Thread: Articulation questions

If the shockie travel is (for example) 50mm longer, it will have needed a body about 50mm longer. So the closed length is about 50mm longer and the open length is about 100mm longer.

The top mount needs to be about 50mm higher to accommodate the increased closed length. If not, then the bump stop needs to be lowered to prevent the shock acting as the bump stop (which reduces their life considerably).

Then, with the raised mounts. the axle can articulate further - to the bump stop as before, and greater droop is possible due to the increased 50mm travel in the shock.

As for dislocating springs. IMHO it is best to retain the top of the springs to prevent dislocation. The bottom of the springs are already retained, but may need beefing up.

Retained springs do not necessarily prevent increased droop, because the weight of the wheel and axle see to that.

By the weight of the wheel and axle pulling down on the high side, the stability is increased much more than with dislocated springs. They further increase stability because retained springs on the rear, force the front to articulate further, making it the articulation more balanced.

Originally Posted by HangOver

Well my Rangie is as you say an 81' model.
It already has standard length koni's and about 20-30mm lift king springs.
It it a weekender off-roader only and that's the direction the suspension will be heading. Obviously I will do a few weekend camping trips etc in the future but for now it's off road only.

Anyhow I'm not greatly impressed with the articulation in standard form. Maybe it's to do with the raised springs and standard shocks?

Anyhow I was thinking of returning to standard size springs raising the shock mounts and getting longer shocks.

Wouldn't it be nice of we just knew what to do :-)

Is the load leveler still fitted? In a vehicle of that vintage, it is unlikely to work and can reduce articulation. And they do not function properly with raised suspension.

After market springs generally have a stiffer spring rate. Some are not longer, and rely on the increased rate to gain the suspension lift.

This is ok if you only want to carry heavier load. But if you want suspension lift and good articulation, you need springs that have increased free length.

With coil springs, the spring rate depends upon the wire diameter and number of coils (everything else being equal). Increase the wire diameter will increase the rate, and vice versa. Reduce the number of coils will increase the spring rate (and fibre stress), and vice versa.

the leveler was one of the first things to go.

My RR is in fairly standard spec &, until recently, had the original rear springs still fitted.
It has standard Bilstein dampers all round & now has standard spec King Springs fitted to the rear. They were only fitted as the originals had sagged.
Fronts are still factory springs. The load leveller is still fitted and working.

I must admit that the articulation at the front is not fantastic but the rear is great IMO for a standard spec set up.

p3180711.jpg LROCExpo06%20101.jpg

Originally Posted by HangOver

Anyhow I'm not greatly impressed with the articulation in standard form. Maybe it's to do with the raised springs and standard shocks?

Anyhow I was thinking of returning to standard size springs raising the shock mounts and getting longer shocks.

Wouldn't it be nice of we just knew what to do :-)

Back to basics - what is it about the performance of the current setup that you're not impressed with. In what situations does the vehicle not perform?

Originally Posted by Tusker

Back to basics - what is it about the performance of the current setup that you're not impressed with. In what situations does the vehicle not perform?

If you have a look at this pic when I am cross-axled look at the passenger side wheel.

I have lightened it as much as I can so the pic quality might not be great.

As you can see the wheel is suspended in the air so it's at full drop also look at the angle of the wheel and the distance between the wing and the tyre. For full artic. it doesn't seem very much.
That's why I thought my shock/spring combo might not be correct somehow.

Maybe it's me and this is just how a RRC looks when the drop is maxed out?

Are my eyes deceiving me, or is the spring dangling in mid air?

Everything is a compromise. Free up the front end, & you'll lose some on-road drivability.

This has been discussed several times recently. In brief, the front axle is deliberately constrained by design. The radius arms impose a twist on the axle housing, which acts as an anti-roll bar.

So the key to getting a balanced car is freeing up the front end, at the expense of some kneel & roll on tarmac.

The springs & shocks need to suit the travel you end up with. Sam's holey bushes have been discussed before, or you could throw $$$ at it & get a 3-link front end. Good luck with an eng cert though.

There was a 5 link kit being offered in Melbourne at one stage, haven't heard anything of it in yonks.

Equipe suspension is also alleged to have massive articulation. I don't know how its achieved.

Assuming you go the holey bush route, you'll find the next limitation is the shocks. Add the longer shockers, it'll articulate better until the bushes bind again.

This is about as far as you want to go in a a road car, in my view. Its at this point you want to measure your travel, & decide on the final shock length, plus springs to suit.

That's my 2.2c worth.

Regards
Max P

Originally Posted by Scouse

p3180711.jpg LROCExpo06%20101.jpg

Disco rims look OK, not sure about the Defender ones though...