Disco 2 rear axle.

[MECCANO]

I was wondering what kind of weights a disco 2 rear axle could handle compared to others.

• Disco 2 coil sprung - 1720kg's
• Disco 2 self leveling - 1800kg's

• 110 leveled - 1750kg's
• 110 un-leveled - 1850kg's

Apart from being surprised how close the disco axle comes to the salisbury, I'm confused by the 110 axle weights.

It seems in reverse to what i would expect. Surely the leveled system distributes the weight better across the front and rear axle.

I took these figures from land rover workshop manuals.

Any ideas?

[landroversforever]

All the Boge strut is doing is leveling the suspension in relation to the weight already on the axle. I'd have thought only the smallest bit of weight would be transferred to the front by it.

[western]

Boge strut only levels the rear, it's fitted to chassis between the rear axle A frame arms & to the big ball joint carrier, it self levels once vehicle is loaded 7 moving, probably almost no weight gets transffered to front axle.

[Snagger]

No weight is transferred - you can only do that by moving the load forwards. I think the reason for the 110 figures is that those with the SLS strut will have softer springs, which is why the later models, including SWs, have high rear ends.

[MECCANO]

I see your point about moving the load Snagger, but changing the inclination of the chassis is surely going to have affect.

Given that gravity will always work directly down, it will create a resultant biasing away from the direction of inclination. Admittedly its probably going to be insignificant and i was clutching at straws.

Alternatively if the strut is creating a point load in the center of the axle tubing which is its weakest point, it could increase the risk of becoming a banana.

[Snagger]

No effect at all - s you said, weight acts straight down, so the only way to transfer loads is to change the longitudnal distance between the centre of gravity (it load position) and the axles. That's why when hill climbing or descending short vehicles run into problems; the CoG moves closer to the vertical of the downslope axle because the wheelbase is effectively shortened by being diagonal, and because the CoG is higher than the axles, so as the vehicle tilts, the COG moves diagonally up and towards the downslope angle. Thus the weight is transferred to the downslope axle.

Load transfer under heavy braking (or acceleration) is similar to hill climbs/descents - the force ont he axles is a combination of weight and inertia, and if you resolve them into one vector from the CoG, then it tilts forwards diagonally when braking, transferring load (actually more a case of adding the inertial load than transferring weight) tot he front, and the opposite occurs under acceleration.

[MECCANO]

By altering the pitch of the chassis through the ride height, you will have the same effect as driving up or down a very small incline. and have the very affect you have described above.

its only the load that acts down in the direction gravity, it doesn't keep perpendicular the the rails...if the angle of the chassis varies relative to that it will create xy components of that force which which change the C of G slightly.

What your saying about no affect, is true if the beam is static at sits perpendicular to the load and supports, and sees no change in angle.

[Snagger]

Altering the pitch of the chassis will have an immeasurably small effect - the wheelbase is still the same and you won't see any discernible effective load displacement until you get an inclination of over 30 degrees. Hill climbs and descents will have an effect prior to 30deg because the wheel base is also tilted - you need to look at the weight vector through the CoG and where it acts in relation to where the wheels touch the ground at various inclinations, with the weightvector pointing straight down, not 90deg to the chassis.