Thread: Longer front shock towers

Originally Posted by wagoo

Is there enough compliance in the radius arm bushings to take advantage of the longer dampers?
Wagoo.

Bill

As you are aware there is not enough compliance in the standard Rover setup to gain 5" of droop,but I have found that having the raised towers and longer shocks,as well a Holey bushes,when taking the extra UP travel into account,as well as the down travel,I am able to use the extra shock length.
And yes I know the reason for you question

Wayne

Originally Posted by LowRanger

Bill

As you are aware there is not enough compliance in the standard Rover setup to gain 5" of droop,but I have found that having the raised towers and longer shocks,as well a Holey bushes,when taking the extra UP travel into account,as well as the down travel,I am able to use the extra shock length.
And yes I know the reason for you question

Wayne

Wayne. It's been about 9 years and my memory is getting fuzzier by the day, but when I was building a RR based hybrid and doing articulation experiments I vaguely recall that at standard(low) suspension height, as the right hand front tyre(36'') would tuck up, it would roll around the upper spring mount and eventually foul about half way up the witches hat. When the static suspension height was increased with longer springs/ spacers the axles articulation/roll axis was lower down in relation to the chassis, so the tyre would foul badly on the coil spring and upper spring mount.This didn't happen with the left hand wheel due to the panhard rod giving a different roll geometry left to right.The problem was eventually solved by replacing the panhard with a Watts Link.(yes I know, bump steer and all that).
Once you have completed your installation and tested it, would you post up the results ?
Wagoo.

Originally Posted by wagoo

Wayne. It's been about 9 years and my memory is getting fuzzier by the day, but when I was building a RR based hybrid and doing articulation experiments I vaguely recall that at standard(low) suspension height, as the right hand front tyre(36'') would tuck up, it would roll around the upper spring mount and eventually foul about half way up the witches hat. When the static suspension height was increased with longer springs/ spacers the axles articulation/roll axis was lower down in relation to the chassis, so the tyre would foul badly on the coil spring and upper spring mount.This didn't happen with the left hand wheel due to the panhard rod giving a different roll geometry left to right.The problem was eventually solved by replacing the panhard with a Watts Link.(yes I know, bump steer and all that).
Once you have completed your installation and tested it, would you post up the results ?
Wagoo.

Bill

I have had mine fitted for quite some time now,and as you say,with the standard offset wheels,and at the time I had 265/75 tyres fitted,I found that the tyres fouled on the upper spring towers under nowhere near full articulation.
I now run 35" tyres and -25mm offset rims and find I can fully tuck the tyres into the wheel well,(which is what I was after to gain maximum usable articulation out of what is basically the standard design)without fouling on the spring towers or on the shock tower.
My shock towers are not conical like the originals and the design gives me more clearance as well I have attached a picture of the shock towers amongst other stuff(sorry but the pic was taken with a point and shoot camera)but the towers are standing up against the wheel.
The setup was designed in the UK by Gwyn Lewis,and is used by a majority of competitors in their winch challenge events.
The design was so effective that Terrafirma "Borrowed" the design as Gwyn never copyrighted it.
I would never say it is the best system by any means,but it does work to give the best articulation from a standard design setup with just a small lift,maximising the ability to tuck the wheel full as well as allow the full droop allowed by the front bushes etc which is what I was after.
Having said that,a bolt in 3 link would be nice

Originally Posted by LowRanger

Bill

I have had mine fitted for quite some time now,and as you say,with the standard offset wheels,and at the time I had 265/75 tyres fitted,I found that the tyres fouled on the upper spring towers under nowhere near full articulation.
I now run 35" tyres and -25mm offset rims and find I can fully tuck the tyres into the wheel well,(which is what I was after to gain maximum usable articulation out of what is basically the standard design)without fouling on the spring towers or on the shock tower.
My shock towers are not conical like the originals and the design gives me more clearance as well I have attached a picture of the shock towers amongst other stuff(sorry but the pic was taken with a point and shoot camera)but the towers are standing up against the wheel.
The setup was designed in the UK by Gwyn Lewis,and is used by a majority of competitors in their winch challenge events.
The design was so effective that Terrafirma "Borrowed" the design as Gwyn never copyrighted it.
I would never say it is the best system by any means,but it does work to give the best articulation from a standard design setup with just a small lift,maximising the ability to tuck the wheel full as well as allow the full droop allowed by the front bushes etc which is what I was after.
Having said that,a bolt in 3 link would be nice

Thanks for the reply Wayne. I did do a bolt on 3 link with drop brackets for the lower links, and with a clamp on upper link mount, that I believe is still holding up well. You obviously know about the Safari G uard 3 link kit, and I think there is now a British copy.Not sure about the dive/anti dive geometry of the upside down link placement,but from photos at least it would appear that ground clearance across the whole width of the front axle has been reduced to that of the differential.
Wagoo.

Originally Posted by wagoo

Thanks for the reply Wayne. I did do a bolt on 3 link with drop brackets for the lower links, and with a clamp on upper link mount, that I believe is still holding up well. You obviously know about the Safari G uard 3 link kit, and I think there is now a British copy.Not sure about the dive/anti dive geometry of the upside down link placement,but from photos at least it would appear that ground clearance across the whole width of the front axle has been reduced to that of the differential.
Wagoo.

Yes Bill I am aware of the Safari Gard 3 link and also the QT version,and have read all the varios threads on outers and Pirate,over the years.Unfortunately second hand units dont come up very often,and when they do,I usually hear about it 5 minutes after someone has purchased it.Unfortunately with my work commitments I don't have the time to fabricate things.But I will continue to keep an ear to the ground.

Wayne

The trick is to use skinny radius arms, holey bushes later front housing with conical spacers to suit early arms.
You can also reverse the front dome washers on the radius arms
Then of course you need longer brake lines, rubber panhard bushes
Following nicely would be cranked arms, dc shaft, offset wheels

David
Yes bill I still have the 101 Diffs and arb gears, interesting to see the difference between newer d60 locker and sals ( arb style)

Originally Posted by modman

The trick is to use skinny radius arms, holey bushes later front housing with conical spacers to suit early arms.
You can also reverse the front dome washers on the radius arms
Then of course you need longer brake lines, rubber panhard bushes
Following nicely would be cranked arms, dc shaft, offset wheels

David
Yes bill I still have the 101 Diffs and arb gears, interesting to see the difference between newer d60 locker and sals ( arb style)

Hmmm

David,I have no problem with fouling on the radius arms,due to the large offset wheels that I run ie.-25mm.Apart from clearance for the tyres,do you have any other reasons for the skinny (early) type arms.I already have the later type housing,and have a set of early type (RRC) arms laying around here.
I have no problems with vibrations,so am not wanting to go down the path of cranked arms,and possibly to the problems they can induce.Also I have wide angle unis in the front shaft and have no problems with binding on full articulation,but I know that on later models ,this can be a real problem.
All the bushes in my truck are rubber,and I run 4" longer brake lines,which is OK with the setup I run.But I might go and reverse the dome washers when I get the chance,seeing that it is only one nut each side
And yes the Dana60 locker is very much larger than the Salisbury.
I run Dana60 bits in the rear,with a custom made flange to suit the Landy driveshaft.

Wayne

I won' bother you with the usual purist drivel
Skinny arms/ holey bushesbind way less as proven with travel ramp (static ramp with vehicle weight only)
Skinny arms flex more in later wider housing (need spacers or it drives like pig/dangerous
Arms cranked at chassis end to relieve bush bind(reversing cone washer helps)
Been thinking of swaybar in the rear lately(butchered original above axle) for balancing front/rear flex
Many guys on here know way more/done way more than me

This is all 1% ers pushing the rover radius arm set up as far as you are comfortable
David