Dislocate or Retain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discowhite

ive been wanting to do this for ages, just ahve to re wire/install the haltec in the ute, sort out a hi angle DEc front shaft and finish off the new shocks.

there will be something, watch this space.
maybe someone on the ''retained'' side should do the same test so its seen as me fudging the results to suit my beliefs?

cheers phil

---

I also wonder how much travel you will lose? feel will be a personal thing...and performance only you can judge.

regarding travel loss, I guess its a matter of how much the springs pop out atm and what spring rate they are, ie how much they will stretch???

I dont think there would be any point me unretaining my springs, my rig isnt set up with that much flex that they would pop out and give me much more travel....

cheers,
Serg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

I have, my results were overwhelmingly more articulation from running the rear of the ute retained - BUT, every setup is different and I wouldn't expect you to get the same results as your truck is different. I do think that you will get a different result between the 90 and ute, but it will be interesting to see if what type of change there will be - if any.

---

very true,
the 90 and the ute are poles apart, once before we had discussed about my use of ''lighter'' spring rates. that was true with the 90 to an extent but the ute is completely opposite.
90 was soft and short, 220lb 440free front and 180lb 460free rear
the ute is stiff as, rides like it too, but because of its length it ''works'' the springs as good as the 90 did.
ute springs are 250lb 420free front and 250lb 410free rear.
i personally dont think that the king springs in the ute when retained will offer much more than maybe 40mm more than the free length.

cheers phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

Thanks for that. Mountainspeed sold a three stage mountainbike fork spring kit which used flat wound tender springs and was made by Eibach. But that was 1997 and I haven't met anyone who bought them or rode them.

Anyone using them off the race-track?

---

The couple of times I've enquired they're only available in coilover spring sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

I also wonder how much travel you will lose? feel will be a personal thing...and performance only you can judge.

regarding travel loss, I guess its a matter of how much the springs pop out atm and what spring rate they are, ie how much they will stretch???

I dont think there would be any point me unretaining my springs, my rig isnt set up with that much flex that they would pop out and give me much more travel....

cheers,
Serg

---

i need to keep a stiff spring rate in the ute due to the 3 link in the front, can drive no hands at freeway speeds easy, just dives abit on excessive cornering. i will also look into dual front shocks...(would LOVE coilovers!) or front swaybar and disconnects.
the ute goes quite well flex wise, again the 3link has helped to no end. with the front 10''stroke shocks the coils are a pooftenth away from dislocating but the shock length stops the rest.
the rear with its long TA/A frame geometry works really well.
http://inlinethumb48.webshots.com/43...500x500Q85.jpg
fronts compressed
http://inlinethumb26.webshots.com/45...500x500Q85.jpg
front at full drop
http://inlinethumb10.webshots.com/46...500x500Q85.jpg
rear compressed. needs attention, ide like to raise the top mount an add a longer spring, if i can get some custom wound springs made that get the most out of the travell, both up and down then the rear of the ute will be retained. i couldnt do this in the 90 due to the tub.
http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/13...500x500Q85.jpg

the rear full drop. this is with the old shocks, the new ones are 3'' longer. the cone is 8'' tall.
http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/51...500x500Q85.jpg

now for me, looking at this pic, fair enough there isnt upward pressure on the DS front (like wombat holes) the spring is 200mm off the seat. if this was done retained i dont think the spring would stretch the 200mm to the same position. therefore the angle of the tray/cab would be greater
http://inlinethumb37.webshots.com/44...500x500Q85.jpg

cheers phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

I've yet to actually see a practice which didn't follow the theory. There are always people who claim there are, but it's usually because they don't know or understand the theory.

Retained springs which use the whole stroke are far better than unretained. Retained springs which are far shorter than the damper stroke is just plain silly. Yet this seems to be the comparison people are making.

---

Man it seems like you want to pick and choose as your comment is unretained coils are bad but then if you have long coils to suit the travel, you are doing the wrong thing as well because it stuffs the geometory so which way is it going to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

Lambrover,

how flat a truck sits has little to do with retained or unretained...but to do with spring rates, shock set up, links geometry, link bushes etc...now saying that, if you have a stiff front and flexy rear (ie not balanced) unretaining the front may help balance it out....does that make it best practice not necessarly so....

but if your truck is working for you, more power to you :)

Serg

---

take a look at discowhites truck in those wombat holes now if he had retained coils, when he first entered he would have picked up a rear wheel and would have been unstable as the body lerches to the lowest wheel. but as he has the correct rate springs and lots of travel due to dislocation it is safe.

You are correct and I think in one of my earlier posts I mentioned that it is not just about retained or unretained but you need the correct springs as alot of people sacrifice up travel with heavy springs for a lift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lambrover

Man it seems like you want to pick and choose as your comment is unretained coils are bad but then if you have long coils to suit the travel, you are doing the wrong thing as well because it stuffs the geometory so which way is it going to be.

---

I believe you have me confused with Uninformed. I haven't mentioned geometry at all in this thread.
I've been referring to traction.

Dougle you wrote

Retained springs which use the whole stroke are far better than unretained. this is your comment and I agree with this. But you disagree with dislocating springs.

the confusion come when in my post I didn't seperate my comments about the geometory. To have springs long enough not to dislocate means you have to have a spring lift which would be to high realy and thus the geometory comments.

Dougle if our argument is for traction then surely wheel travel and traction go hand in hand up to a point.

sorry dougs for the confusion hope no harm done, we are here to explore the differences.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lambrover

Dougle you wrote

Retained springs which use the whole stroke are far better than unretained. this is your comment and I agree with this. But you disagree with dislocating springs.

the confusion come when in my post I didn't seperate my comments about the geometory. To have springs long enough not to dislocate means you have to have a spring lift which would be to high realy and thus the geometory comments.

Dougle if our argument is for traction then surely wheel travel and traction go hand in hand up to a point.

sorry dougs for the confusion hope no harm done, we are here to explore the differences.:D

---

The subject can get quite complicated quite quickly. This is why I haven't been getting into geometry etc as we'd be here forever talking about it.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

The subject can get quite complicated quite quickly. This is why I haven't been getting into geometry etc as we'd be here forever talking about it.:)

---

dont be shy mate, there more talk about geometry the more we can all learn, something im definitly for :)