Thread: spring retainers vs dislocation cones

Originally Posted by discowhite

piece of 6'' pipe, cut a section out of it bout 120mm tall and use the profile of the pipe (round bit) to attach it to the outside of the top spring hat.
ive done a crap pic it may make more sence,,, or not

its the green bit.
untitled.jpg

cheers phil

but 110/130 rear springs are 7" OD....

Mate
I've done bucket loads of testing over the years and find that retaining the CORRECT SPRING AND SHOCK COMBO is far more comfortable and reliable.

Retained springs no problem, King Springs KRRR02SP4 4'' lift with custom EFS shocks



Back in 2001 at the Willoglen Challenge not retained with cones and the spring missed the cone on the way back up, took out the shock and spat the spring into the crowd and forced us out of the wombat holes which we were doing quite well in We have just as much travel with them retained and its wisper quiet and perfect on road. it just takes time to get the right balance.

Justin

and further to what Justin just said regarding getting the right spring and balance, my opinion is to try and get the same wheel travel front and rear as it just feels nicer off road, but more importantly, try and get the wheel rates (the spring rate that the wheel actually sees, not the actual spring rate) the same front and rear.
The nicest vehicles I've been in off road had identical wheel rates front and rear and the chassis just stayed level while the wheels went up and down. It just seems to throw the chassis and you around less, which always makes the experience better.

Obviously this is damned near impossible in something that needs to carry heavy loads, but it's something to aim for.







(I also reserve the right to change my opinion on this subject whenever and wherever I like, depending on further testing and experience )

IMHO, retained springs have the advantage of better stability on off camber stuff and provide better balanced articulation between front and rear.

Radius arms generally reduce front articulation, but it is improved if the rear springs are retained.

another arguement that can be settled by the fellas at X-eng (IMHO)

best of both worlds.... the X-spring (and arms... and ball joint...) retained, with downward pressure:

X-eng High Performance Off-Road Engineering

Forgot one important thing as well, dont forget to factor in the UNSPRUNG weight when sorting springs and shocks. Especially if you are getting into 33" + tyres. Trust me it makes a huge differance when you get the valving on your shocks to correspond with your unsprung weight as well as the normal suspension loads.

Justin

Originally Posted by EchiDna

another arguement that can be settled by the fellas at X-eng (IMHO)

best of both worlds.... the X-spring (and arms... and ball joint...) retained, with downward pressure:

X-eng High Performance Off-Road Engineering

Looks like a variation on the Eibach 'tender spring' concept, who use a lower rate trapezoidal 60mm ID 'tender' spring that is coupled in series with a normal 60mm ID racing spring on a coilover shock.
The 'tender' spring is fully coilbound at load and does nothing until the main spring is at full extension where the tender spring starts to do it's thing. Rally and Off Road racers use it a lot.
Lovell's here in Oz copied it. (they were the Eibach importer at one stage)

Simon at X-Eng has devised a clever way of achieving the same thing with a non-coilover spring.
One of the US manufacturers has a similar sort of thing, only doing it at the top of the spring.

Originally Posted by DRanged

Forgot one important thing as well, dont forget to factor in the UNSPRUNG weight when sorting springs and shocks. Especially if you are getting into 33" + tyres. Trust me it makes a huge differance when you get the valving on your shocks to correspond with your unsprung weight as well as the normal suspension loads.

Justin

Basic rule of thumb with dampers is that rebound controls the chassis, bump controls the unsprung weight.