A Bit Of Inspiration For The 101 Builders

Removing the front roll bar does help things - and the answer is simply more compliant suspension - remember it has a load carrying capacity of 1.5 tonne so the suspension is not all that compliant - softer longer travel suspension is all that is needed - however note the lift a wheel characteristic is quite common in FC vehicles - in particular the Haflinger which falls over all the time and the Pinzgauer (close to the size of a 101) which will easily fallover and both of these have soft independent suspensions - the 101 is far better with this issue than both of these vehicles.

Modern D3/D4s/RRS have the same issue as well, with relatively short travel suspension - my RRS would have probably be lifting the rear drivers wheel if I had it in the same situation but it would not have the ramp over to be able to get back onto the track.

Suspension changes can be done to the 101 to improve things (scratch built softer rated springs or Haystees which are no longer made) but in my view this is taking mods too far for a rare vehicle.

Haystee springs
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...1/101-0001.jpg

Here are some of the pics Ron alluded to. This first one is interesting - I did not have to go into the hole but there was a risk to the vehicle if a took a different line. There is a bank to the left of the pic that would stop the 101 rolling if the tip was too great. I went in slowly so that there was no lurch - front drivers wheel in the hole and rear passenger wheel high in the air but no roll.

These pics were taken by Ron.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...21/Gary5-1.jpg

Some wheel lifting going up :). Shaken not stirred.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...21/Gary3-1.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...21/Gary4-1.jpg

Some Pinz stuff - much more unstable than the 101.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...21/pinz5-1.jpg

[ame="http://s42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/gazzz21/?action=view&current=Pinz2-1.mp4"]Pinz2-1.mp4 video by gazzz21 - Photobucket@@AMEPARAM@@http://vid42.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/gazzz21/Pinz2-1.mp4@@AMEPARAM@@vid42@@AMEPARAM@@42@@AMEPARAM@@e3 34/gazzz21/Pinz2-1@@AMEPARAM@@mp4[/ame]

Garry

Interesting photos Garry.I mentioned the Volvo because I dont rate vehicles with swing axle suspension such as Hafs, PinZ, Tatras, early VWs etc. They would cock wheels on my driveway. And when the wheel comes back to earth the track width is suddenly 6'' narrower until the tyre can slip sideways and normalise the suspension.
I appreciate the problem of heavily modifying rare and relatively unique vehicles. That's why I suggested simple stuff like disconnectable antiroll bar, and alluded to something like telescopic or scissor type spring shackles, which can be removed to return the vehicle back to original when desired.
If the stability issues can be relatively easily addressed, and help to keep the shiney side up, that can't be a bad thing in that it would tend to preserve the rare hard to replace body parts of both vehicle and occupants:)

BTW, has anyone on the forum unintentionally tested the std 101 rollover bar? I have the remains of a vehicle that had a rusted out chassis, and the bulkhead mounting for the rollbar is scary.
Bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagoo

BTW, has anyone on the forum unintentionally tested the std 101 rollover bar? I have the remains of a vehicle that had a rusted out chassis, and the bulkhead mounting for the rollbar is scary.
Bill.

---

No but the roll bar does not go down to the chassis and relys on the shape of the body work where it bolts on gets its strength. I think it would be OK in a slow roll over but anything more spectacular would be more problematic.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagoo

Instead of getting used to,or learning to live with it.Has anyone tried experimenting with the suspension to see if the situation could be improved?
I wouldn't mind betting that the 101s for/aft and lateral centre of gravity would be comparable to my portal axled SWB, but it is extremely stable in all crosscountry situations due to a flexible and articulate suspension.
Those offcamber drop offs that upset 101s for example.Would the situation be improved if one were to disconnect the front antiroll bar? And/ or , as an experiment,temporarily unbolting the diagonally opposite (to the drop off) spring shackle, to allow the rear end to flex a bit?
I would find it hard to believe that the situation couldn't be improved, especially as the broadly similar but shorter(91''Wb),higher COG, and more capable Volvo C303, due to a more flexible suspension doesn't seem to suffer the 101s diagonal instability to anywhere near the same degree.
Bill.

---

Garry has nailed it.
I have done abit of experimenting in the flex department.
My sway bar was removed day one.
Unloaded the front end flexs to full shocker travel which is plenty.
The rear end unloaded barely moves as the spring rates are too high for civie use.
The 101 rear end will flex very well with standard springs , but only with a full 1.5 ton load in the rear.
The Cof G and general balance of the vehicle is set up for a fully loaded condition.
The best thing is the CofG side ways tilting is extremely good and far more than you would think and I can only put this down to no body work up high on GS models and what body work there is is alloy.( remember the 101 is slightly wider than a average landy and the motor and trans is alloy too.)
I am still to find time to do some spanner work and more measuring, but some models of Ford F series rear springs and Ford transit van appear to be a almost bolt in fit and are twin leaf parabolic type design like the 101s
It is interesting to note
the drivers book only remmends towing a trailer of any type with 500kg or more at the rear most part of the load area.
The forward control is always abit different going down a steep drop when you sit in front of the front axle .

I suspect that if the 101 is not going to be used a load carrier just removing one of the rear parabolic leaves would work - would give about a 750kg capacity but there would only be one leaf.

Not sure I would do it to the front springs though.

Garry

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/04/276.jpg

The following is my 101 with standard springs on full twist so the load is on two diangonal wheels and I was testing with rear shockers disconnnected.
The vehicle is unladen
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1243.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1244.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1245.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1246.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1247.jpg
Extension rear axle
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1248.jpg
Compression rear axle.
Plenty of shocker stroke left and therefore no need to disconnect them .
The front shockers were at full travel

Some more pics, this time of the front end.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1239.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...n/BILD0117.jpg
Extension




http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...n/BILD0115.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1240.jpg

Compression






https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1241.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...12/01/1242.jpg

With the testing I have done the front doesnt need any more flex, as excessive spring and bush wear will occur.
Extra flex must come from the rear with softer rated springs.
In fact I feel just using one leaf in the rear would be about right for a unloaded 101 Gs..........I think running one spring leaf in the rear is a risk not worth taking ,as if it lets go there is no back up and all hell breaks loose.
Mr Hystees aftermarket springs were the answer and he is not making more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101 Ron

With the testing I have done the front doesnt need any more flex, as excessive spring and bush wear will occur.
Extra flex must come from the rear with softer rated springs.
In fact I feel just using one leaf in the rear would be about right for a unloaded 101 Gs..........I think running one spring leaf in the rear is a risk not worth taking ,as if it lets go there is no back up and all hell breaks loose.
Mr Hystees aftermarket springs were the answer and he is not making more.

---

I think removing a leaf from the standard rear springs would also be a bad move re axle tramp control.
I run single leaf Transit front Paras on the rear of my SWB and used to get terrible axle tramp, and broke a few springs before I fitted a Tripod link to locate the rear axle and control housing rotation.
Multleaf semi elliptic springs as fitted to the 101 prototypes would probably give better flex without sacrificing load carrying ability, but would be significantly heavier, which is probably the reason LandRover chose to fit Paras on production vehicles.
Bill.