Springs: retention or cones?

[02disco2]

Here's the deal guys.. If you are going to cry wolf about not liking comments posted about you in any fashion, or if you are easily offended, try not posting negative comments about other forum members. Everyone here has a lot to contribute and everyone here has their own ideas as to how to make particular things work more effectively. That's what they are, your ideas and beleive it or not, everyone is not always going to agree with you. Hense the word "debate". This is a family focused forum and while I'd appreciate the negative comments to deminish, we are all adults and we shouldn't have to be policed. That being said, if you sling mud, you will get mud slung back upon you. If you have an opinion, there will likely be someone else here who disagrees with your opinion and at the same time, you may not agree with that persons opinion that is contrairy to yours.

Bottom line, grow up. For the most part, every party on this thread has/or had valuable information to share. Most were just able to do so in a mature manner.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by 01001010

Hmmm...I think I'll take your advice and have a cookie as well...with some Milk...lol (seriously...I keep a stash of Oreos in my desk)

lol

[01001010]

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton

lol

Check it out...

[Duncan]

The important views are from P76 an 300.
Personally I have given thought to both arguments.
It has not changed my way of thinking it has simply given me more to ponder.
I do find it interesting that P76 intends to add the cones to augment his longer softer springs ( I assume as a back up in case he does dislocate).
and that 300 does not use them personally ( This is not a critisizm I merely find it mildly amusing after the heated discussions from both party,s)
You both have made some really good points and it has helped me somewhatin my thinking as to what i should perhaps be looking at in the future.
Thanks to the both of you.

[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?

[p76rangie]

3oobhp, I have covered all the relavent points early in the thread. I do not feel the need to go through your comments line by line like you do to others.

Duncan, there is a big difference between designing your suspension to dislocate and taking it to the max to a point that there is a risk they might dislocate. The shock (limiting factor) is further out than the springs. Therefore it is more compressed with the wheels crossed up than if I had the rear airborne. So if I attempt to maximise the cross up travel I run the risk of them coming out when airborne. Would not like to come in for a landing with no

[Life's Lemon]

EAS

[01001010]

Originally Posted by Life's Lemon

EAS

LOL

[p76rangie]

Just to put what I am thinking of doing into context.

I am looking at putting something similar to this kit in
http://www.lrautomotive.com.au/214.html
The article covers the issues related to dislocation of springs. I am also looking at going a little further with the springs. The rears will be Les Richmond springs covered in this link.
http://members.shaw.ca/jbarge/springinfo.html
I will go to Purple/Orange springs in the rear that are rated at 220 pounds per inch and have an uncompressed length 1.9 inches longer than standard. In the front I already have reds, which are rated at 180 lbs per inch and have an uncompressed length 1.1 inches longer than standard. With the extra weight in the car, the springs should provide a ride height increase of around 3 inches in the back and 2 inches in the front. Even thougfh the kit comes with cones, they should only rarely come into play.

I hope this puts some of the comments in context. I do not recommend any specific set-up. What I am looking for may not be the best set-up for you.

[AlohaRover]

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?

But if the spring is unretained and the axle hasn't yet reached the point of hanging by the fullky extended shock, then the weight of the axle is not counted as part of the vehicle weight and in effect you are raising the COG.

With retained springs, in a side slope situation as the body rolls you can reach the point where the axle weight starts to add to the body weight and limit body roll much sooner then with dislocated springs.

In the photo of the disco on opposite ramps with the rear spring dislocated, as far as the weight on the tire and breaking your foot, I have seen a video of a similar set up where someone went over and lifted up that free floating wheel with ease.

I don't think that using the shock as the limiting device for travel is very smart. If you are going to go with dislocated springs I would think that a retaining strap would be the better way to go.

Some good arguments on both side of the issue here, too bad some folks need to get all cyber tough. Funny how when someone runs out of ideas they result to name calling and insults.

Trying to compare the set up of a Rover and a rock buggy is a real stretch.

Whether you agree with cones or not, the fact is there are hundreds of vehicles running them and doing well. The only way to really determine which set up is better would be to take a single vehicle with unlocked axles, and set it up so you can go between fully retained or cones. Use a single set of shocks and single set of shocks for both set ups.

Then run it up an RTI until it can move no more...not to see what you get for an RTI value, but to see at which point the truck can not move forward any more. Do this with both set ups and see if either set up can move further.

Then use a strap and a couple winches pull the vehicle up onto two wheels until it reaches the tip over point. Do this on botht he left and right hand side. Fidn the point of no return for each suspension.

Set up a series of 12" tall piles of sand bags so that the vehicle gets cross axled as it drives though. For a Disco, 100" pile on left, 100" pile on right, 100" pile on left. Drive through the course with both vehicles and see if there is any difference. Might need to keep building the piles higher. Suggested sandbags because they are relatively uniform, and can be stacked and support the weight of the vehicle. Other thought would be to use 4x4x12 stacked and nailed together. Or pavers maybe? Anyway you get the idea. Build a uniform course that can be run through with both suspensions.

SCSL, thank you

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

3oobhp, I have covered all the relavent points early in the thread. I do not feel the need to go through your comments line by line like you do to others.

Duncan, there is a big difference between designing your suspension to dislocate and taking it to the max to a point that there is a risk they might dislocate. The shock (limiting factor) is further out than the springs. Therefore it is more compressed with the wheels crossed up than if I had the rear airborne. So if I attempt to maximise the cross up travel I run the risk of them coming out when airborne. Would not like to come in for a landing with no

I agree, but I'll be honest getting airbourne is not going to be either common or intential for me, too easy to break stuff.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Just to put what I am thinking of doing into context.

I am looking at putting something similar to this kit in
http://www.lrautomotive.com.au/214.html
The article covers the issues related to dislocation of springs. I am also looking at going a little further with the springs. The rears will be Les Richmond springs covered in this link.
http://members.shaw.ca/jbarge/springinfo.html
I will go to Purple/Orange springs in the rear that are rated at 220 pounds per inch and have an uncompressed length 1.9 inches longer than standard. In the front I already have reds, which are rated at 180 lbs per inch and have an uncompressed length 1.1 inches longer than standard. With the extra weight in the car, the springs should provide a ride height increase of around 3 inches in the back and 2 inches in the front. Even thougfh the kit comes with cones, they should only rarely come into play.

I hope this puts some of the comments in context. I do not recommend any specific set-up. What I am looking for may not be the best set-up for you.

Good post (no sarcasim intended)

Seriously I intend going to a new setup next year and in many ways it's not all that different.

I had been designing, although no longer needed as someone else now manufacturers reverse re-loaction brackets. This means you retain the top of the srping to the upper seat and it floats as per stock on the lower. however should it dislocate through the course of being used there will lbe a reverse cone on the lower seat which will allow the spring to re-seat safely. This is done as more of a backup measure as the springs will already be longer than stock, but the chance will exist that it could dislocate under extreme conditions.

Similar setup at the front with a longer than stock spring but using more of a convential dislocation cone on the upper mount. Again this is just a safe gaurd incase it does dislocate rather than an intent to dislocate under normal use.

I'll also be using modified bump stops to limit over all travel.

BTW - On a stock setup I believe the shock is largly the limiting factor in articulation. And this is where cones can provide a cheap cost affective alternative.

Add 1" lower top rear shock mounts and 1" shorter fron shock towerrs (you could simply add slightly longer shocks if you wanted). This now means the wheel can drop further, but it means the stock springs are too short. Dislocation cones simply allow them to drop and inch or two and re-seat safely. Thus giving superior articulation, but critically you will have stock ride, handling and ride hieght. As not everyone wants a lifted vehicle and in some forms of off roading a lower COG is very beneficial (side slopes and such).

[Duncan]

The reverse cone setup ( dislocation cone mounted to base plate) is currently how my rear is set up. Using the OME medium shocks ( +11/2")with a 21/2" lifted spring was limiting the wheel travel that was my reasoning for lowering the shock mounts by 2" ( the front is still being worked on ) As I have no wish to put a larger tyre on at this time ( i currently have 265s) I reworked the bracket on the rear axle for the brake line block to give me 4" extra to allow for any stretching issues for the lines and so far it is working fine. However I will be looking at some spring rates and perhaps changing the setup as this is still a ongoing test to find that which is best for me .
I do like P76s thoughts on the spring rate/size and the cone as a safety feature in case of dislocation.
Cheers.

[sevenrover]

All of this is why the OME 747 and 767 are my favorite springs, not to rigid, not too soft, and they are the true OME 3" lift spring... refined by Bill Davis, and produced by OME, ONLY sold by Great Basin Rovers

[Banned]

Cones suck

[p76rangie]

SevenRover, Can't find those spring numbers anywher (incl GBR). Can you check and re-post.