Thread: ARTICULATION WITHOUT LIFT ?

Hi

I'd be a little careful of using bump stop clearance alone as the only measure of calculating the shock lengths.

The bump stops are in closer to the diff center (rotation point) then the mounting point of the shocks. This means the shock moves more than the bump stop to chassis through the stroke. You could apply a correction factor based on ration of shock mount over bump stop distance to centre, it'll be about 1.5 by eye.

The safest way would be cycle the axle through the stroke on a hoist with the springs removed/partially disconnected or find a suitable flex ramp and mark the closed distance shock distance to mount separation.

Clive

I would add to Clive's post that cycling the axle in a stationary situation will not be the same result as that when you are on the track and everything is moving and weight and inertia are all in play. I'd add a bit more tolerance for real world scenario.

If you opt for more droop in the rear it might mess with the retention of your helper coils. That is subject to length of shock and whether you move the upper mount, which will need some planning to get right. You can swap out the factory coils for an aftermarket set but as experienced by many before you getting an aftermarket single coil to be comfortable when unloaded and capable to carry a load and maintain road manners is a contradiction in engineering (on the assumption you want to retain standard height).

Will - if your comments are based on your RCC you might be unintentionally putting forward a different scenario to what is possible in a 130 defender which is longer, heavier and has different coils than other defenders and a different set up to a RRC. It's best to compare like for like. If your comments are based on experience with a 130 your post(s) did not disclose that.

Getting your suspension right is as tricky as convincing your wife that an open relationship (on your side only) is a good thing for your marriage. You can copy and mirror a known well working set up and not achieve the same result or achieve the same result and find out it is simply not what is best for your needs. All set ups that i know that articulate well and still have road manners have had more than pocket change invested in them and have gone through more than 1 development iteration.

My 2c. Unless you go the whole hog and think through all the permutations save your money messing with the suspension and invest that into a rear locker and axles.

MLD

Thanks MLD , that is pretty much what the suspension shops told me .

I agree with MLD the final result on a stationary test will be different, given the elasticity of the entire system with different loads, speeds and drivers. But you must start somewhere rational.

I am working through the last stages of installing some 12" shocks on the back of my County.

What I have done is created cranked channel section rear shock riser bracket that re-mounts the original shock bracket up above the body section.

I have drilled a series of holes so the original shock mount can be raised up or down so adjusting the shocks up/down travel ratio within reason to what works best.

For what its worth I've run 10" Koni shock with stock mounts, 40mm raised bump stops for a long time with no issues.

Clive

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Yes it is possible, and desirable in many cases. You just have to look at serious rock crawlers and buggies. They worked out that the best option was low CofG with LOTS of down travel. Sorry Tusker you are wrong on all counts except the balanced front vs rear travel.

Of course if you want to travel at high speed over big bumps you need the up travel...

For your application, the best option by far is to fit air springs.
1. You can choose the ride height you want
2. You can drop the vehicle down on the bump stops to load and unload from the roof.
3. With the right shocks you can have heaps of down travel while keeping the ride height the same.

Hmmmmm
You might need to re think some of these statements

Originally Posted by LowRanger

Hmmmmm
You might need to re think some of these statements

Not sure what you are trying to say. How about you say which bits you disagree with?