Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cellulararrest
After reading this I still think that the lower the weight of a vehicle is, the lower it's center of gravity. Because of that I'm in support of dislocation cones. They allow the wheels and the rest of a vehicle's unsprung weight to be closer to the ground therefore lowering it's center of gravity.
...right?
|
My thoughts exactly. I appreciate the knowledge shared by 300. I am also offended by the mud slinging and name calling by some of the people in this thread. Pity it went there.
I have a leaf sprung Landy and wouldn't mind trying revolver shackles, as I expect they will increase the suspension drop like the cone will. The cone allows a decrease in center of gravity so less tendency to roll when you have ONE corner raised or lowered. But what about on a side hill where both wheels on one side are unloaded due to the angle of the side slope?
One point missed and TOTALLY ignored by one detractor (possibly purposely steared away from?) is that with the cone system, when one wheel goes into maximum compression and the opposite spring unloads, the wheel on the unloaded side is being pressed down into the ground. How? The compressed wheel is using the compressed spring as a fulcrum. Admittedly it is a shorter lever arm between the compressed wheel and spring than it is between the uncompressed wheel and the "fulcrum" but there is substantial force exerted on the wheel of the unloaded side till the shock is fully extended. This is possibly why it is such a popular modification in open diff applications because it spreads the total load to some extent across both wheels rather than concentrating it on one.
As previously said (or alluded to), spring retainers work best combined with a locker because with a locker, you simply don't require both tires to be firmly planted to keep the wheels turning.
