Quote:
|
Originally Posted by p76rangie
The springs are not actually retained. The shock or other device limits the travel of the axle so that the springs remain seated. If you want your rig to look cool when going over rocks or ruts, go for the cones. However, they have not real positive effect on your ability to get anywhere. They tend to be used by people who have spring lifts using stiff springs and therefore have little spring movement. So the question should be more whether you go for long soft springs that allow the spting to remain in place or whether you go for stiff springs that require cones to get any movement. The weight of the wheel is the only thing providing some traction on a dislocated spring. Therefore the traction is virtually non-existant and not worth the effort.
|
I think I’d have to disagree with this.
Dislocation cones are very popular here in the UK and put too good effect and in many/most cases are used on vehicles running stock ride height.
Basically what it solves is an inherent problem as the wheel moves down and the shock spring extend there comes a point where the spring will fall out of it’s retainer. On a stock vehicle this is rare but it does happen and more often than officials would like.
For ARC competition events it is prohibited to run dislocation cones, so the only safe alternative is to securer the spring to the top retainer. The accepted method is to simply cable tie it as the cable tie will break before ripping the retainer from the vehicle. But this means that firstly suspension travel is now limited and you run the risk of unseating the spring at the base.
I have seen an Ibex (based on a Land Rover chassis/platform) running a special dual spring. Essentially it was fixed at the top and as the hub moved down the spring would extend, at the bottom of the spring was another soft spring which would only extend at full articulation, this kept the spring in contact with the seat at all times.
I can also see why Wranglers don’t use dislocation cones, but this is because of where and how the spring/shock is mounted. Although I can see a potential benefit on some setups of running dislocation cones.
And I also disagree with your logic about the weight of the wheel being the only thing providing traction on a dislocated wheel.
Firstly because you have the whole hub assy there as well.
Secondly if the spring was still in contact (
and being a soft spring as you recommend above) it really won’t be asserting much force when its almost fully relaxed. So the force pushing down will be almost identical.
Thirdly, a Land Rover uses live axles and not IRS. So any movement on one hub is reflected as an opposite on the other. Meaning that as one wheel is pushed UP it forces the other DOWN.
Take a pen and hold it between your finger than thumb and push one side up, the other will have a lot of force but in a downwards direction. This is the main reason why live rear axles are used over IRS for off roaders.
Plus as the axle is a live axle it will not drop unless the other side is being compressed. So there will always be plenty of force being applied to the dropped hub/wheel.
Some one else mentioned there’s a lack of control with dislocation cones, well as long as the vehicle is properly damped I don’t see an issue. The shock should be controlling the travel and be providing the damping. The spring exists for ride height and bounce/jounce control.
Longer break lines and new bump stops are a must when using dislocation cones.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by p76rangie
Thor, how are your springs retained at the top. From the factory there are only retainers on the bottom of the spring.
Ian
|
