail that connects the spring to the hub of the arm. I compressed that spring about 2-3 mm ( sorry I can't be precise, I'm writing from memory).

It's a little bit of a pain to get the spring and bail out from the arm, but it's not that difficult. To be clear, I closed the c shaped bail just a little (in the vise).

That little amount translated to enough additional down pressure that it solved my problem.

So for what it's worth, there's another suggestion.

Cheers

Alistair

chase4food Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:45 pm

Very appropriate term - signal to noise ratio of a thread denotes the usefulness and the readers' varied ability to extract the useful signals out of the mud floor. :lol:

dsdunbar Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:49 pm

Alistair,
Clever. So you modified the spring, not necessarily the number of coils, but reduced the length of the attachment point of the spring, (thus changing distance X in the equation f=kX).

I didn't take my wiper apart, but thought I looked at the spring and couldn't find enough length to modify at the end, but I'll take a second look.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

bluebus86 Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:53 pm

chase4food wrote: bluebus86 wrote: chase4food wrote: Sir Bentley is always right, at least when it comes to direction wise. Bending the arm will increase the spring force F = xC where x is displacement, and C is spring constant. What is C is the key.

Risking prematurely wearing out my binary brain, I went and make some measurements. The scale wanting to do peak hold makes it more challenging, but I succeeded.

Lifting the blade just a bit but make sure no point of the blade make contact with the glass = 25 oz

Lifting the blade an inch higher = 26 oz

A whopping 4% increase if you willing to bend that much.

14.8 to 25 oz force on the rear blade is not too bad. after all you did at first report 14.8 oz for it.

no study of the over action design was required.

I am glad you came around and tried it rather than study the design. see it pays off to not ignore me.

I only read your posts here because you will try to poke any holes you can find. The last set of measurement is to just to prove a point and I use the front wiper for expedience. The rear wiper is inaccessible unless I open the garage. A good technician know what make and not make a difference when it comes to designing an experiment. Please don't overthink this if your eyes begin to glaze over...

Let me repeat. The baseline vs additional 1" lift force difference is conducted on the right front wiper. It gives only 4% increase in spring force.

I promise to return you back to my ignore list.

Well I dont really need to be not ignored by a person that twice calls me a racist. Anyone that plays that card is free to ignore me.

As far as the one inch of lift, a good technician would not be measuring the force on a completley different arm and publish that result when all it would take to get more applicable data would be to open a door to gain access to the closer matching thing to measure. much as a good person would not accuse a person of racism twice. that is a damn nasty thing to do.

the force reading wont help fix the arm. talk about the mud.

I wonder why Bentley recommends that same fix I do, to bend the arm? Must be at least one damn good technician at Bentley I suppose.

ragnarhairybreeks Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:24 pm

dsdunbar wrote: Alistair,
Clever. So you modified the spring, not necessarily the number of coils, but reduced the length of the attachment point of the spring, (thus changing distance X in the equation f=kX).

I didn't take my wiper apart, but thought I looked at the spring and couldn't find enough length to modify at the end, but I'll take a second look.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I noticed I had made a typo in my previous message. I meant to say I shortened the c clip by a couple of millimetres , not the spring. Sorry about that.

Yes, pretty well it. I wasn't completely convinced that bending the arm really applied that much more pressure on the blade. Maybe it does, but it didn't do it for me.

I guess you could say that squishing the c clip a bit added more preload to the spring. But then again the spring I think has a constant rate and it is preloaded when you attach it to the c clip.

So what difference would shortening the effective length make? It's one of those things that might not make sense when talking about it but for what ever reason it worked.

Alistair



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group