3 Link Questions, discussion and a brain dump

[Daan]

If you use the same panhard rod arrangement, the roll centre will be identical to the standard setup. You will loose roll stiffness, as you will with the 3 link. This is were you will hit exactly the same problem as you will with either 4 link, 3 link or 1 link: more flexible suspension means cornering will be worse with loads of body roll. I decided to use the radius arm arrangement front and rear, as it is such a simple and effective setup. I don't know exactly what Ross wants to achieve with the 3 link, but if you have a lot of power and want to use it on the road (ie going fast), the radius arm setup is perfect.

 

Daan

[Soren Frimodt]

11 hours ago, Daan said:

 if you have a lot of power and want to use it on the road (ie going fast), the radius arm setup is perfect

I beg to differ on this Daan, as axlewrap/tramp is already quite pronounced with everyting in stock form, big horsepower and high traction (as in roadgoing) will be terrible. This is where I believe the parallel 4-link with a panhard is far superior as there's a lot more separation between the fixing points in either end. If you want greater roll stiffness its as simple as fitting an anti roll bar, which has the benefit of being disconnectable. So it'll Work better both on and off road with greater axle control yet less binding and more flex if you so desire 

[NRS91]

How do you get axle wrap on a radius arm?
Normally thats a term applied to acceleration/braking forces twisting the axle up/down in an uncontrolled manner and distorting a leaf spring.
Radius arm just applies force to the chassis giving anti-squat and anti-dive

[Soren Frimodt]

2 hours ago, NRS91 said:

How do you get axle wrap on a radius arm?
Normally thats a term applied to acceleration/braking forces twisting the axle up/down in an uncontrolled manner and distorting a leaf spring.
Radius arm just applies force to the chassis giving anti-squat and anti-dive

From the bushes flexing, it is actually quite visible if you take a look at a coiler ascending a steep, loose climb. And sure this can be somewhat cured with stiff Poly bushes, but then you sacrifice even more articulation

[discomikey]

On 28/02/2018 at 8:35 PM, Carloz said:

What kinda carp does it handle? 

Well... I would like to know what the drawbacks are compared to the original setup.

Basicaly it is the same apart from that it is connected at one point in the centre instead of on two points L&R.. 

It entirely depends on available geometry. however the roll stiffness lost by using 1, 2, 3 or 4 link makes for an extremely floppy ride. Each and every setup, can be done correctly but you have to think about the whole chassis system not just links!!!!

not only that but the roll stiffness relationship between axles has a direct effect on the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the car. Hence why when (for example) JLR fitted the heavy duty tow pack rear springs to certain cars they stipulate the rear anti roll bar must be removed. 

Ross is already looking into what anti roll bar setup is required to retain  a normal ride characteristic with a less stiff front end, but this is something that can (without pages and pages of maths) be done by trial and error. This then reduces flex again so some form of disconnect is likely required. 

Connecting your axles directly to, or very close to the chassis rails is the ideal, Fitting a single link to the centre of a crossmember that spans the gap means it has to be exceedingly stiff in both vertical and fore/aft bending cases. Creating the need for a very large and unwieldy crossmember, not to mention the weight. 

If you then consider wheel strike situations, the nature of this system will try and pull the whole axle around the centre joint, to one side or the other, putting a massive strain on the panhard rod and its mountings (which I have seen snap on standard setups). Using links which run back to the chassis rail. it all acts much more in unison. while one link is acting in compression, the above mentioned pull force at the wheel is being reacted by the other link in tension, meaning the only forces the panhard rod has do deal with are what is is designed for. Pure lateral force. not the much more extra lateral force created by a swinging moment. 

 

20 hours ago, NRS91 said:

How do you get axle wrap on a radius arm?
Normally thats a term applied to acceleration/braking forces twisting the axle up/down in an uncontrolled manner and distorting a leaf spring.
Radius arm just applies force to the chassis giving anti-squat and anti-dive

you should see how much a diff nose moves under power/braking! its incredible!!! radius arms do wrap. a lot, stiffer bushes will help but increase roll stiffness. the ability for these bushes to flex is what allows a radius arm setup to actually cross axle. if these bushes were solid, in theorey, there would be infinity roll stiffness, and zero axle wrap. JLR spent a lot of time working out the best compromise.

edit... I use the term JLR out of habit, although this dates back to Land Rover/BL days... 

Edited March 3, 2018 by discomikey

[Carloz]

The roll stifness in the LR (and many others) two link suspension is something like a side dish: it is not intended to limit roll it is just a side effect of this way of suspension. There are many cars which have to deal with roll without having this or without having anti roll bars.

Also: the effect of the roll stifness is in the beginning almost nothing. Only with big wheel movement between left and right the bushings are really going to act against roll.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Carloz

[Soren Frimodt]

Thank you very much for explaining what I meant Mikey!  

[landroversforever]

Sorry for the lack of replies, been marooned away from my computer! 

 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:06 PM, lo-fi said:

Think of it as a triangle, is what Carlos is getting at, I think. What you've designed makes a very shallow one, which acts as a force multiplier when pressure is applied pushing the point between the short sides towards the longer one. The shallower it is, the more mechanical advantage it has. Whether that's a problem or not for the exact geometry and forces involved probably needs some calculation.

I'm sure you've covered this, so  apologies if I've no doubt missed it in long threads, but wouldn't 1 link have been a much simpler, more compact and easier way to go? Pick up on the original axle mounts to an A frame (which could itself have that cunning box section stiffener/steering guard built in) with a large spherical or multi axis joint at the chassis end? Ought to be skookum as frig as AvE would say...

It will never be a 'steep' triangle (for wanting a word opposite to your shallow). The link vertical separation is the key part and longer links the better. Both of which if possible would increase making a shallow triangle no matter what. It's not ideal having the lower link axle mount behind the axle to far but its just never going to work with it direct to the axle. As said before, using the radius arm mount makes it an issue with the link being above the centreline and going low enough below the axle to avoid the track rod would leave me with about 5-6" of clearance. 

I moved away from a one-link pretty much straight away when thinking about doing something other than the RA on the front. Few reasons for this:

1) No adjustability. I went for the 3 link as I've always got options for tweaking it in the future - I've got 3 options for the Anti Dive and I can also adjust link lengths for castor and axle position.
2) I don't like the load put on the single crossmember. With the galv chassis I also haven't got the option of strengthening the chassis mounts for it.
3) Don't like the idea of the load on the panhard that Mikey mentions later on.

 

On 26/02/2018 at 6:23 PM, Soren Frimodt said:

Problem with one-link though, is it handles like cr@p  Works average offroad, but terrible onroad. 4 link with a Panhard (5 link to some) works the best in every situation but is a PITA to package so 3-link is a decent compromise. But of course a proper setup one-link handles better than a poorly setup 4-link so as always comparing can be difficult

Depending on the springs and shocks the shouldn't be too bad, but as above Zero adjustability.

 

On 28/02/2018 at 8:35 PM, Carloz said:

What kinda carp does it handle? 

Well... I would like to know what the drawbacks are compared to the original setup.

Basicaly it is the same apart from that it is connected at one point in the centre instead of on two points L&R.. 

See above.

 

On 01/03/2018 at 8:47 PM, Daan said:

If you use the same panhard rod arrangement, the roll centre will be identical to the standard setup. You will loose roll stiffness, as you will with the 3 link. This is were you will hit exactly the same problem as you will with either 4 link, 3 link or 1 link: more flexible suspension means cornering will be worse with loads of body roll. I decided to use the radius arm arrangement front and rear, as it is such a simple and effective setup. I don't know exactly what Ross wants to achieve with the 3 link, but if you have a lot of power and want to use it on the road (ie going fast), the radius arm setup is perfect.

Daan

Yes, I'm using the same panhard setup as standard, so yes the roll centre will be the same give or take any suspension changes. Cornering shouldn't be too bad on the road. I'm using an X-Deflex in the rear of the car which is unlockable for offroad stuff, this will help. At the moment I'm looking at fitting one at the front too for most of the time which should help firm things up. I'm not after sports-car handling, its never going to handle nicely with 10+ inches of sidewall, I'd just like to make it as good as it can be with the compromise of having the 3 link. The shocks I've got will really help (as they did when I first fitted them). They're OME +5.5" using the 60070L shocks. These are the harder of the two longer shocks used on LRs, the lighter valved ones being the 60018L.

My aim with the 3 link is to free up the front suspension to balance out the travel front and rear more. I'm using the same shocks as before on the front, +5.5" OME. I never got the full travel out of these on the car as it was. The rear was great and I liked how that behaved. The front whilst handling OK really wasn't very flexible. With the 3 link there to utilise more of the available front shock travel I'm aiming for a much more stable car as the front axle will follow the ground much better. From looking at pictures of the old setup being used, I reckon I was only using about 1/2 of the available travel on the shocks due to the restriction of the bushes.

Whilst the radius arms front and rear that you have Daan are very nicely balanced I just wanted to make a bit more free travel from the more supple setup. Been talking to Will about it and his calculations for the 11.25" travel OMEs would need something like 14mm of deflection per bush at the axle which isn't going to happen. By contrast, the 3 link needs about 3mm. I am going to have a fair amount of power, but its not going to be for pressing on along B roads.

 

On 02/03/2018 at 8:38 AM, Soren Frimodt said:

I beg to differ on this Daan, as axlewrap/tramp is already quite pronounced with everyting in stock form, big horsepower and high traction (as in roadgoing) will be terrible. This is where I believe the parallel 4-link with a panhard is far superior as there's a lot more separation between the fixing points in either end. If you want greater roll stiffness its as simple as fitting an anti roll bar, which has the benefit of being disconnectable. So it'll Work better both on and off road with greater axle control yet less binding and more flex if you so desire 

A by product of needing the movement in the bushes to allow the articulation. 

 

On 02/03/2018 at 1:27 PM, NRS91 said:

How do you get axle wrap on a radius arm?
Normally thats a term applied to acceleration/braking forces twisting the axle up/down in an uncontrolled manner and distorting a leaf spring.
Radius arm just applies force to the chassis giving anti-squat and anti-dive

On 02/03/2018 at 3:32 PM, Soren Frimodt said:

From the bushes flexing, it is actually quite visible if you take a look at a coiler ascending a steep, loose climb. And sure this can be somewhat cured with stiff Poly bushes, but then you sacrifice even more articulation

It's any time an axle can rotate about its axis. There was a good video posted on here a few years ago of an otherwise standard car with shagged radius arm bushes. The pinion must have gone up and down 6" at least.

 

On 03/03/2018 at 10:11 AM, discomikey said:

It entirely depends on available geometry. however the roll stiffness lost by using 1, 2, 3 or 4 link makes for an extremely floppy ride. Each and every setup, can be done correctly but you have to think about the whole chassis system not just links!!!!

not only that but the roll stiffness relationship between axles has a direct effect on the understeer/oversteer characteristics of the car. Hence why when (for example) JLR fitted the heavy duty tow pack rear springs to certain cars they stipulate the rear anti roll bar must be removed. 

Ross is already looking into what anti roll bar setup is required to retain  a normal ride characteristic with a less stiff front end, but this is something that can (without pages and pages of maths) be done by trial and error. This then reduces flex again so some form of disconnect is likely required. 

Connecting your axles directly to, or very close to the chassis rails is the ideal, Fitting a single link to the centre of a crossmember that spans the gap means it has to be exceedingly stiff in both vertical and fore/aft bending cases. Creating the need for a very large and unwieldy crossmember, not to mention the weight. 

If you then consider wheel strike situations, the nature of this system will try and pull the whole axle around the centre joint, to one side or the other, putting a massive strain on the panhard rod and its mountings (which I have seen snap on standard setups). Using links which run back to the chassis rail. it all acts much more in unison. while one link is acting in compression, the above mentioned pull force at the wheel is being reacted by the other link in tension, meaning the only forces the panhard rod has do deal with are what is is designed for. Pure lateral force. not the much more extra lateral force created by a swinging moment. 

you should see how much a diff nose moves under power/braking! its incredible!!! radius arms do wrap. a lot, stiffer bushes will help but increase roll stiffness. the ability for these bushes to flex is what allows a radius arm setup to actually cross axle. if these bushes were solid, in theorey, there would be infinity roll stiffness, and zero axle wrap. JLR spent a lot of time working out the best compromise.

edit... I use the term JLR out of habit, although this dates back to Land Rover/BL days... 

One of the main reasons I moved away from a 1 Link early on in my thoughts. Because I'm limited to picking up on the chassis in available locations I can spread the loads better with my 3 link than I could have with a 1 link. 

 

On 03/03/2018 at 1:46 PM, Carloz said:

The roll stifness in the LR (and many others) two link suspension is something like a side dish: it is not intended to limit roll it is just a side effect of this way of suspension. There are many cars which have to deal with roll without having this or without having anti roll bars.

Also: the effect of the roll stifness is in the beginning almost nothing. Only with big wheel movement between left and right the bushings are really going to act against roll.

Yes, they can deal with it in the springs and shocks or with the roll centre height. They'll resist the roll straight away. Axle hanging under my chassis on the radius arms, one side supported and the other just hanging by itself.... the one in free air wasn't lower than the other one. The bushes are enough to restrict the axle with the weight of itself (and diff) and with my 100+ KG stood on it probably only moved it down 5-10mm at the most.

[landroversforever]

Oh dear, far too long since an update again . However that doesn't mean stuff hasn't happened, I've just forgotten to post it. I really must keep up to date with it or I'll forget stuff! 

So this is going back a bit, and won't all be in one post.

So next thing the whole lot was built up with out the radius arms. So in their place are these aluminium spacers I think I posted a better picture of earlier. These are there to stop the brackets being crushed when the bolts are done up. 

It all looks a little floppy at the moment as the radius arm brackets haven't been boxed in in any way or the track rod box installed.

The suspension links are only strapped together for now as I need to strip it all and prep the ends of the tube for welding as they're only rough cut at the moment. 

 

So I then had a play with the suspension, plenty of travel here and no binding of the joints or mountings which is great. I just need to make up some bump stop spacers as the link otherwise touches the corner of the bulkhead outrigger. Not a massive issue, I don't mind loosing a bit of up travel on the front as they're enormous tyres to try and loose in the arch. I've got to compromise a little here.

This is just it sat articulated any old how.... not set up or representative of anything other than 'ooooo this looks good  '.

 

So next I then set it up at full bump one side and full droop the other. In this case with the 11.25" travel OME 60070L shocks. Because of the lost up travel I needed to lower the shock turrets so I winged it with a measurement to the tower for the moment.

 

So this is what 11.25" travel with the standard shock location looks like... Really not that impressive to look at. But there is no roll resistance like the radius arms so I don't loose any of the travel. At this point I'm really pleased that its coming together.

 

Then you start looking at the tyre clearance and it all goes wrong! This isn't much lock at all and its hitting with the other side fully extended and this side stuffed right up against the chassis where it hits.

 

Small update for the moment, more to come shortly.

[landroversforever]

Tacked some 3mm on the top to give me somewhere to land the shock and a reference surface to measure from.

The following 3 pictures should give you an idea of how much space a 37" tyre takes up at full lock and fully articulated. The dashed line behind the throttle pedal is the same as the curved dashed lines on the outside.

So over the time of the previous update and up until now its all a bit of a mess of trying things and lots of measuring and looking at so this bit isn't really in a proper order.

Steering lock. I'd spent a while looking at the lock I was getting before hitting my radius arm brackets, I was a bit disheartened that after all this work on the suspension I was going to be left with some awful lock. However after asking a few friends with Defenders and various tyre combinations for some pictures to compare I realised I was actually in the ball park of standard lock. I found the figures in the workshop manual for setting the steering lock stops and set them to that (I forget the number). I then found that I was only about 1mm off touching the steering stops when the tyre started contacting the radius arm brackets. RESULT!

After playing with the OME shocks and realising that with the slightly reduced up travel I've got, I needed to remake the shock towers to suit them and regain the travel as droop/rebound. Once I'd started thinking about that and remaking them, along with the effort the 3 link has taken I thought why not maximise it and put some 14" Fox on there. These having that little bit more travel I could use but also the option to have the revalved and tuned to suit the car. Another thing that would help the handling and keep the car driving nicely even with the 3 link. After a little while of thinking about the 12" Fox, I thought how much extra work can it be to utilise some 14" shocks? In actual fact, really not a lot more than the 12". The shocks are going to be stood up behind the spring seat, and sitting above the track rod area. Not ideal, but it makes some things a bit more simple such as spring relocation. The issue with space becomes clear when you articulate the axle and on the full bump side you see how much the top of the tyre tips over into the car. But the space for the shock is still fine, until you then turn the wheel to full lock. So with the above steering lock bit, and the longer shocks tipping the axle over, I was forced to admit defeat and start thinking about wheel spacers. Doug kindly passed on to me his scrap ones on the promise I don't use them, but they're perfect for testing the theory.... they do give me more space for the shock to come down behind the spring seat and also to clear the links with the tyres. 30mm isn't quite enough so I've had some 'shim' 2mm ones laser cut for testing purposes.

As it stands now, I've got 37" tyres at standard height and able to use 14" travel shocks with a bit of tweaking  

Fast forward a bit and I've then started looking at making the axle wider rather than wheel spacers. The wheel spacers would make the scrub radius terrible and give me loads of kickback through the wheel.... with the equivalent of -45mm offset it would probably have been horrendous!! But making a spacer to fit between the swivel balls and the axle case it means that's all back as good as it can be and the only real trade off is making it a bit further away from true ackerman. But only about as bad as an 88" coiler so really not an issue. Steering isn't really a problem as the drag link is longer than the panhard anyway by about 3.75" and I'd only be making it about 40-50mm longer. Overall width of the car with the axle spacers is the same, I get a tiny bit more space for the shock with the spacer on the axle and for example a 40mm spacer, I save about 14mm of fore/aft movement at full lock each way. A small victory for slightly less cutting of the bulkhead. 

That's probably all a bit of a mess as I've just bashed it out as it came into my head! Hopefully you can make sense of it. 

 

On top of that I threw the rear suspension together after a bit of pain with the Xarms not screwing together (solved with a tap down the now rusty threads) and also the awful bushes I got as a bush set from Foundry 4x4. Not 100% sure what they are brand wise other than the hint of Bearmach from the 'BM' in the part number. Quite how anyone thinks PU bushes are easy to fit is beyond me, they were a pain from start to finish even with plenty of lube the centre tube still managed to sort of extrude the bush out of one end so I had to attack it with a knife for it to fit in the axle bracket. Needless to say, they'll be going in the bin in favour of genuine ones. The back axle isn't staying on, I just wanted a comparison (sorry no picture as I was stood on it!). So to give you an idea of the shock geometry differences... 11.25" travel shocks on the rear with Gwyn Lewis mounts give about the same travel as the 14" measurements on the front! 

 

And some super stiff shocks  Bought some M12 rod ends so I could make up the length of the shocks and I've got some plastic bar the same diameter I can slide up and down to check the clearances.

 

Think that's it for now... no doubt I'll read it back and want to clarify something.... Thanks for reading if you've bothered to get this far! 

[NRS91]

Increased track width will be a big bonus to stability and should still keep you as a sensible width for tight lanes like V gully and the gates on wayfarer as we discussed the other day bud.
How are you looking at making the rear axle wider?
And are you not put off by having custom half shafts if you plan long distance runs?
What size tyres are you on again? I know my 37s were pretty close to the foot well on full bump with lock on and -32ET modulars 

[landroversforever]

On 20/04/2018 at 4:46 PM, NRS91 said:

Increased track width will be a big bonus to stability and should still keep you as a sensible width for tight lanes like V gully and the gates on wayfarer as we discussed the other day bud.
How are you looking at making the rear axle wider?
And are you not put off by having custom half shafts if you plan long distance runs?
What size tyres are you on again? I know my 37s were pretty close to the foot well on full bump with lock on and -32ET modulars 

Looking like at the moment the overall tyre to tyre width will end up somewhere around the 2m mark. 1978mm if I go with 50mm spacers and 1998mm if I go for the extra 10mm a side. At least the body isn't getting any bigger. It would put the overall width about the same as a current RRS.

I'm looking at making some spacers for the stub axle on the rear. Similar fashion to the front axle spacers but they'll need to incorporate the brake caliper mountings too. I'm not particularly worried about the non standard half shafts. They're going to end up as 300m all round which if I was on a longer trip are going to last as I'd me more mechanically sympathetic. Absolute worst case, I could always remove the spacer and put a standard shaft in to get me home. 

Tyres are 37x12.5x16 Maxxis Trepadors on my Banded wolfs which give me an offset of -5mm. By going with the axle spacers rather than the spacer at the hub, the tyre moves back towards the footwell 14mm less for the same 40mm spacer. Its about 18mm less for 50mm and as a bit of a guess 22mm less if its a 60mm spacer. If that makes any sense? 

No matter what I'm going to have to do some footwell trimming but the axle spacers will minimise it and give a better handling car.

 

[Lewis]

Why not just leave the rear axle standard track width? I can’t see what you’d gain by widening it

Lots of standard vehicles run a different track width between front and rear axles. Land Cruiser springs to mind. I ran spacers on the front only for years, as does a mate, you couldn’t even tell by looking

[Carloz]

1 hour ago, Lewis said:

Why not just leave the rear axle standard track width? I can’t see what you’d gain by widening it

Lots of standard vehicles run a different track width between front and rear axles. Land Cruiser springs to mind. I ran spacers on the front only for years, as does a mate, you couldn’t even tell by looking

 

Different track width on road vehicles is very common.. Almost all road going cars have different track width front to rear. Beautiful example is the Citroën DS.

 

But!  For a off road vehicle it makes the going extra tough! Because the rear wheels doesn't fit well in the path which was already paved by the front wheels. 

[Lewis]

60mm track width makes no difference on an offroader, I have run this for years. If anything it’s an improvement, I found It makes it easier to climb out of ruts 

[landroversforever]

That sort of difference probably isn't noticeable. However I'm looking at 50-60mm per side. Hopefully the 50mm a side is enough, but I need to get some more spacers cut to check. 

[Daan]

Easiest would be D2 axles. But then, there is not much to be gained; it means it does not fit well in existing tracks and you will have trouble fitting in between trees. What is your issue with cutting the foot boxes?

 

Daan

[landroversforever]

For me the D2 axles are a pain. I know the 'normal' type well and can do stuff on them quickly. The D2 axles would need rebracketing and even then I'd have the wrong stud pattern. 

There aren't any issues with cutting the footwells Daan? Other than the clash with the throttle pedal that I can easily work around. The spacers are needed for suspension clearance, so it's about having the spacers in the best place, in this case on the axle rather than the hub. The car will drive better with the spacers there and the reduced cutting of the footwells is just an added bonus rather than one of the reasons for it. 

[NRS91]

To be honest the Disco2 axles are beautifully simple to work on, would be a worthy upgrade if you binned the sliding calipers for more conventional calipers... you get wider stronger axles which are easier to service and you could run some pimping alloys on your big tyres... or some mild offset rims and job done... 

[landroversforever]

But as you know. I fiercely stubborn and I don't want to loose my Wolfs! I think the only bit of a D2 axle you can say is stronger is the ability to put a larger CV in them. Equally I'd much rather have my CVs sealed up in a housing.

[Bowie69]

Ross,

There is a point where you need to stop and think 'What **AM** I doing?'

I think you reached that.... Chop the footwells, add some small spacers, maybe keep it to 12" shocks and wind the lock stops out by 1mm, and you have a fully functioning truck, with only a minute reduction in lock compared to a standard truck.

I forget what offset I run, but I have 10.50 wide simex JT2s on my RRC, and they JUST stick out the arch after rolling it a little, they are well offset, but I don't find kickback an issue at all, even with a quick ratio box. I've also driven a 90 with 35x12.5 tyres, with massive offset, and therefore huge arches, and again, no massive kickback.

Same goes for Zuki based things with comically big tyres, really not an issue.

I'm sure you realise I have said all that with a little tongue-in-cheek, but I think you equally probably get the gist of it

[landroversforever]

'What am I doing?'....

Errrrrr...... being difficult?    

It's a lot of work overall to get the 14" shocks in there with the 37" treps, but most of the work (building mounts/chopping bulkhead) I need to do even if I'm keeping the same shocks I had before. For the sake of a bit of extra work in the axle spacers, the car will drive better for it . The extra costs of the longer shafts and longer steering bits are fairly insignificant extra on top of the normal 300m halfshafts for example and Gwyn's SUMO Bars are very well priced. I know I've got some compromises in places.... but overall I'm trying to make the best engineered combination to end up with it driving as well as it can on big rubber. The axle spacers reducing the fore/aft movement of the wheel is just an added bonus which will make the throttle pedal work a bit easier.

Would be interesting to know the actual offset of the vehicles you mention though. I've got -5ET on the wheels but and I'm going to end up at 50mm spacer. So that would be an equivalent of -55ET which is a huge amount. Most mods etc out there are -32ET at worst.

[Bowie69]

OK, so whack the 14" shocks in.

Then the only issue is you chop an inch or so more out of the bulkhead.

So... for a inch or so's worth of trimming, you are willing to spend probably thousands of pounds spacing out the axles instead of the wheels...

That, and it is quite possible that the axle tube isn't really designed for that....

Then come against the legal position -

"Yes officer, I bolted these spacers on, looks like one has failed"

"OK son, not your fault by the looks of things."

versus:

"I machined a spacer for each corner, bolted it on with my own decision of fasteners, and fabricobbled stuff together to get it all to work"

"*RIGHT*... where is that book...."

As for the offset, a 16x10 rim, which is often fitted to LR with 12.5" wide tyres is -32 offset.

IIRC my mates 90 ran 16x10 Mach 5s, no idea what the offset was, but it was BIG.

 

*edit* Mach 5 copies are -32 as well: http://vi.raptor.ebaydesc.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemDescV4&item=272962110341&category=179679&pm=1&ds=0&t=1522255615000&ver=0

 

 

 

 

[elbekko]

18 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

That, and it is quite possible that the axle tube isn't really designed for that....

How would the load on the axle change compared to regular spacers? Plus, he's already far outside of design constraints with the 37s.

[Bowie69]

As the swivel pin would move out, any thumps on the wheel will transmit more force to the swivel mounting flange, if the swivel was where it should be, the force would be less.

Same goes for any hydro steering setup.

Granted though, the biggest ptoblem is the 37s