Michele Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 In what direction has Sam headed John ? Or did 'Life' get in the way ? Horses, this was last time I heard from him (a couple of years ago maybe)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o_teunico Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 I can't recall too much of the suspension geometry, on mogrover and considering how it was developed and changed, don't doubt it may not have been a shining example of an ideal set-up. It wasn't my intention to use mogrover as an example. Ooooops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8C91GW05fM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Sam sold mogrover quite a few years ago. I dont think it ever had coil overs etc when he ran it. I was interested to see the rear axle shifting sideways at the 2:03-2:18 mark under acelleration…... Ill try and link some pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 De Ranged, I can't hold off any longer from not saying this, your incorrect use of terminology and physics annoys me, to the point that i have to turn away from reading your posts. Sorry but I guess that is because I'm a pedantic old so and so, but it is engrained from years of having to watch out for and correct mistakes before harm results. My apologies.... my suspension knowledge comes from experience across different sports and motor sports each one has its own terms sometimes at odds with others, I'm also not good at explaining things... I tend to think things through faster than I type so I tend to miss or short cut things lol one of the reasons my mates dont like me explaining things to them ... if you feel this has the potential to cause harm I will back out from these discussions If there is anything in particular you are concerned about Im more than happy to edit it out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderzander Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Please don't duck out ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Please don't duck out !No don't back out Deranged. This building up modified trucks is just a hobby for must of us who are not professional trained engineers, and if we occasionally misunderstand concepts,or get the physics or terminology, wrong then the relevantly qualified are there to pull us up on it. I personally welcome being set straight, as that is sometimes how I learn stuff. Mind you, it's getting a bit late this time around for me to apply much of the new knowledge I may aquire Lol. Oh well, maybe in the next life ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Ditto, your input is welcomed De Ranged, don't let the minority put you off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Ooooops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8C91GW05fM As Serg stated, Mog Rover had probably undergone some changes when that video was taken, and would appear to be under different stewardship. I don't really know what the video demonstrated. because Mog Rover attempted a different section of the rocks to the other buggy. An unqualified throwaway comment from me would be that, Mogrover's suspension certainly didn't demonstrate any axle hop on that obstacle. But then again, it didn't demonstrate anything resembling 'traction' either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 lol I'm not leaving, but bush65 does have a point.... my terminology is all over the place I'm pretty certain that fixed and floating axle thing is a term that only MTBikers use and then just the down hiller's lol but it was the easiest way for me to describe my point, now if there is something else I've miss named that has the potential to cause problems... a thread with this many responses will be top of the list for internet search engines, that means I could screw up alot of people who are doing research into AS/AD.... having been one of those I understand how "muddy these waters are" and how frustrating it can be lol so for the moment I will wait, I have sent a message to Bush65 asking for help to sort any issues.... I have the same feelings as bill, I dont mind egg on my face so long as Im learning lol Now as a side note, I am confident enough about the forces in action even if I've messed things up, that Im going to fit a version of radius arms to the front of my toy, packaging wise the one link doesnt work Now back on thread in that video, at one point mog rover does try very near the line the zuk took but the front end slid off the rocks at the top instead of climbing over this did get them over in the end, the back end didnt react like it was getting any grip My guess is the tyres were what let them down maybe older tyres or a hard compound or a tighter pattern.... thanks to the mud i cant see enough to make anything other than a guess lol cool looking truck tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bush65 Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 In what direction has Sam headed John ? Or did 'Life' get in the way ? I get very envious of those who have 'shoestrings' to play with. T'would be nice, and make a change from the well worn cotton thread I have Lol. As Michele said. IIRC his wife was into horse sports while Sam was involved with 4x4. He made that switch a few years back and I haven't heard if there has been any change. Serg is closer to him and would know more. Sam sold mogrover quite a few years ago. I dont think it ever had coil overs etc when he ran it. I was interested to see the rear axle shifting sideways at the 2:03-2:18 mark under acelleration…... Ill try and link some pics. bootiefab%20002.jpg mar02#37.jpg p1000216.jpg Yes the video link was after Sam disposed of mogrover. The last pic doesn't tell the full story of the events. He certainly knew what he was doing and the old strangerover, and later version modified with mog axles, were both extremely capable in the rocks. In the last pic what can't be seen is the waterfall he was attempting to climb. The front wheels barely reach over the top while the rears are in the pool at the base of the fall. That attempt was a fail as the pic shows, but it was driven later and repeated successfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bush65 Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 My apologies.... my suspension knowledge comes from experience across different sports and motor sports each one has its own terms sometimes at odds with others, I'm also not good at explaining things... I tend to think things through faster than I type so I tend to miss or short cut things lol one of the reasons my mates dont like me explaining things to them ... if you feel this has the potential to cause harm I will back out from these discussions If there is anything in particular you are concerned about Im more than happy to edit it out Bill is extremely good at observing what happens, what works, and what doesn't, and using that experience to build stuff that does what he wants. You seem to take a similar approach, but what has disturbed me is that some of your explanations are clearly wrong. I choose to ignore them, but many others will read it and take as gospel. It is clear to me that you don't understand some fundamental concepts of physics and maths but use them in explanations. For example vectors and weight transfer some recent posts. Concepts of squat, dive and their anti's is simple stuff (most should have learned enough arithmetic, trigonometry, and physics, i.e. three of Newton's laws of motion) yet people seem bent on making it complicated and stuff up the simple underlying physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I appreciate your interest in making this public, so far you have given posts with broad generalisations that you know something that I have gotten wrong ... stop pussy footing around and tell me what... so I can do something about it lol... you go on about being all concerned about how I have made mistakes and the damage it could cause yet you come back with another generalisation you do understand this doesnt make you look very credible stick your neck out and tell us all what I have wrong lol Come on John we want to learn.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 No stress, gents! I've been following this thread for its educational value. Various people have posted interesting theory, much of which I have never really considered before. If I was going to build something, I think I'd be intelligent enough to tease out the concepts and see what would or wouldn't work for me, before I got my angle grinder out. Friend "De Ranged", who I have met, is incredibly energetic, which shows in his posts, and so his writing style needs more teasing than others but he is certainly not bigoted nor deliberately misleading. This forum is the richer for having a range of people with varying experience contributing and I'd hate to see anyone pull out just 'cos his skills are more in metal work than writing. Please, let's keep going with the technical stuff? Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderzander Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 ^ ditto ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 LOL I'm not trying to scare him off, this isnt personal for me, up until this thread Id never considered this.... I want him to tell me where I'm wrong, If it is something I feel he is wrong about then I will try and find a way of proving this lol I dont play "he who is loudest or most negative", if in doing this I prove him right I will happily post up this, I want to get this right because I'm dead serious about building my front suspension based on what I see..... now I dont want to waste my time I see all of these forces working just like Ive tried to put forward... I can see reading back where my terminology could let things down and the offer stands to edit it and I suspect that is all it is, but if I'm wrong on something then that needs fixed Now for those of you who dont know, John (bush65) seems to know one of the better suspension experts from the old days of pirate, that and his age warrant hearing him out, I'm just hopping he will step up.... if at the very least to clarify my posts so that they are understandable lol I'm sort of stuck at the moment... if some of what Ive put forward is wrong then advancing from this point is well pointless lol To me the next logical point of discussion is how much Anti Dive to aim for with a link system that is fixed to the axle and the compromises PS hey Don are my posts really that bad lol do I need to go back through and edit them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 PS hey Don are my posts really that bad lol do I need to go back through and edit them.... Nah, Reese, it's easy enough for a kiwi who lives on Facebook to understand but not everyone here is from our too-laid-back culture. Let John get back with any mistakes and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 First is there anyone out there with any doubts about what Ive put forward.... even if you'd just like me to rewrite anything Assuming all is good then.... the way I see it... if I'm going to set a figure (for me to build too lol I dont mind walking the talk) we need some data.... what is a standard radius arm, and anyone out there with something different but still on radius arms Need some states from you Tire size, Wheel base, model (will let me look up center of balance and weight), distance from the center of the front wheel to the chassis mount of the radius arm, next the distance between the mounts on the chassis and on the axle (from the centre of the link to the center of the other link) and the last measure the height from the chassis mount from the ground And anything odd.... tray back, rollcage anything that changes weight or any of the above measurements Now the subjective part.... if you've got a bit of experience, if the front climbs well I'll work out what your Anti Dive is and post em back up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Ok, Chaps, I have been watching this for a while, and I'd like to say that we should stick to technical stuff and not to personal grievances. There is a lot of knowledge here, from all sides of the globe, which is great. Some people have a mathematical approach, others like it more practical and tend to have gained lot of experience doing it that way. There is no right or wrong here, and they all bring something to the party. I normally read this and pick the things i like or agree with, and leave the things that dont suit me or I dont agree with. Also, suspension is very personal, people have their own ideas on setups, and seem to achieve results all the same. So, stick to technical stuff, and if you have personal grievances please sort them out between yourselves. There is always the PM. Keep the tech coming chaps, we want to hear it all. Daan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 First is there anyone out there with any doubts about what Ive put forward.... even if you'd just like me to rewrite anything Assuming all is good then.... the way I see it... if I'm going to set a figure (for me to build too lol I dont mind walking the talk) we need some data.... what is a standard radius arm, and anyone out there with something different but still on radius arms Need some states from you Tire size, Wheel base, model (will let me look up center of balance and weight), distance from the center of the front wheel to the chassis mount of the radius arm, next the distance between the mounts on the chassis and on the axle (from the centre of the link to the center of the other link) and the last measure the height from the chassis mount from the ground And anything odd.... tray back, rollcage anything that changes weight or any of the above measurements Now the subjective part.... if you've got a bit of experience, if the front climbs well I'll work out what your Anti Dive is and post em back up Why do you need the length of the axle mount/s to the chassis mount? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Why do you need the length of the axle mount/s to the chassis mount? because the angle the arms are on changes the amount of anti dive, that measure + the height to the chassis mount lets me plot the angle which runs from the center of the axle to this point It will also let me calculate roll axis angle... something that I think is more important than most realise, but is a subject for another thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Would it not just be: the height of axle centre line (380mm) the height of centre of chassis bush (455mm) the length from axle centre to chassis bush centre. (840mm) The RA has 2 axle mount points as you know. There is no movement between these 2 points. If you draw a line through the centre of these 2 axle bushes, it disects the axle centre line. It is the axle that is the important arc swing, not the front or rear RA bush at axle. So, my wheelbase is 110 inch (minus the small amount of axle swing in due to 2.5 inch lift) Tyres are 235/85R16 on stock 130 rims. 300tdi 110 cab chassis with cut down alloy tray. Stock RAs. Tube winch bar, hyd winch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 yes your right, I was half thinking about what I was planing and Im so used to ploting links not radius arms lol my bad I over complicated things those three measures will do I'll have a go at them tonight cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 thanks for that Uniformed, I calculated it without the lift so I have a base line to work off Done it for you 144% anti dive.... with out the 2 1/2" lift I worked it out at 130% this is based off internet data for weight put it at about 2130kg with the listed mods just out of interest have you measured.... I left the CoG standard height, the mods would push it down to offset the lift anyone else interested hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 I doubt the COG would be the same. The bottom of winch is the top of the chassis rails at the front chassis horns. The bar is tube and not that much weight, maybe 25kg. The chassis, engine, gearbox, tcase, body and tray have all moved up. With a COG height of 720mm my front anti dive (under acceleration, not braking) is 213% according to triaged calc. What I am interested in, is if we calc the antis according to triaged calcs getting our reference over the other end axle. I sort of get this for 2wd cars, where the rear end is driving and reacting over the front. But in our 4wd the front end is driving as well. 50/50 split when off road. Do they have a reaction point that is somewhere in the middle that makes things different for 4wd??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 arghh there is the issue from what I found on the net CoG was 1060mm on the defender.... just on a side note this shows the difference you get just from the least accurate variable lol Your CoG figure did you measure or was this the top bolts of the bellhousing method, or some other source 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.