APOLOGIES TO Ringin & Skiboy!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stikman

I agree that a better method of retaining the top of the springs should be used (I only use hose clamps also and agree this is not enough) and i feel this is the case regardless of if the bottom is retained or set up with cones (probably even more important without cones as the bottom would be retained resulting in increased reliance on the top also being retained dependent on shock length obviously).

---

Justin, a good Rangeneering opportunity to price up making some Rear Top spring retainer plates ;) PM me with a price once you price them up :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stikman

IMHO the "cones" had nothing to do with the issues experienced. It was the top of the spring that had issues which are not normally retained anyway. I agree that a better method of retaining the top of the springs should be used (I only use hose clamps also and agree this is not enough) and i feel this is the case regardless of if the bottom is retained or set up with cones (probably even more important without cones as the bottom would be retained resulting in increased reliance on the top also being retained dependent on shock length obviously). In the last couple of trip we have had three rear spring dislocations, 2 of which were retained at the bottom and were not running cones. Just my 2cents worth :D.

---

If the top of the springs aren't retained, there is a big possibility for them to fall out anyway and/or you need to extennd your shock tower so this doesn't happen. When I used to run dislocation cones, I retained the top of mine with 5mm plate and big **** HT bolts and never encounterd any issues (when I was running Rancho shocks). I seen a GQ Patrol with extra long travel shocks not have them retained and the spring fell out halfway through a creek run at Rover Park a few years back (not ideal :angel:).

Also retained top and bottom in 'theory' will allow the suspension to work properly and force the front suspension geometry to work better and articulate wheras the rear non-retained spring will just drop and the weight of the axle is all on the rear trailing arm (don't quote me on this though, this is what I was told by some smart bugger).

I also argue that extra long travel shocks that have 'cones' retaining them don't really add advantage off-road. The unsprung weight on the side that has dislocated from the spring will not drive the vehicle any further and if you need to engage your diff lock, then it's really not worth a pinch I'm sorry. My Rangie isn't a ramp queen but it does flex and is stable off-road (this also contributes to the spring combo I have chosen, but I won't crap on about that).

Not trying to be a smart **** know-it-all or anything, but I've owned Land Rovers for 12 years and had many different spring/shock combos and what I have currently fitted to my Rangie has been a culmination of good and bad choices I have made over that time that's all, but like I always say each to there own :D What works for me might be totally innaproprate for your Disco.

Sorry for the hijack, maybe we should have a 'debate' in the members section about this. Everyone has there theories on this and maybe we can all learn something.

Trav

Hey Trav,

Apologies if my post read as a Retained Vs Cones debate, my point was specifically outlinning my opinion on the reason for the spring issues on the weekend, which i still beleive had everything to do with inadequate top spring retainers and nothing to do with the cones :p. I think input from a few members on this topic would be great, i am by no means an expert on the subject but i do understand the two set ups. To be honest i think my wheel stand displays of late are a combination of too much flex in the rear, rear only locker and agreesive tread so i by no means discount the pros of retained springs. I'll start a thread and will see what everyone has to say :D should be interesting.

Sorry Grizzly for the hijack :o

No worries mate, it's all good :D:D

Trav