Vehicle & Technical > Defender

dislocation does it help !!!!!!

<< < (7/15) > >>

Porny:

--- Quote ---Forgive me I've being stupid here, but the whole idea of fitting a cone is to GUIDE THE SPRING back into position after you have caused it pop out of it's mounting.

The fitting of the cone cannot affect your ability to get more "droop". Fitting them to my Discovery would be *pointless* as I still have my anti-roll bars - and hence, my suspension won't drop away *unless* both rear wheels are hanging over nothing...and then I am at the mercy of my brake lines!
--- End quote ---


Very true....

Droop is also affected by the travel of the shock absorbers, and the point at which the rear radius arms, and rear A-frame bind (i.e. reach limit of movement on bushes and joint) but (as already mentioned) with a dislocated spring there is no downward force acting on the wheel, thus the wheel will not provide any traction.
So extra droop, IMHO, is pointless.

This is one possible way around it http://www.red-ibex.com/rear_suspension.htm ... even so I doubt the down force applied to the wheel will be enough to get traction.


Ian

davidlandy:

--- Quote from: "Thrasher" ---Forgive me I've being stupid here, but the whole idea of fitting a cone is to GUIDE THE SPRING back into position after you have caused it pop out of it's mounting.

The fitting of the cone cannot affect your ability to get more "droop". Fitting them to my Discovery would be *pointless* as I still have my anti-roll bars - and hence, my suspension won't drop away *unless* both rear wheels are hanging over nothing...and then I am at the mercy of my brake lines!

I am of the firm belief that if my springs are in position, I am exterting downforce onto my axles .... if they were not in place....I'd be looking "cool" - but skipping my wheels along achieving nothing and going nowhere... think about it - we don't rock crawl here - in mud the thing we lose is TRACTION ..... and fitting cones to get more traction is like trying to use a fireguard made of chocolote.....
--- End quote ---
=D>  =D>

well said Neil

Mace:
Each to his own but in my opinion this cone thing is not being explained in it's full context and I'm probably not capable of exlaining the full merits of a suspension system that has cones as 'part' of it's setup. In either case I don't think anyone should simple disregard someone elses opinion.

I believe the original point of Ians conversation was "do you get more traction from a wheel thats allowed to touch the ground or from a wheel thats hanging in the air?"...I think this is the fundemental point that those who are pro cones are trying to make. Surely a wheel that touches the ground must have more traction than a wheel that doesn't. Whether it actually makes a difference is yet to be proven. How you allow this wheel to touch the ground is what we are all argueing about.

A cone on it's own, probably won't make enough difference but most who fit cones also make other modifications to allow more articulation, which should make the difference on the right terrain !!

I'd also like to put my money on the fact that the 'boghill of impossiblity' will not conclude whether cones are the deciding factor.

See, told you I couldn't explain it clearly :-(

Thrasher:
Mace,

Here's my take - no-one elses :-)

When one wheel is floating in the air - and you have no lockers - it is spinning freely and no power (well not much) is going to the wheel *with* traction.

If you then drop the spinning wheel down onto the ground by moving forward/backward with the wheels *with traction*, with SUFFICIENT downforce, it will grab (hopefully not too much power is being applied!) and gain traction.

If you wait for the wheel to eventually hit the ground using either gravity or some magic force, downforce will be minimum, and the simple fact it is spinning will make it "bounce" back up in accordance with physics (equal and opposite reaction and all that). Can't see how much traction would be gained from this "skittering" approach.

In the US special "shocks" (more like hydraulic rams IMHO!) are used with remote tanks which provide the required downforce to push the wheel/axle down onto the ground - these are low speed manouvers and are not generally mud based.

Having watched a vehicle with all the toys (extreme) fitted tackle a cross axle (apart from the awful sound of it pinging and clanging back into place) - it performed no better then the Series 2 on leafs that followed it (which was a damn site quiter and did not attempt to roll on it's axis!)

*adendum!

Remember the locker is there to enable the wheel *with* traction to do it's job. Similarly the new whizz bang traction enhancement systems on the RR, D3 and Sport do a similar thing, by braking the spinning wheel and allowing the wheels ON the ground, with traction to do their stuff :-)

Mace:
Thrasher, I cannot argue with anything you've said which is why i believe trying to cross the boghill won't prove a thing. But simply (not your words) disregarding cones as a waste of time is incorrect. They do have their merits when used as part of a suspension set up.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page