Argument for and against retaining coil springs at both ends

[bill van snorkle]

It may just be an Australian thing, but over recent years I have noticed an increasing number of proponents that claim that once difflocks are fitted front and back, there is little advantage to allowing coil springs to dislocate, and there are definite gains re stability in certain cross country situations if the springs are retained at both ends.

I have a personal preference for a balanced front/rear suspension with controlled dislocation, in the belief that once a spring has unloaded to its natural free length, there is still some useful traction available at the drooped wheel due to cross axle 'see saw' action, whereby the compressed spring becomes the fulcrum and some sprung mass is still being transferred over to that drooped wheel. Further more, constant rate coil springs have the same rate in tension as they do in compression, so in terrain situations where a wheel could droop down a little more, retaining its spring would IMO cause the heavier sprung mass of the vehicle's body/chassis to lift the wheel/axle on that side of the axle, thus leading to instability. The converse argument is that the wheel/axle, via the retained spring will pull down on the sprung mass thereby keeping things on a more even keel. I'm not claiming that my thinking is the correct one, but on several occasions I have challenged the 'retained' proponents to a put up or shut up day on my articulation ramp, but never get any takers even though I offered to provide a stack of mattresses for their vehicles to lay down on Lol.

So aside from opinions of others here, which are welcome of course, does anyone know of any comparison experiments that have been conducted,with similar or the same vehicles both with and without retained springs that provided hard data to quantify the advantages or otherwise of either theory ?

[De Ranged]

Lol I love your threads

I think your looking at this from just one angle, articulation and you are right the dislocation allows a forced articulation but with one catch your bump stop must be outside (compression side of the spring) as your spring isn't your pivot point the bump stop is

The dislocation creates a catch 22 lol, it will allow you to drive a cross axle alot deeper without flopping (if your suspension is balanced) but when you do reach the depth where your going to lift a wheel there is free movement in the suspension allowing the body to flop more violently creating a potential to tip you on your side, you could run to a heavier shock valving to limit this but this has adverse effects at speed

I prefer the augment for retained springs, when you are on a sidling you don't have the shock of the dislocation "flop" of the body

The up hill wheel is tied to the body via the spring so it is very predictable as the body rolls providing the driver with alot more confidence when it gets extreme, with lockers you will still have drive, even if it is only 3 wheels in contact

I would throw a few more things into the mix like roll center height and CoG height, if you could get the roll center up and CoG down, the closer these are the more you could mitigate the "flop" from the free movement

[bill van snorkle]

In tests I have done,when a coil sprung Rover is cross axled, the spring on the stuffed side generally bottoms out (coil bound )and the bump stop doesn't come into the equation, So the coil bound spring does indeed become the see saw fulcrum, albeit at a closer distance to the wheel, thus creating a shorter effective lever arm. The bump stop on a softly sprung leaf spring Rover. would act as the fulcrum for an effectively longer lever arm.
The way I see many US rigs with coil over suspensions, they don't retain the springs at both ends. and it would appear that some use a lighter secondary coil to allow full articulation, but offering some resistance to the body/chassis simply flopping back down heavily on the previously drooped corner. I would have thought that the tension built up by retaining the spring on a stock Rover suspension would pull that corner of the vehicle down more violently than free unsprung movement would when terrain conditions dictate that corner of the body come back down to meet the axle, such as when the diagonally opposite front wheel climbs a sharp rise whilst the drooped rear wheel is still in a hole. At the other extreme, I find the shorter travel of my leaf sprung Stage one lands more violently after picking up a wheel in relatively mild terrain.

I wonder if it is possible to have a shock with high resistance in the first few inches of it's compression stroke ?

It would be great to find a few less Pussies in the Landrover community over here in my neck of the woods, so that we can carry out some real experimentation in controlled safe conditions. Lol.

[ToyRoverlander]

The other thing is, with dislocating springs (and sufficiently long shocks) the drooping wheel can go down so far that the lower link angle gets really extreme with all its negative effects of trying to push the body upwards when it tries to walk under the vehicle. Usually the result of a very unbalanced suspension when people try to get as much articulation from the rear as possible to compensate for the crappy front end travel.

I would prefer a balanced setup front/rear with retained springs. I've never driven one with dislocating springs but to me I would think it would feel way more predictable and stable with retained springs.

[De Ranged]

I would have thought that the tension built up by retaining the spring on a stock Rover suspension would pull that corner of the vehicle down more violently than free unsprung movement would when terrain conditions dictate that corner of the body come back down to meet the axle

Never thought of that and its a good point and would apply in an articulation event.... on a sidling this wouldn't apply and would make the truck more stable

Just thinking about it.... it maynot apply when I'm driving I control the point where I tip by progressing into the tipping point now if the spring is in negative load the spring will pull the axle up and I tip as I drive

where as if the spring dislocates there is nothing tieing the weight of the wheel to the body other than the shock and it has extra movement so the body will tip out of control once you get over the tipping point lol clear as mud

I have driven trucks with dislocation on the rear springs, and they were "floppy" to the point of making me cautious lol particularly on sidlings, but as I wasn't able to progress the trucks through there mods I can't say if that was due more to the dislocation than anything else

[Team Idris]

I'd rather cross-axel than roll it. Having to lift an axel or two part way through a roll has saved me loads of times. But not on slow rollovers where I just pushed my luck. On kinetic rollovers it really works, either when sliding out of control down side slopes, or yumping a high side wheel

I run standard length shocks, so the springs don't dislocate anyway. Many other drive line issues don't occur on our 87" RRC chassis due to standard geometry.

It has lockers both ends so it doesn't cross axel anymore either. I really would rather be stuck than roll it, even with dry sump.

Not that I'm allowed, but I can see I could make flotation way better if I removed the suspension, which has many heavy components, like radius arms, springs, shocks and all those brackets that hold it all together. But then it would be a 4x4 supacat, and that's kind of been done

In my mind big suspension travel is for landing at altitude with speed.

[redneck]

What would an articulation ramp prove, with diff locks you would only need one wheel contacting the ground /ramp (impossible I know) to move, without diff locks you only need one wheel to lift to stop you dead.

Springs dislocating always seem a bodge, a typical backyard mechanic solution to stop the wheels losing traction rather than driving all the wheels via diff locks or similar.

I'd rather have a properly engineered solution, correct length variable rate springs or x springs (as an easy fix) obviously this would require some proper engineering and fabrication for longer springs etc.

It seems the first port of call for most land rover owners is to lift the vehicle (myself included), in the misguided idea that it will increase articulation. While it may do that a little as a by-product, you have also increased the c of g and added extra problems.

I mention this as I've just been watching a Bowler flying around a very rough track, watching it made me realise how good a properly set up suspension can be. the body barely moved as the suspension was taking all bumps etc most definitely not dislocating the spring thats for sure. The track was rough enough to stop a Scammell Explorer which has incredible articulation.

[Anderzander]

I can't imagine dislocation suits high speed suspension travel ? Super long travel seems to be the sole domain of crawlers.

It's good to see a different slant on this - it's usually long travel vs. lockers.

I don't know the answer but it's really interesting.

How much travel can you get from a coil over ?

kind of presume that you're still limited by the dynamic and rate of the spring, with it either coming 'loose' - or being a low rate enough to be able to compress significantly.

I seem to remember Dan saying that most common problems on long travel set ups is that they are under-sprung..... So I've no idea where that leave us.

When my x springs broke earlier this year I did think long and hard about using retainers on the springs. I replaced them though - but I am still very curious.

[redneck]

Stateside the rockcrawlers have enormous travel with coil overs, and not a dislocation thing in sight 18" travel off the shelf, more than any land rover could handle without some serious modification.

Variable rate springs with spring stops etc

I suppose the real difference is in the cost, £10 for a bit of angle iron or £1000 per corner for a long travel coil over and springs.

[bill van snorkle]

I should state that I am not coming at this from a high speed racing viewpoint, but more from a low speed rock crawling one, although living in the state of Victoria, my style of 4wding is more like rock crawling on loose shale style rock and dirt erosion gulleys and severely eroded steep climbs where the ability to keep all wheels evenly planted is an advantage to maintaining progress, as well as keeping the shiny side up.
IMO an axle with dislocating springs, when at the limits of articulation is little different to the centrally pivoted front axle of many 2 and 4 wheel drive agricultural tractors, or that Scammell Explorer that someone mentioned. In all cases it is unsprung articulation.In the case of the tractor and Scammell it is also completely un damped articulation.
The Scammell, although IMO not a true cross country vehicle, lacking difflocks as it does, works very well, mainly due to relatively unrestricted front axle articulation helping to keep the 4 wheels of the conventionally sprung single rear axle on the ground under most severe terrain. If one were to remount the Scammells front end on conventional leaf springs, one each side, it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective and the rear wheels would lift and lose traction near as often as an old RL Bedford.
Not everyone can afford long travel coil over units, and over here one would be hard pressed to have a vehicle engineered for use on public roads when fitted with them.
RRC's in standard form, lacking axle difflocks and having weak axles, came standard with dislocating rear springs, in my opinion to compensate for those deficiencies. Adding difflocks and tying down the rear suspension without freeing up the front end, in my experience was not as positive an improvement as I originally thought it would be until I set the rear springs free prior to making a 3 link front end.

If unrestricted articulation on some vehicles does lead to instability on sidehills, then small electric so called 'suck down' winches fitted to both axles should address that issue.

[redneck]

Bill

It doesn't matter if your a high speed or low speed driver, that wasn't the point of my comparison, it was the difference between loads of poorly controlled travel to less, very well engineerd control. i.e well engineered variable rate springs /shocks or just letting the wheels flap around hoping that they do something.

You seem to have gone down a fairly well tried route with your vehicle, dislocation cones, three link front end etc which does seem to work adequately and the results of many vehicles show that as well, however this is at best a compromise. all the "suck down winches" spring reseating devices etc etc are just to compensate for cheap adequately engineered spring/shock set ups.

It doesn't take much to find some far better engineered suspension set ups they use over in the states. Your local road regulations and cost may prohibit such set ups but that is another issue altogether.

Open diffs and limited articulation are the realm of land rovers, the endless stories of broken diffs and axles say it all. Lifting a wheel, giving it some go pedal making the free wheel spin fast, and then it drops to the ground shock loading the drive train, how many times has that happend???????

[Daan]

Stateside the rockcrawlers have enormous travel with coil overs, and not a dislocation thing in sight 18" travel off the shelf, more than any land rover could handle without some serious modification.

Variable rate springs with spring stops etc

I suppose the real difference is in the cost, £10 for a bit of angle iron or £1000 per corner for a long travel coil over and springs.

I dont agree with this last statement; the fact that people spend a lot of money doesn't have to stop you looking for the how and why things are like they are. To achieve 18" of travel per wheel, the only way to do it is to have very soft springs, or airshocks, or move the springs closer to the centre of the vehicle. variable rate is not really what you want, although you can play tunes with it if you have 2 coilsprings stacked up on top of each other (which is what the x-spring does to get more droop). most USA offroaders also run a anti roll bar to stop it leaning too much, but this must restrict articulation. A anti roll bar is no different from running radius arms.

I suspect they also run a much stiffer shock to compensate for soft springs. This then makes the ride harsher at speed, which you can change if you fit bypass shocks, so the shock does go stiffer as it compresses further.

Anyway, the main thing that makes the buggys different from a landrover is that they have a lower COG, so then the leaning in a corner or side slope is not as bad.

I personally haven't restrained my coils at the top, and they are on the verge of dislocating on full droop. it works for me with the spring rates. I worked out that the springs compress 135 mm at the front and 125 mm at the back at ride height. they go to double that on full bump (were the opposite wheel lifts of the ground), so 270 mm at the front and 250mm at the back. This is also pretty much what a radius arm can do, so where people say a radius arm restricts travel, it doesn't for the amount of travel that my shocks and springs give me.

This is the travel that this spring can achieve with this weight. my shocks pretty much exactly have this travel. The travel at the wheel is greater still during articulation.

I have seen some pretty scary moments with (usually lifted) vehicles on down hills and sideslopes were the springs started dislocating; didn't like the look of it and that is how I ended up where I am.

In my view, the whole dislocation thing is the result of unbalanced travel: where people say their back end flexes 14", it means that it is dislocating from the spring, and it usually does this when the front flexes by about 4". so although the front could do about 10", if it were balanced, but only does about half of that. You'd have about 18" of total travel, where as a balanced system would have 10" from both ends, giving 20" total flex.

Just my ideas.

Daan

[redneck]

Just to clarify, rock crawlers use slightly different set up to off road racer (baja bugs)

Rock crawlers dont use anti roll bars, or they use dislocating ARB's.

Race buggies do use ARB's and utilise a lower Cof G.

Getting long travel is not just about using very soft springs, its about using the correct springs, if using the correct spring rate the shock ends up doing very little work on the compression stroke, more about extension control.

2 or even 3 springs or x springs are an example of variable rate springs, they are just made of separate components (may be whats causing confusion). For one trick ponies i.e very specific set ups (rock crawler) a linear rate spring may be more applicable.

Absolutely agree on the unbalanced suspension seen on many land rovers, all looks very pretty on a ramp. I could easily achieve similar results by just removing the shocks and cutting the end off one of the front radius arms, b*****r all use to drive, but could probably win a twist off comp.

My point and I suspect yours too Daan is that a well engineered set up, with consideration to balance, corner weights, spring selection, and dampers, is a far more useable and capable than throwing some bits of angle iron there to compensate for a poorly designed system.

Like everything in life though suspension set up is always a compromise of one sort or another.

[De Ranged]

Mate please get on topic

What have rock crawlers got to do with what bill was talking about, they mainly use air-shocks or coil overs.... and what does budget, to do with things lol you think that lack of understanding and a big wallet garrentees you the perfect setup lol

Getting long travel is not just about using very soft springs, its about using the correct springs, if using the correct spring rate the shock ends up doing very little work on the compression stroke, more about extension control.

So why do the top teams use compression shims in there shocks, if your using a linear rate spring with equal up travel and down what this would cause a race truck in short woops / hard corrugations to compress and not come back before the next hit so progressivly you would loose suspension up travel,

On a single hit with no compression valving you'd hit the bumps alot harsher.... this isn't a good thing!

For one trick ponies i.e very specific set ups (rock crawler) a linear rate spring may be more applicable

Come on Rock crawlers run limited up travel why would they run linear lets talk some specifics say there truck weight is 1000kg and even per wheel so thats 250kg per wheel, spring rate is 12.5kg per cm of travel... so that means he has 20cm of travel to hold the weight of the truck and at full articulation you will have another 20cm of travel up (all the end weight applied to one axle is now on just one spring).... hang on that means he has to sit in the middle of his travel or he will bash bumpstops all the time....... this is why they use air shocks, or coil overs and progressive rate springs so they can have less up travel and a lower CoG

None of the others will say this so I will, mate your posts have little to do with the subject, if you have some thing about this topic "Coil spring dislocation or captivation and its effects" all good but if your just going to dribble..... please don't

To the mods yes I have edited this... to try and nicely point out some examples and hopefully get this back on topic... nicely lol

[redneck]

My apologies anderzander for dribbling on your screen.

Rock crawlers are mentioned being as Bill stated that he was himself coming at it from this type of driving in post 10.

Budget has a great influence on what people do to their vehicles, it certainly does to me.

I guess a little translation is required, as your colonial version of English doesn't seem to picking up the subtleties of my posts.

"Very little" does not mean none.

"May" means there is a possibility.

Sag is quite an important feature of suspension travel.

Dribble over, I shall not trouble you further.

[Daan]

Chaps, keep it tidy, its only a hobby after all...

One other thing that probably has resulted in the dislocation trend is that when fitting a larger tyre to a car, it will start to touch on full bump, resulting in less travel. Cutting wheelarches to acommodate this is too much a commitment for most people, so the only way to increase travel is downward, hence the dislocation way.

Daan

[De Ranged]

Been thinking about your suspension Bill (been labouring today so the mind wonders while I shovel lol)

Bill this is something to do with what you posted the other day... forced articulation,

You mentioned the bumps don't touch that the uphill spring becomes the pivot and you gain forced articulation.... I have been thinking about this and I think you maybe wrong, here is my thinking.... once you reach this state your spring is only acting as a pivot so this makes it only slightly different from a tractor front axle and the difference is that the pivot isn't centred..... I do see an advantage in this in that you will get a set amount of force (weight) on that lower wheel eg front weight on the front suspension is 500kg, if like a tractor you centred the pivot then its 250kg per wheel, if your spring was off to the side say 25% along the length of the axle the down hill side would still see 125kg of weight from the body (axle becomes a lever) this extra weight on the downhill wheel would add traction

As for my idea of forced articulation by putting the bump stop outside the spring..... its a catch 22 lol here is some simple math to show what I mean

lets setup the above with the bump just to the outside of the spring so 20% along the axle and I'll use a spring from my post above 12.5kg/cm

So since the pivot has now moved to 1/5th the weight oon the lower wheel is only 100kg due to it being so far from the pivot (bumpstop) compaired to the uphill wheel, but we have a spring pushing down and it is below the bumpstop so it should force the lower wheel down catch is it is acting on a lever the wrong way lol

Right if the difference was 5% (spring is at 25 and bump at 20% of axle length) that means once it hits the bump in articulation we loose 20% of axle length (the bit uphill of the pivot bumpstop) that now makes the difference between the spring and the bump now becomes 6.25% so this is the % of the springs force that will be applied to the weight on the downhill side.... so that works out at 500kg x 0.0625 or 31kgs of force from the spring so a total of 131kg on the bottom wheel a gain that could be worth it

Till I realised the bumpstop is sharing the weight with the spring and the 6kg of difference in weight on that lower wheel is gone lol..... so there is no gain for the forced articulation

hope your able to follow this lol clear as mud as they say

All this got me thinking about Wildfings setup.... bill ages ago I remember you mentioning the suspension has the spring mounts narrowed (moved to the center of the axle) all this math got me thinking about the difference between the leverage on the springs between a square hit compression and an articulated compression hit on the springs..... when you take a square hit your spring rate will be the actual spring rate of the springs, but when you take a articulated hit (just one side) the spring rate will be a % of the actual rate based on the leverage ratio of where the springs mount on the axle

This would mean Wildfing has a lot softer springs on corners than in a straight line

Sorry guys I've just spent almost 45min's getting that typed and sorted and I'm past my bedtime... will post up the rest of my train of thought tomorrow lol

[Anderzander]

My apologies anderzander for dribbling on your screen.

I think your reply was to Deranged ?

No matter though.

[steve b]

This is an interesting subject , and one I've given thought to over the years . My gut feel is retained springs do help to show when the vehicle is near the limit

and make sideslope driving a bit easier to feel .

'Mog coil springs are retained both ends with a central bolt ring

I seem to recall a year or two ago someone on here had access to 4 wheel weigh scales . it would be interesting to see what the weights are on a dislocating system for all four wheels just after the point of DL on cross axle and at almost full twist too

food for thought ?

edit to add : the centre of mass height and down the length of the vehicle will also make a difference to stability near the limit of travel too and that is probably different for each and every 4x4 ...........so it does all become a bit of a neverending loop discussion . It would still be good to see actual kgs for a given truck though

cheers

Steveb

[bill van snorkle]

Just a couple of points. Wildfing is on a SWB series 2 chassis, so the rear leaf springs are closer together, directly under the chassis rails, and the front coil springs are also fitted under the rails. Due to the addition of portal boxes to RRC axles, the wheel track is significantly wider than a RRC. So the combination of the wider wheel track and closely spaced springs gives a much more effective 'see saw' cross axle articulation than say a RRC/Def with outboard coils and narrower track width.

My springs only 'relax' a relatively short distance before the uphill side springs on a sidehill no longer exert an upforce on the body/chassis unit. If these springs were retained the vehicle would be heavily reliant on its difflocks to maintain any degree of crosscountry ability. But the springs are not retained and in many instances the vehicle even in 2WD with lockers disengaged will defeat twisty terrain that will defeat the average RRC/DEF /Disco, and standard leaf sprung LandRovers are not even in the same universe. This is all accomplished by cross axle leverage operating through dislocating short travel coils up front and telescopic shackles and hinged leaf spring hangers at the rear.

I agree that the outboard springs of coiler Landys probably don't give as an effective see saw action, but there is some, and even 10% of the rear sprung vehicle weight of a RRC, around 1800lbs equals 180lbs of weight on the drooped wheel once its spring dislocates, verses only about 50lbs if that spring with say 130 lb inch spring rate was stretched as little as one inch. My measurements/calculations give 12% weight transfer for a fully coilbound spring to a little over 15 % for a not fully compressed spring.

I think an articulation ramp, some hose clamps for upper spring retention,and a pair of bathroom scales connected via a shared platform might prove at least one point of the discussion one way or the other.

[De Ranged]

My PC crashed on me yesterday lol after I had typed up a huge post

Right condensed down (and hopefully posted this time, really should buy a new pc lol)

My last post described a dislocated case, the retained spring is a bit different in that its weight is transfer from one wheel to the other is linear.... using the example i did above as the axle articulates for every cm one compresses the other expands 12.5kg of weight is transfered to the compressed side.... this weight transfer is linear right up untill full articulation and the weight is only on one wheel

how this effects your grip, the more weight you have on a wheel the better the grip, so at full flex the dislocated axle due to its pivot effect putting more weight on the dropped wheel will have better grip and driver further but an ARB will counter this to a point, consider at an extreme if the grip conditions are loose or muddy and you need that weight to get grip the retained ARB setup won't be as good as a dislocated ARB setup

Now lets lets consider control and feel, this is a tricky one due to how Rollcenter Height to Center of Gravity can effect body roll and since most people struggle with CoG calculation I'll gloss over it and just play with some of the mechanics

Now I don't know about the rest of the world but here in NZ the rule of thumb is if your rolling into something extreme (sidling or climb) you do it with the front locker out, the main reason for this is control.... as you push hard the uphill wheel will brake traction and the front axle loses drive (hopefully stopping you going to far lol)

Now this works simply for a retained spring..... the steeper the slope the more weight that is transfered to the downhill wheel as this is linear the driver feels this happening in the form of grip as they get closer the wheel slips more and more till its spinning and the front axle no longer drives

Lets consider this with dislocation as I showed in the above post untill the shock or limit strap lifts the wheel there is a constant weight forcing that wheel to grip if this is enough to not break grip then you drive till you tip, on a positive you will go further lol

Now from my experience driving logging skidders with pivot axles, you want that axle that is staying on the ground to be as heavy as possible, we used to full the tyres on the pivot axles with water so they would hold the body when you tipped

Now for the catch lol the body is a big leaver working on the suspension, most people look at a truck and the wheel track and and feel confident that a wide axle makes it stable.... this is part of the story lol remember the bulk of the weight is resting on the suspension... the springs are the width for this weight

Body roll is what tips most trucks, imagine a triangle.... the top point of it is the CoG for the body (no wheels axles and only half the suspesion weight) so this is alot higher than you'd think or want lol now the bottom of this triangle is the springs

As you drive along a sidling getting steeper you will reach a point where the CoG tips on the lower spring mount.... now this will happen sooner than you think because remember these lower points are springs so the lower is compressing and the upper is extending so the base of the triangle is tipped more than the terrain

Now if your springs are retained you feel this as the top side getting very bouncy as the weight on the springs gets lighter, this transition is linear as the situation goes from weighting the top wheel to the tipping point where the spring is pulling on the axle

At this point the uphill side is being levered up by the body and in most trucks standard axles don't weight that much so over you go.... it gets better if you've engineered for this say american buggy's with HD braces axles and minimal bodys, why I tend not to be too concerned about adding weight on axles

Now if your springs are dislocated your only interested in the lower spring mount, if the CoG tips past it your away, there is no warning of the topside getting bouncy you continue to drive till you tip.... at this point it depends how much free movement you have, if its alot lol well, body moves further out gaining more leverage and lifts the axles easier

Now there is a catch to all those that will say dislocated springs don't work, right up untill the body tips the dislocated suspension has more weight on the uphill wheels so has the potential to out drive the captive sprung truck before it ends up on its side lol

And from experience you do develope a feel for where that tipping point is lol

I've typed all this to point out there is alot more going on than springs dislocating or not as to stability (and I haven't gotten to the Rollcenter height, or RC/CoG relationship lol)

there is some, and even 10% of the rear sprung vehicle weight of a RRC, around 1800lbs equals 180lbs of weight on the drooped wheel once its spring dislocates, verses only about 50lbs if that spring with say 130 lb inch spring rate was stretched as little as one inch. My measurements/calculations give 12% weight transfer for a fully coilbound spring to a little over 15 % for a not fully compressed spring.

In articulation that bottom wheel is seeing more than its normal axle weight because you are tipping the axle on an angle, and this will be opposite if its on a sidling

As for how much weight from the body this will work the same as your shared platform your going to use on the bathroom scales.... the spring is the weight the axle is the platform so if your in the middle half the weight to each side of the platform, if your 3/4's along (or 25% from the end) your weight on the light side is 1/4 of that applied

[bill van snorkle]

Deranged, seeing as you are quite adept at posting photos, and I am not, could you do me a favour and go to my Photobucket account here http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/wagoo/library click onto "recent uploads" and retrieve the first 2 photos, one front and one rear view of WildFing at close to full cross axle articulation, when crossing some hummocks. If you can visualise those diagonally opposed drooping wheels being restricted in their movement by retaining the springs, what would you guess at the outcome? WildFing is as stable as a rock in that situation, but with balanced suspension and retained springs, those drooped wheels would be well off the ground and any imbalance would cause the truck to flop over to the heavier corner with a good chance of falling on its side. Even with closely spaced springs, the roll centre is such that with body roll, the COG hasn't moved out beyond the extremity of the wheel track in any of the circumstances I have placed the truck in to date.

Again, on the other bucket photos of the truck on the flex ramp, it is as stable as a rock and also, with a 4 leaf spring pack replacing the single transit paras, and ball jointed front axle links, added since those ramp photos were taken,it can climb to the top in two wheel drive without difflocks, where standard non traction controlled Defenders/Disco's and RRC's with the centre diff engaged struggle to get half way up.

[Lewis]

I've just checked your photo bucket bill, there are only 7 photos, none of which are crossing hummocks. Either something failed with the upload or perhaps you have accidentally set them to private?

[bill van snorkle]

I've just checked your photo bucket bill, there are only 7 photos, none of which are crossing hummocks. Either something failed with the upload or perhaps you have accidentally set them to private?

Thanks Lewis. Did you click onto recent uploads on the left side of the page ?

[Lewis]

Yes, but there are still only 7 viewable pics and one video

Is there any others you wanted posting besides the hummock ones Bill?