bill van snorkle

Might have to wait a while before I can prove right or wrongness Lol. Have finally made the decision to swap my portal axles over to my RRC, but that is not going to happen til summer at the earliest.

To answer your question Deranged. No, W/fing has selectable difflocks but for comparison purposes they were left open. Due to the rear axle location via One Link and dislocating leaf springs, there is no rear axle steer as it articulates or with body roll, Whereas RRC's do rear steer a little, so that could be one of the reasons for the difference. Like I stated earlier, I am not exactly disappointed with W/Fings abilities. I was just trying to determine the reason why a very stock RRC on small wheels and sagged original springs, plus stiff front antiroll bar, performs so much better than its specification suggests that it should. Problem is that I just could not live with the vulnerable low hanging trackrod, so to relocate it up front would require that the panhard rod also be lifted up to clear it, and was interested to determine if that would diminish the vehicles talent for stepping up over obstacles.

As can be seen by the dimensions, W/fing's wheel track is significantly wider than most vehicles that form wheel ruts, so generally , it is only one front wheel at a time, when attempting to climb out of them. The way I'm seeing it is that for the body/chassis to shift laterally relative to the front tyres, verses the tyres shifting relative to the chassis is the same thing, and in certain circumstances, the resistance to that occurring is greater than the resistance to just ploughing straight ahead. The comment that it's difficult to design a very low roll centre may apply to a leaf SOA suspension, but LandRover managed to achieve it easily enough on their coil sprung vehicles, unfortunately IMO at the expense of having to locate the steering trackrod in a vulnerable position behind the axle. Unless I am prepared to do the same, I would not be able to make adjustable height Panhard mountings on W/Fing to prove/disprove my theory, although it would be do able on the RRC, but not very practical as it would introduce a bump steer geometry conflict with the draglink.

From the geometric drawing I just did comparing track width, to outside of tyre treads, RRC = 180cm, W/Fing =190cm. tyre radius RRC= 37.5cm, W/Fing = 45cm. Height of roll centre from ground RRC= 37.5 cm, W/Fing = 64 cm, I calculate that for a front wheel to climb up a 6" high rut, the contact patch of the RRC tyre would shift laterally around 50mm, whilst the contact patch on W/Fing would need to shift 100mm. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but the extra resistance presented by the rut when compared to the relative lack of resistance to the tyres simply ploughing forward may be the reason for the different performance of each vehicle. Not much I can do about changing things anyway really.

Rob, I fitted Stage One Hub/stub axle assemblies as well, so I think the slightly larger diameter of the Series hubs in the vicinity of the hub seal would require that the oil catcher may need to be bored out to suit. Fitting the double lip twin spring oil seal from coiler hubs would require a sleeve be made for the series hub because the coiler seal has a smaller outside diameter.

Aside from changing over to 11" brakes all round, the change that improved braking consistency the most was to fit Stage One/110 hub oil catcher rings to direct any oil seeping from the hub seals out to the axle side of the backing plates instead of over the brake linings.

What I have been trying to get across Jamie is that the 80mm difference in panhard rod height, only changes the roll centre relative to the wheel hubs. With portals and larger tyres, the geometric axis (RC) relative to the base of the tyre is actually 270 mm higher, and the lateral shift at the base of the tyre relative to the chassis during articulation is quite significant although I have yet to draw it out to confirm how much.

Yeah but we have to deal with bureaucrats on power trips over here. Common sense rarely comes into it. Having said that, I have just been informed that Terra Firma market a roll cage kit that is apparently legal over here, although I have a personal preference for internal cages.

I've rolled several series LandRovers over the years, and the steel framed windscreen has always provided sufficient support to prevent the roof from 'pancaking'.I'm too rough and ready to lower the roof panel in the same way that you did yours Daan.Besides, unlike WildFing, my Stage One is more a medium mobility long distance tourer, so doesn't require a lower roof for clearance in narrow gulleys and ravines. Legality of the front hoop on roll cages is a bit of a grey area over here currently. Road accident rescue authorities claim their Jaws Of Life have difficulty in cutting through a roll bar in an emergency, so it may eventually boil down to the authorities preventing us from protecting our own safety. Have to keep one or two vehicles in my fleet above board and road legal.

With soft closely spaced overslung rear leaf springs, the only thing providing rear roll resistance on WildFing is the height of the rear roll centre which is at a similar height to the A frame ball joint on a coiler. The front/rear articulation is quite evenly balanced, whereas if the front end was stiffer, the sprung mass would offer more resistance to a front wheel climbing up and out of a rut .

Series roofs don't seem to come up that often short of buying a complete vehicle. I do have future plans of replicating the Defender windscreen frame in steel, but not right now, so I'm looking at the gap filler as an interim measure. The roof lid I have is the early stronger 110 county type with the 3 external ribs, not the carp Defender type that are no stronger than a rag top.

Just picked up a 110 station wagon roof for a song, which I would like to fit to my series 3 Stage One wagon that the previous owner had hacked up to create a twin cab pickup. I want to retain the Series galvanised steel framed windscreen because the die cast and extruded aluminium 110/defender screens do not provide any support to the roof whatsoever in the event of a roll over. The 110 roof lid wraps around the top corners of the higher 110 windscreen frame, unlike on a series vehicle, where the roof lid sits flat on top of the series windscreen frame. Would I be correct in thinking that I just have to fabricate a filler/adaptor panel to fit between the series windscreen frame and the higher front windscreen mounting interface of the 110 roof lid ? Has anyone here ever done what I am proposing to do ?

Of course it might just be the difference between radial all terrain tyres (RRC) and Bias ply Mud tyres (WildFing). Can't really swap wheels around between both to determine that though because 15" rims won't fit over the portals, and 36's won't go under the RRC.

Whilst I think your method of arriving at the 34mm value is likely correct for identical axles/tyre combinations with different panhard rod heights, I'm not certain that you have factored in the additional 190 mm height of the axle above the ground on WildFing due to portals and tyres.When I find my compass, protractor and ruler among this mess on my desk I make a scale line drawing of the 2 front ends and see what I arrive at .

You're welcome. If a control valve system was fitted so that the pressure in the airbags on the leading rear axle could be increased independent of the rear axle then floatation of the vehicle's front tyres could be improved for when crossing very soft sand or swampy terrain.If pressure in the rearmost airbags could be increased independently of the leading axle. this will give higher ground contact pressure for firm, slippery conditions and also a longer 'effective' wheelbase for stability on very steep gradients .

Yes that will work. There is a member on AULRO forums in Australia with a LandRover Special Projects 6x6 that is doing just as you describe. The members username is 'Lotsa Landies' if you want to look him/her up.

Sorry Deranged, I missed your last post as I posted mine. My front 3 link rods have ball joints at the chassis ends and rear trailing arm bushings at the axle ends, so relatively rigid compared to a normal radius arm front end.But even when I had rubber bushings at the chassis ends the performance was the same, although bushing life was shorter.The instant centre of all the links is close to that of radius arms to maintain antidive characteristics.

You can't move around my place with an open centre diff Fridge. I'm not sure how you arrive at the 13mm lateral movement Deranged. I could be doing it wrong, but if I draw an imaginary line from the roll centre down to the tyres contact patch then the distance between those 2 points on WildFing, due to the portal drop, wider track and larger tyres is significantly greater than on the RRC.The angle of that imaginary line is also steeper, so the way I picture it, as a wheel rises, the contact patch also moves outwards significantly further than the flatter arc that the RRC axle would move through. I would be hard to please if I were unhappy with the way WildFing performs offroad, but always looking for ways to improve. The placement of the Panhard rod is a packaging compromise to get the steering trackrod up front and out of harms way. But I do wonder if I could somehow lower the roll centre, whether its mountain goat abilities could be further improved.

Daan,the type of wheel ruts I was alluding to are on my own property, and due to deliberate excavation and erosion are such that only one wheel at a time on the front axle climbs them. I could substitute "wheel rut" for any abrupt obstacle, the effect is the same. The RRC, within the limitations of its smaller wheels, just eases over them, whereas WildFing overpowers them. The RRC due to an ineffective handbrake has even caught me out on occasion when I have attempted to park with diagonally opposite wheels against ruts or humps on a very slight slope. It would just roll over them in neutral, whereas WildFing would have to be driven over them, despite the larger wheels.And this is despite the RRC being fitted with a front antiroll bar, which is supposed to inhibit free articulation. A friend of mine who has a modified LJ Suzuki with a copy of a RRC suspension under it, in an effort to improve stability after flopping over while trying to follow WildFing over my cross country course, lifted his front panhard rod and rear A frame ball joint to raise the height of the roll centre.It doesn't flop over easily any more but he claims that he has to 'drive it' more to overcome terrain that it previously waddled over more easily.

Since owning my 85 RRC on original low suspension, front anti rollbar and 30" tyres, I have noticed its general offroad ability is much better than I originally thought it would be. What surprised me the most is the front ends ability to surmount obstacles and to climb out of deep wheel ruts. Even with more aggressive 36" tyres and much greater maximum axle articulation, my Series hybrid 'WildFing' doesn't climb out of wheel ruts anywhere near as competently, preferring to plough straight ahead. The Panhard rod mounts, both on the chassis and the axle are at about the same height above the ground, giving a roll centre at the axle centre line on the RRC, whereas on WildFing the panhard mounts are around 80mm higher in relation the the axle housing centreline, but greatly exaggerated by the 118mm portals and 75mm larger tyre radius. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but it would appear that the very low front roll centre is what gives the RRC it's ability for the individual front wheels to easily climb out of ruts and surmount obstacles due to the axle scribing a flatter arc as the wheel rises, whereas the much higher roll centre of WildFing has to force the rising wheel outwards as well as upwards, which may be advantageous to stability, but not to easy articulation. Any thoughts on this one ?

Being based on LandRover mechanicals we could name it $hitty $hitty Bang Boom. Wonder if the swear filter will let that stay up ?

For future reference, I recovered a badly leaking water pump in situ on my 2.25 engine by removing fan and pulley, discarding the pump bearing grub screw and with two tyre levers, pulling the shaft and impeller forward about half a mm. Worked a treat for 12 months til a stick severed my bottom radiator hose causing the engine to overheat and soften the water pump seal spring.

Is anything made in Britain anymore ? Sounds a bit like over here, wages and conditions have made our manufactured goods uncompetitive.

That's the one Cwazy, Thank you. It definitely is a thing of beauty. Wish I had the coach building skills.

As above, I can't remember what thread it was in.