Springs: retention or cones?

[Duncan]

I was never happy with the amount of travel in the OME shocks in relation to the 21/2" lift I have ( not the shocks fault) I basically wanted extra droop on the wheels ( which it acomplished ) . As far as adding Long travel shocks this would be an excelent idea and fabbing up the Bracket plates would be a simple project. However at this point the components I have work well together and I am happy at the moment ,That is until I decide what route my next upgrade will be ( at that time I will want to upgrade the shocks)

Cheers.

[Muddy Oval]

Originally Posted by SCSL

Hmmm. I was not aware of this. Strange design from the factory. What's to stop the stock shock from bottoming out? I suppose the stock bumpstops prevent this from happening?

Learn something new about Rovers every day.... it's been years since I've been underneath a stock anything...

Actually- the shock is the limiting factor. The shock piston will hit the top of the casing (since the case of the shock moves down in relation to the piston and shaft) as the axle drops (hopefully not too hard) and limit the downward movement of the axle. This is also, ironically, called "topping out" the shocks. If it's done violently, it'll bust the shock stem OR the internals.

[p76rangie]

A shock absorber is suppose to prevent violent movements. Therefore it will only break the shock if the shock was stuffed in the first place.

Ian

[Thor]

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

A pair of high strength bolts through a rectangular metal rod, across the coils. But my dislocation cone is still mounted if the upper retainer lets go.

[Thor]

Hey SCSL

I spotted you and the rig on the cover of LRM NA!

[p76rangie]

Thor, it must have been modified as the picture posted by Duncan above is the standard setup, minus the dislocation of course.

It should never let go if the shocks are standard length or only a inch longer.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Thor, it must have been modified as the picture posted by Duncan above is the standard setup, minus the dislocation of course.

It should never let go if the shocks are standard length or only a inch longer.

Yes they can, I've seen it several times on various vehicles.

[TN-LR3]

I have EE top and bottom spring retainers, it's overkill but their great if you want a retained set-up. Only problem is I have 762 rear springs and their stiff as an old man on viagra, so flex is limited. But I still don't trust cones and I've seen retained springs get more flex than cones before on a well tuned set-up and then he could drive home on the highway with no sway bars..

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

300bhp, The load leveler on a classic rangie is a large shock absorber looking device mounted within the "A" frame of the rear suspension. It is designed to maintain the rear height of the vehicle. If the back sags it pumps it back to normal road height. It takes a large portion of the rear weight of the vehicle and therefore the vehicle came with softer springs. It also acts as a pivot point for the suspension. It is also referred to as a BOGE unit.

Ok yes now I know what you are talking about, I know it as self leveling rear suspension. Not very common over here, in fact having owned 4 Classic Range Rovers and 3 Discovery's none have had it.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Yes, I could put my foot under the rear wheel of that Orange disco. The photo actually shows up one of the faults with cones. Due to the 3 point suspension in the rear, you can get more movement than the front. So the front starts driving the angle that the car will sit. In the case of the photo the car is leaning to the left. If the owner had not put as stiff as springs in it, the front right wheel would be tucking in a lot further, the car would be flater, the back right wheel would not be dislocated, and you would most likely have traction to the back right.

Actually I don't think those springs are all that heavy.

And yes you could put your foot under it, but you'd also need to go to the hospital. You could see where it was sinking into the ground/depressing the ground. The weight of the wheel on it's would not do this.

It all goes back to the fundamental function of how a live rear axle works. One hub goes up the other goes down. This is why the live rear was so favoured on so many rally cars as well as off roaders.

Take a look at a Hummer (Hum-Vee/H1) off roading, sure it has great ride height due to the smooth underside and raised IRS setup. But because it's IRS it has no axle articulation. If one hub is forced up it has no direct result on the other.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Duncan, why did you lower your shock mount. It is usual to raise the mount to fit longer shocks and increase overall movement. If you look at all the other photos posted on this thread, the shock mounts have been raised and moved slightly forward.

Ian

That's inaccurate, many 4x4 shops sell mount droppers, usually 1". This will help lift the vehicle without the need of a longer shock. Scorpion Racing and several others sell such mounts and they are proven in one of the toughest competions we have over the "Extreme Challenge".

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

SCSL, as most of the photos show, the spring is only held at the bottom. This is how they come from the factory. If the wheel drops too far the spring will come out from the top. Without cones the spring will most likely not go back in properly. The axle movement is limited by the shocks to stop the springs coming out of the top bracket.

Yep I agree with this.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

It is only when you move shock mounts or fit longer shocks that the springs will dislocate

But not this, lol

As I've stated twice already in this thread the springs can pop out of the top retainer under full articulation on a 100% factory stock vehicle.

This is why for ARC events it is permitted to use a plastic cable tie to attach the spring to the top retainer, thus preventing the springs popping out. This method was decided because if there is any rust present the cable tie is more likely to break before ripping the top retainer off the vehicle.

EDIT: Here's is one of the Land Rovers which had the springs fall out the retainers. Apart from the required saftey equipment it is a bog standard 2.5 TD 90 truck cab.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Thor, it must have been modified as the picture posted by Duncan above is the standard setup, minus the dislocation of course.

It should never let go if the shocks are standard length or only a inch longer.

Far from standard length. My spring lift is 3 or 4 inches and I have Bilstein 7100 12" shocks.

The upper shock mount is also reinforced (don't know exactly how to be honest).

I've not had trouble with failed upper mounts and I've flexed the heck out of the front and rear of this rig. But I tend to crawl so less shock ( as opposed to catching air). I hope all holds up!

The truck is a ton of fun!

[p76rangie]

300bhp, So what you are trying to say is that on a standard setup you can remove a spring without disconnecting the shock, LOL.

If you are going to lower the shock mount you should also lower the bump stops to stop the shock fully compressing. You do not gain any increased movement from this.

There is little or no weight on the lower rear wheel of that orange disco. No hospital visit would be required.

As stated previously, the restriction in IRS is largely due to the wishbone set-up.
This vehicle has independeant suspension. I go out with him on a rtegular basis and it will outperform most 4WDs and it is stock.

[Badger1]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

300bhp, So what you are trying to say is that on a standard setup you can remove a spring without disconnecting the shock, LOL.

If you are going to lower the shock mount you should also lower the bump stops to stop the shock fully compressing. You do not gain any increased movement from this.

There is little or no weight on the lower rear wheel of that orange disco. No hospital visit would be required.

As stated previously, the restriction in IRS is largely due to the wishbone set-up.
This vehicle has independeant suspension. I go out with him on a rtegular basis and it will outperform most 4WDs and it is stock.

The six wheel drive might also help his cause!

[Duncan]

One thing i have not mentioned in my post is the lack of Anti Sway bars. Given the fact that my shocks are + 11/2" and my lift is + 21/2" that would give me a total of 1" too short for the shock. ( if I had lowered it 1" it would bring everything back ) i chose the 2" to allow further droop on the wheels having said this it is fairly obvious from the picture that even with the shock in it,s original position it would seem to me the spring would still dislocate.(Now by leaving the sway bars connected , It would never allow the spring to disconnect) as for highway driving with no sway bars. My thought on this is simply before 92 it was an option on Discos and yes it is more stable having them conected and I have made disconnects for both the front and rear Although at the moment the rear are off as I have been making my gas tank guard and need to do a little refining in this area.