Thread: spring retainers vs dislocation cones

Originally Posted by discowhite

ive got flash pics too!

But he doesn't have either dislocation cones or retained springs.
He's got maybe a 50% chance that his springs will sit back down on the seats.

Originally Posted by Dougal

But he doesn't have either dislocation cones or retained springs.
He's got maybe a 50% chance that his springs will sit back down on the seats.

If they come out of their seats I would say that dislocated wouldn't you?

eg If I pulled your arm so you have a 50% chance of your shoulder returning to it's socket, would it hurt? Would it require locating back into the socket?

Dislocated is dislocated, retained is when the spring does not remove from it's seat.

Originally Posted by dobbo

If they come out of their seats I would say that dislocated wouldn't you?

eg If I pulled your arm so you have a 50% chance of your shoulder returning to it's socket, would it hurt? Would it require locating back into the socket?

Dislocated is dislocated, retained is when the spring does not remove from it's seat.

While what you have just written is perfectly true, it doesn't fit with the question of dislocation cones or retained springs.

If your springs dislocate and do not have dislocation cones (or a similarly functioning device) then your springs may not relocate. A setup that is at the least going to cause you some greif and at the worst may injure a bystander.

Regarding the arms, I do have a damaged shoulder which partly dislocates, it's only useful for party tricks, real world advantages just aren't there. I suspect dislocation cones are quite similar.

I prefer retained too. Its also very cheap to do.
Thicker bit of steel at the bottom of the spring and 2 hose clamps at the top.

Originally Posted by Dougal

You mean try to get the same roll-stiffness front and rear?
This video has an excellent example of that, the test track about halfway through.
YouTube - Bucher Duro

yes, equal roll stiffness front and rear, but wheel rate will suffice when no anti-roll bars are used. Calculating roll stiffness is a lot harder, calculating a wheel rate is dead easy and most semi-serious off roaders don't use anti-roll bars.

Originally Posted by Dougal

<snip>
I do have a damaged shoulder which partly dislocates, it's only useful for party tricks, real world advantages just aren't there. <snip>.

Typical bloody downhiller. Showing off your war wounds.

Originally Posted by discowhite

ive got flash pics too!




real world you cant tell me that either setup has massive gains over the other?

cheers phil

Great pics Phil, and a very nice 90, but it looks like the front isn't moving much at all???

Originally Posted by rick130

yes, equal roll stiffness front and rear, but wheel rate will suffice when no anti-roll bars are used. Calculating roll stiffness is a lot harder, calculating a wheel rate is dead easy and most semi-serious off roaders don't use anti-roll bars.

I run the same springs front and rear in my rangie, but the front has a whole heap more roll-stiffness. Due entirely to the front radius arm bushes having to deflect.

Apparently I was around 3 when I did my shoulder. I started early.
With the amount of riding I've been doing lately I'm pretty safe. I could fall off my computer chair, but I haven't hurt myself doing that yet. But I have fallen off it.