wee_arthur Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 As above really :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee_arthur Posted September 26, 2008 Author Share Posted September 26, 2008 sorry forgot to mention the details time for a brew i think but here goes My question is .... whats the big appeal to extending 93" wheelbase to 100"?? Iv read on here and in magazines that its a necessity these days to do well in competitions ... but why all the fuss?? i can understand how automatic gearboxes but can someone shed a light on this for me please?? Is it worth stretchin my project 90 ?? (still to be started ) thanks again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 It's flavour of the month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protoprincess Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 its gotta be right if its in a UK magazine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul stage1v8 Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 longer wheelbase can be an advantage, especially with weight transfer going up or down hills, though not so good over crests, also often with a longer wheelbase the front axle may be through a softspot before the rear goes in so you dont lose traction on both axles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave W Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 100 inch is a good compromise, it's about as long as you can get before you start having problems with ramp over and problems in among the trees when it gets tight. The longer the wheelbase, the more stable it is in general and the better it moves over the ground. Try driving a classic Range Rover down a rough track and then drive a 90, the first thing you'll notice is the relative lack of pitch you get in the Rangie which makes the 90 feel a lot less comfortable. I think the 100 inch wheelbase was chosen initially because of the Range Rover. As has been said already long wheelbases also give you extra traction in a lot of situations and it's surprising what a difference it can make with stability on both climbs and descents. 110s are pretty much the ideal BUT for UK challenge events it's hard enough getting a 100 round some of the sections these days, never mind a 110. My team mate runs a full length 110 so my 100 is the short wheel base in our team This.... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=seCdQvGglbM&feature=user Would not have happened to a long wheel base IMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roybatty666 Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Who wouldn't want an extra few inches! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo Murphy Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Who wouldn't want an extra few inches! Speak for yourself, dear !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diesel_jim Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Nothing wrong with a 110" barge! Barge owners of the world unite!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 I keep telling people, 109" is the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 130" is the future of the future As for stretching th 100" if you have a 90, then fit portals and 37's your wheels are pretty close together and the height is sort of disproportional to the length (choad ) so if you stretch to 100" you gain stability but because you have the large tyes you dont lose of so much on RBO,just like a 90 on 205's could get grounded where a 100 on 750's wouldnt. Will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbon Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 The trend to 100" plus trucks tends to be as people seek more and more suspension articulation, and therefore in order to run lengthened radius and trailling arms (like jim @ gigglepin / Chris Able) you need the additional wheelbase to install the arms/chassis mounts. Also the other reason seems to be people wanting to compete in speed events where the extra wheelbase is more stable - think devon 4x4's morroccan challenge 110" trayback , and allisports tomcat, but also the gigglepin trucks, chirs able's and alan kemp's new builds. Also the badboy project is another good example of stretched wheelbase-age! I'm gonna stick an 8274 on the front of a Vogue LSE - luxury and power! not sure where to store the ground anchor though, maybe next to the sub woofer and the picnic tables in the boot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Petal was 88", on 40's and portals, never had a problem with speed or stability but then her suspension worked as did her steering geometry Ive heard numbers of 120 mph constants with a Rover 8/Td5 at the morrocan thing (which interestingly is faster than than the 750hp independant suspended trophy trucks could manage at this years Baja... but then what do the Yanks know) so I guess wheelbases will eventually stretch out to whatever kit someones selling that week my take on it is that for the marginal increase in straight line stability that spending a heap of cash is going to give you why not use a longer chassis or optimise what you currently have? If you want a dedicated baja truck then build one, if its because a 100" may make 1 or 2 climbs a year better than whatever you currently run, yet the trade off is 5 or 10 tight turns you wont make then it seems a poor trade off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Something that has not been mentioned is that in some 100" conversions a longer rear-propshaft and longer trailing arms are fitted (Devon 4x4 kits), this also moves the rear axle significantly closer to the rear crossmember which dramatically improves departure angle, something you cannot have enough of for a challenge vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landrover598 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Something that has not been mentioned is that in some 100" conversions a longer rear-propshaft and longer trailing arms are fitted (Devon 4x4 kits), this also moves the rear axle significantly closer to the rear crossmember which dramatically improves departure angle, something you cannot have enough of for a challenge vehicle. Or if you build a 100" the old fashioned way, you gain a lot of internal storage space Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 My plan is to do a bit if each, stretch the wheelbase on a 100" chassis but then fit a soft-top back or tray-back pulled forward to move the rear wheels nearly below the crossmember a la Ibex. (if I don't just bite the bullet and build an Ibex but I have other reasons for wanting it to be a Defender which are tax related and significant.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicks90 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 my take on it is that for the marginal increase in straight line stability that spending a heap of cash is going to give you why not use a longer chassis or optimise what you currently have? If you want a dedicated baja truck then build one, if its because a 100" may make 1 or 2 climbs a year better than whatever you currently run, yet the trade off is 5 or 10 tight turns you wont make then it seems a poor trade off Makes perfect sense to me! The cost of converting a 90 to 100", buying the longer arms and props, chopping the back body about or traybacking it, then buying the usual challenge suspension from OME or GL etcetcetc is the length of time in creation, plus the cost of the conversion, plus the cost of 'normal' challenge suspension worth the advantage of a 8% increase in wheelbase? Save all that money and you could probably afford some nice triplebypass coilovers specifically setup and tuned for your 93" vehicle. Or even some groovey airshocks with swaybars and 3/4 link setup found on rockcrawler/racers you find on Pirate4x4. And i bet that would handle better than a 100" on normal springs / shocks from the usual retailers. Just been looking at some youtube vids of the King of the Hammers from this year - mega rockcrawling flex, brilliant straight line speed handling and they appeared to handle some extremely high speed takeoffs all in one package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orgasmic Farmer Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 One of the main reasons we stretched the challenge truck was because we moved the motor and transmission back 7 inches to improve weight distribution, which, combined with the autobox would have left a very short rear prop. Must say with the V8, auto, 100" and boggers the whole truck is now in a different league (and it wasn't to bad before the mods!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Petal was 88", on 40's and portals, never had a problem with speed or stability but then her suspension worked as did her steering geometry Ive heard numbers of 120 mph constants with a Rover 8/Td5 at the morrocan thing (which interestingly is faster than than the 750hp independant suspended trophy trucks could manage at this years Baja... but then what do the Yanks know) so I guess wheelbases will eventually stretch out to whatever kit someones selling that week my take on it is that for the marginal increase in straight line stability that spending a heap of cash is going to give you why not use a longer chassis or optimise what you currently have? If you want a dedicated baja truck then build one, if its because a 100" may make 1 or 2 climbs a year better than whatever you currently run, yet the trade off is 5 or 10 tight turns you wont make then it seems a poor trade off Jez, how long is Mouse's wheel base? And if there was nothing wrong with Petal's 88" why did you change it? It seems that nowadays all you ever come on here to do is to criticize everyone else's cars or engineering while implying the superiority of your own! you surprise me to be honest! Lara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandyManLuke Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 It seems that nowadays.. Nowadays? the post was made Sep 28 08. Hardly recent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest noggy Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Jez,how long is Mouse's wheel base? And if there was nothing wrong with Petal's 88" why did you change it? It seems that nowadays all you ever come on here to do is to criticize everyone else's cars or engineering while implying the superiority of your own! you surprise me to be honest! Lara. Whats insulting about his post? He speaks nothing but the truth. plus as Luke says, its hardly recent! 10months ago infact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hi, The post from Jez is not insulting, I said "criticize" and it is silly criticism, just because the 88 "worked" does not mean that anything over 88 or whatever is a waste of time! the 88 didn't work as well as Jez wanted it too or he wouldn't have changed it would he? the point I was making was this, For someone with quite obviously the talent that Jez has, making a comment like that, (and others more recently) is quite frankly "bellow him" to imply that anyone going the 100' route is only going to reduce the overall performance of their vehicle is absolutely ridiculous and I was asking what wheelbase his own car was? or the next one on the work bench / drawing board? Jez knows as well as the rest of us that 100" or there abouts just happens to be a fairly good compromise when running 36" and over tyres! I thought that he should share some of his extensive knowledge rather than shun others for doing exactly what he is doing!! And not being offensive myself either, I have a lot of respect for Jez's skills, Just calling it how it is that's all! Lara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticbadger Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 been looking at some youtube vids of the King of the Hammers from this year - mega rockcrawling flex, brilliant straight line speed handling and they appeared to handle some extremely high speed takeoffs all in one package. Most, if not all, of the trucks in King of the Hammers are running over 100" wheel base, 108" to 112" being a sort of average. They rely on belly clearance and tyre size to get over the grounding out problem and many run heavily customised axles to get the turning radius down. Oh, and also they'll be running $200 bumpstops and $600 shocks at each corner to handle the landings and flex. So if you can spare the money for custom axles, shocks, links, bump stops, etc, then yes it's the way to go. As has been mentioned above, in the UK stretching the wheelbase is done for many reasons, for space, weight distrubution, tyre clearance, improving articulation and improvement in approach/departure angle. But I think unless you're going to do high speed european events then it's probably not worth the effort by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicks90 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 i agree that the yanks do tend to have quite a long wheelbase on their buggies - but my reasoning still stands on the suspension and its merits IMHO. obviously if you are going 100" due to relocating the engine and box - you have no choice due to prop lengths, as you said earlier. but if you're going for the extra wheelbase for 'stability' and all the other so called reasons... being realistic, how much does it cost to convert a 93" to 100" for comps? Ignoring the obvious costs like cages, winches, lockers and all the other sundries that end up ruining your credit rating....... over £1k for d4x4 or GL challenge suspension, maybe another £1k for extending the chassis/7" longer rear arms and creating / modifying the trayback or kingcab or bodywork to fit the new wheelbase and getting the cage modified to fit? i think £2k would be fairly realistic for making a 90 into a 100" kingcab with gwynlewis suspension. Or would it be more? £2000 = $3400 With that money you could leave your caged and lockered 90 alone and buy the 'all singing all dancing' suspension from the states and I would wager a few quid it would handle better than a 100" on the usual challenge suspension you see out there. I just dont see that extra 7" of wheelbase being better than a fine tuned coilover setup or airshox with adjustable swaybars, especially if its been setup correctly to the various axle weights with the suspension geometry taken into account when setting rebound rates and all the other fancy physics stuff you can do with these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewy1984 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I think most people that would consider the 93" to 100" already have a well prepared truck. you dont need to extend the chassis/bodywork/cage. you just move the axle back 7 inches, with new spring hanger and longer link's/prop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.