MICK! You bought a Disco?????
You Big GIRL!!!![]()
found these pics on a website . pretty impressive i think .
![]()
MICK! You bought a Disco?????
You Big GIRL!!!![]()
All show no go. Notice all the flex is in the rear, no flex in the front.
Retained springs and a better front setup would give more balanced travel and better offroad performance.
this is going to turn into a dislocation debate I can see it![]()
I says get the best of both worlds...
X-Spring from X-eng...
X-eng High Performance Off-Road Engineering
these arent bad either from Rovertym website
![]()
I totally agree. I would bet that front setup probably isn't that bad in isolation, but retaining the rear would actually force the front to work better than what it is.
As a slightly more extreme (as in severe weight distribution inbalance) setup, this is a coil rear end I did, and retained it produced these results (on 38" Denman Ground Hawgs), where unretained the jack lifted the rear tyre about 30cm off the ground (not photographed) as the front didn't flex at all as there was nothing to counter twist against, and the rear coils just lifted rear. With inbalance like that you would get sooo much instability as the vehicle angle just matches the terrain angle that the front wheels are on, rather than the suspension flexing and balancing it between the front and rear. For a ramp setup... dislocation is probably fine.
Actually, if anybody saw roothys roll at TTC last year, that was also a great example of a high flex but really unbalanced setup - just a text book example.
Actually, if anybody saw roothys roll at TTC last year, that was also a great example of a high flex but really unbalanced setup - just a text book example.
YouTube - Tuff Truck Challenge 2007 - Roothy Crash
Cheers
Slunnie
~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~
Un balanced setup or not... I'm so jealous you you coil sprung geezers![]()
Stirling
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks