By Wayne on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:24 am: Edit

I'm looking at setting up a three link on the front of my 95 Discovery, we are currently running 35" tires but looking for more articulation in the front. Does anyone have any comments about Safari gards 3-link.
Is it reliable, or do I need to take my welder out on the trails with me.
Is it an easy installation and come complete or is a bit of custom fabrication required to make it work properly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Kevin K on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 07:19 am: Edit

I can't wait to get home from work and see the replies on this one.Go ahead Kyle!

By Joshua Weinstein on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:11 am: Edit

I want to see some pictures. 35's I cant believe that one.

By Mike Baumann on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:14 am: Edit

1-Yes, people have comments about it.
In Fall 2000 I put one one. I have been satisfied with the results.
You should get more articulation because you are relieving the trailing arm bushings of off axis loading. How much does this increase articulation? Not doing a head to head comparison, I don't know. The kinematics say it should be better.
2-Mine has been reliable so far. My assessment is that the design is acceptable. However, anyone running 35s on a disco may have many items, beyond the front suspension geometry, that may require on trial rebuilding / welding.
3-The installation may be easy. Mine was almost very easy. One part (The steering rod cover) did not fit. My understanding is that SG's jigs are based off of one disassembled LR. The parts fit that one LR perfectly, but do not seem to come with designed in slop to account for LR manufacturing tolerances over a population of tens of thousands of vehicles. You may need to grind down, trim, or refabricate some pieces. No worry though, the fit was easy to dry check before assembly. (I had one flange repositioned on the cover). In my world, tight fit (match machined / drilled) assemblies are always preferred for strength. I prefer the closer tolerance design that may need custom installation aids over a loose assembly held in place by fender washers and friction from bolt preload. Mechanics may gripe over the extra work, but we structures engineering folks love a tight fit.
Unlike others who expect a first time is perfect, 100% no problem, mass consumer mass market product from SG, I have looked on them as I look on my pattern, die, machine, and fabrication shop vendors. In low volume, custom engineered products (aircraft is my background) a lot of things need rework, and schedules are hard to keep. Compared to my aircraft industry vendors SG has been an exceptionally good company to deal with.

Mike Baumann
97 Disco
Huntington Beach
KC6KBC

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:17 am: Edit

Wayne,

I am sure this is a bate (prove me wrong and show us some pics!) but to answer your questions.

1. Bolts right up
2. There were some prototype failures early on but since the introduction of the new crossmember I have not heard of any problems. This being said Kyle like to call it the "lawn chair" as he thinks that it folds like one.
3. You should always take your welder on the trail (if you have a trail welder).
4. Personally I think it is really cool but they are not getting 900 of my money for a couple inches of front flex.

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:23 am: Edit

OK , Mike , as an engineer , explain to me how you think that Lawn Chair handles the loads inflicted on it under hard braking. You dont see the load deflection on the magic center link under braking?

Kyle

By gil on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:28 am: Edit

sounds like bait to me to...please no more about 35's. If you really need to run 35s buy a Superduty and save yourslef alot of trouble.

By Parker Garrett (Parker) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Not to get off of the "3-link" subject but I've been thinking of trying something a little different for the front end and want your thoughts and ideas. Has anybody ever tried to lengthen the front radius arms by say... 10 or 12 inches? Sleave the arms maybe 3 or 4 times and either mount them to the frame via the rover bushing or hell, even a heim joint. You see it done all the time on early broncos and I've seen them work well. What do you think? Anybody have any experience with this?

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Parker,

I have thought about it. Then my head hurt too much and I did not want to cut up my frame (110 is on a galvanized frame). My thought was I could move the radius arms inboard and improve turning radius and mount them to the bottom of the frame on Heim joints or fabitron style joints, chop up the panhard rod, lengthen it and replace the ends with Johnny joints. But like I said, my head hurt and I realized I am 2000 miles from the nearest rock so I just bolted the front axle on and am paciently waiting for what Rovertym comes out with. The one bronco trick that has worked well FWIH is the hinged arm but I figured I would loss turning radius with it as there are 1/2 or so sleeves on the sides.

Ron

By Mike Baumann on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 02:54 pm: Edit

(Note : sorry if this is a double post, but site did not seem to take it the first time -M)

Kyle -
You almost have it right. For the baseline suspension the critical feature would be trailing arm bending at the axle connection. For the SG it would be the ENTIRE centre link train. This would be both the centre link in buckling, and the frame member clevis in buckling. ( I have never seen a failed SG setup, but I infer from postings that it was the clevis at the frame member that failed.)
Buckling formula per Roark & Young, Sixth edition (Structure formula bible)
Assume steel at E = 29 Msi, v=0.3

To properly answer you, I will need finally get off my ass and measure things. In the mean time I can give you the formula and some sample calculations with assumptions for unmeasured items.

m = 6000 lb, front brakes only at a=1.0 g
Pwheel = 3000 lb,
M @ wheel= Pw x Rtyre = 3000 x 17 = 51,000 inlb

From the factory :
L trailing arm = 24.0 in (guess)
P at frame reaction = Ma / L = 2167 lbs
Arm section = 1.0 in thick, 2.5 in high (guess)
P critical for Arm Buckling (R&Y Table 34.12)
(P transverse at free end, M max at fixed end)
Pc = .669*w*h*((1-.063w/h)*E*G)^.5 = 168,000 Lbs
Pc greater than P applied.
Thus, stock arm will not buckle.
Max stress = Mc/I = 50,200 psi for the above assumptions

From SG :
Centre Link
Tangential distance side arms to centre link
TD = 5.0 in (guess)
P link (pinned joint) = M/TD
P centre link = 102000/5 = 20,400 lbs axial
P side trailing arms = 1/2 Pcl = 10,200 lbs axial

Unsupported centre link span = 10 in (guess)
for each of two sleeved members
D tube = 1.25 in
t wall of tube = 0.125
A = .441 sqin
I = 0.0708 in^4
P critical for Arm Buckling (R&Y Table 34.1b)
(P axial, simply supported ends)
K = 1.00
Pc = K*pi^2*E*I/L^2
Pc = 202,500 lbsPc greater than P applied
Thus the centre link should also not buckle.
Max Stress = P/A = 50,700 psi for the above assumptions.

Clevis
P clevis = Pcl / 2 = 10,200
w clevis = 0.25 (guess)
h clevis = 2.5 in (guess)
L clevis = 3.0 in (guess)

I = 0.00326 in^4 (week axis)
P critical for Arm Buckling (R&Y Table 34.1a
(P axial, simple support to fixed end)
K = 1.00
Pc = K*pi^2*E*I/L^2
Pc = 103,500 lbs
Pc greater than Papplied
Thus the clevis should also not buckle.
Max Stress = P/A = 14,800 psi

The clevis appears to be the easiest piece to underestimate and produce too weekly (I think it is still the critical joint in the load chain). The current design does appear to be acceptable.
The other members appear to be of similar strength.

I also think the heavy braking is not a critical design case. Much higher loads than braking' (.5 to .7 g real world) may be imposed by running into fixed vertical walls (curbs for mall crawlers). The failure under aircraft landing conditions (jumping the yellow snapper) would also be the result of a severely out of envelope condition. I wouldn't jump the stock LR either. Those forces are beyond what anything this side of Ivan Stewart's stadium truck should take (and they break those things most every event).

Yours for fun with math -
- Mike
Mike Baumann
97 Disco
Huntington Beach
KC6KBC

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:03 pm: Edit

maybe we could get that again, in ENGLISH this time....

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

I'd be very interested to see your calculations again after you replace estimated variables with actual measurements. Please post again!

Thanks,
Blue Gill
1996 SD
Stock suspension (other than springs/shocks), but interested in upgrading *critical* components.

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Gil, math is the only truly universal language...no need to convert to english!

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Do you think you could include a

slam on the brakes and turn into the calculations.
It puts it beyond my math skills but I would like to see what you figure out. Also, maybe you could comment on the potential for failure at the frame mounting points of the crossmember, or perhaps they are upgraded and I don't know it.

Ron

More Math More Math!!!!!

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Bill, then you got to convert it to something...cause lord knows my brain cant make neither here nor there of it....

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Gil,

In english what he says translates into:

"It ain't a lawn chair"

Ron

By samara on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:57 pm: Edit

forget $G and the lawn chair...show me the 35s!

By nadim on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Wayne...
where are those pictures!
you bring fuel to the fire and never show up any more?

By John on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

In your clevis formula....Max Stress=P/A.....
I didnt see the value for A anywhere? Help us out?

By Mike Baumann on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:16 pm: Edit

John - A(area) of clevis = w(width) x h(height)
- Mike

By mike baumann on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Ron - Turning while braking should not affect trailing arm / link loads very much.
The lateral accelerations in turning would be reacted by the lateral link. Total load is limited by max acceleration of the tyre (in turn limited by coefficient of friction).
The trailing links should take for-aft load almost exclusively. This is because the lateral and trailing links are decoupled from each others direction of travel by lug orientation, rod end bearings and bushings.
There will always be some cross coupling, but it will be very small in comparison to the primary load path.
Happy Motoring -
- Mike
Mike Baumann
97 Disco
Huntington Beach
KC6KBC

By Wayne on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:29 pm: Edit

It's great to see such an entertaining debate, I'm happy to show you some pictures, but not sure how you post them on this type of discussion page. Let me know how.
Just so you know how we fit the 35's under the guards;
2" body lift, with strengthened body mounts.
18" custom springs
Matched dual shocks on all four corners
Guards cut and flaired by a good panel beater, but we could have installed aftermarket bolt on flairs if we hadn't got the panel work done.
Otherwise we run standard trailing arms front and back with M.Lee dual shock towers in the front.
There you go, 35's under the guards.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Mike , I see you are like any other engineer and what you do your calculations on means very little for what I am speaking. I am speaking about the rotational force the housing applies to the links when you hit the brakes, Obviously this force is increased with bigger meats. If you look at a profile of the mounting points at the housing end you can easily see that the links are not positioned to deal with the force as they should be. There is a serious amount of load deflection on the center link that ultimately compounds the force applied to it under braking. I am not talking about the axle housing coming straight back under hard braking , I am talking about it spinning first and then coming on back. That center link only needs to move/bow/bend a very little bit to allow this to happen. You see what I am getting at?

Kyle

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Wayne,

Email them to

hochung@discoweb.org

And Ho will put you in the Photo Gallery

2 door disco or 4 door disco?

How do you like the MJ Lee stuff, did you get them in stock hieght towers or longer than stock.

Cheers
Ron

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:52 pm: Edit

35s and standard OEM trailing and radius arms...?@#$?$

By Ron on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:58 pm: Edit

How much rotational force can a braking axle put on the links though? What is the vertical distance between the center link and the outside links.

As for the turning, I was thinking about the amount of horizontal movement allowed by the bushings.

Cheers
Ron

By Wayne on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Ron
We run a two door Disco but a mate runs a four door with the bolt on flairs and 34's.
The MJ Lee towers have been very impressive. I believe we have the stock height towers as there is still about 5" of clearance to the underside of the bonnet. The only thing we have ever had to watch are the connecting bolts. After a few big hits they do stretch and need re-tightening on the trail and replacing when you get back to the workshop. We also found it necessary to strengthen the spring plate to the chassis, as it fatiqued and nearly tore off.

Regards

Wayne

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Ron , the amount of force is pretty great. I dont mean under every day stop and go shit. I mean 70mph stabbing the brakes hoping not to crush that mini van full of kids that just pulled in front of you kind of braking. IN that situation if the missing link starts to fail , it will fail complete. I dont think there has been such a thing as a partial falure of the lawn chair. WHen they fail the failure is complete and overwhelming.

Kyle

By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Wayne:

It sounds like you are in the UK, is this Disco used in off road racing, or is it street legal? Just curious..... (Can't wait to see pictures)

By Wayne on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 07:13 pm: Edit

The vehicle is street legal, I am based in Australia. The car is used in 4x4 competitions in Australia, New Zeland and Malaysia. Our number one vehicle is a two door Range Rover on a Discovery chassis, this vehicle has won the 1999 Australian Outback Challenge, 2000 Malaysian Rainforest Challenge. But it is being retired with the Disco to take its place.

Regards

Wayne

By Alan on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Wayne,

Who makes the "bolt on" fender flares for the larger fender cutouts for the 4 door Disco? Phone number? E-mail?

Thanks,
Alan Stuart

By Mike on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 09:44 pm: Edit

I talked to John at Rovertym earlier this week. He just put 33" tires on his Disco and is moving to 35" tires real soon. There are pictures of his Disco with 33" tires on it on his website. Check out the following link: http://www.rovertym.com/photos/cre.html

His is the last picture on the page. I guess if anybody knows the issues involved with putting 35" tires on a Disco, it would be John.

Thanks,
Mike

By Mike Baumann on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:21 am: Edit

Folks, I have the measurements.

Perhaps the details would better be shown with Free Body Diagrams (pictures are worth a thousand words). Thats for the archive later, for now :

TD = 4.25 in, P max is now 24,000 lbs to react 102,000 in lb moment, (close enough to old calcs). The former conclusions are still valid. This design does have enough wheelbase to react the moment.

Clevis is even stouter than I remembered. .25 thick, two anchoring gussets. I may be corrected, it is probably not the weakest link now.

Kyle is worried about an overcentre travel (like a marmon clamp). To achieve that the centre link would have to compress .998 inch and swing 26 degrees. (4.25 inch arc at 9.5 inch from axle centre) Max deflection of the steering rod tube is .28 in if free, but since it is tied to the diff. housing, lets use .050 for entire axle and guard as a system. axial deformation of the link is .031 (=PL/AE), and the frame member deflects less than .003 in. (R&Y table 3.1d) total deformation = .084 in, less than 10% of what it would take to fold over. Conclusion, nope, can't happen.

I suspect that the fold over idea came from looking at the early failed units. If the centre frame member clevis failed on these units, the front suspension would be free to rotate, and the broken truck would end up with the members in the folded over position. I feel confident that the fold over is a secondary failure effect, only visible after primary link fails.

There is one very important point of Kyle's, with the 3 link, as with any other suspension system we use, a falure of any one of the load paths (lateral or trailing links and their attachments) will result in a catastrophic failure. Whatever you use, make certain that it is assembled correctly and in good working order.

As to nightmares of 70 mph braking and Church Busses on I5:
The braking force load case analyzed here is the result of maximum deceleration of 1g (tyre limiting) that maximum deceleration can exist from 10 to 0 mph as well as 70 to 0. The force is the same, at higher speeds you can just experience it for longer, giving you more time to poop your pants. If you can panic stop from 20 without buckling your vehicle, you can do it from 100. (assuming enough room and brake power).

OK Enough for tonight.
Pleasent Trails-
- Mike

Mike Baumann
97 Disco
Huntington Beach
KC6KBC

By quaddrive on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 04:11 am: Edit

Wayne,
I too am based in Australia(W.A), I am running a 76 2 door range rover with coilover shocks all round, 36mm 4140 chrome moly solid bar 1100mm long trailing arms in the rear. For the front i fabbed up a three link along the lines of the sg one. It uses the stock radius arms with the forward bushing cut off, 10mm bracketing and a 8mm wall rock guard that ties on to the diff and radius arm brackets. I made a new cross member of 100mm x 100mm x 6mm wall square tube with fixings and brackets of 10mm.The centre link is again 36mm 4140 chrom moly solid with 3/4" heim joints on it.This system yeilds some awesome articulation from both the front and back and i feel is very strong and is in the process of being approved by RTA here in W.A.
I used to run 12" bilstein coilovers all round, 38" swampers and a 3.9 V8. The vehicle currently is being converted to 16" front sway-a-way coilovers and 14" bilstein rears. The motor is also now a 5.0l rover v8 running wolf fuel injection.
What motor are you running?
Are you running arb or maxis and which axles?
Which cv's are you running and are they failing?
I am running 110 county cv's but with an auto and am having no problems with them(yet).
The three link i fabbed is good in that it utilises the stock arms that are strong enough and an extremely strong centre link and attatchments to the frame, which i feel and the consulting engineer feel are amply strong enough.
One thing to bare in mind is that the 3 link will increase body roll which may need the fitting of heavier springs etc.
Looking at the sg rock guard etc ( a guy over here has them on his disco)they do not look strong enough and i would agree with Kyle in summising that it is similar to a lawn chair.
Regards
Giles Lilley

By Wayne on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 06:53 am: Edit

Giles,
We run a high compression 4.7 rover block built by AMV in Melbourne, with a aftermarket engine management system which delivers 205 HP at the rear wheels.
We have run Maxi-drives for years and never had a problem but just recently have switched to ARB and some special new axles ARB are developing to distribute with their diff locs. The whole set up is still being tested by ourselves, the final test will be how it performs in the Tuff truck Challenge in NSW on the 25 May.

We ran the 110 Cv's but broke them more than too many times so recently we tried a new setup. Using standard Range Rover CV's, (which are a hell of alot cheaper than 110's) and a custom stub axle from Maxi-drive, made from the same steel as the Maxi-drive axles. After using them in Malaysia last year and hitting a stump on the front left at full lock, under power coming out of a bog hole the steering box input shaft twisted but the axles and CV's stood up to it.
The 5.0lt will give you enough power to snap 110 CV's easily, I would suggest a change as described.

By the way do you know Cass Jones, as an active 4wheeler from WA, I just thought I'd ask. And yes I know how big the joint is.


Alan Stuart - the flairs are made by 'Rangie Spares' in Melbourne. I don't know if they have a web site but a ph: +61 394644094 and fax +61 39464 4095


Regards

Wayne

By quaddrive on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 08:32 am: Edit

Wayne,
Thanks for the info on the cv's. Do you run original cv's or aftermarket?
Are you running the simex centipedes? How doy you like them?Do you prefer one tyre to another?
Yes I know Cass, I bought some trekker 2"s and some 34x9.5 swampers from him for another rangie project.
What do you think of his patrol?
Looks a fairly capable vehicle once he gets everything sorted.
Was talking to Cass about organising some sort of nationally recognised competition over here but will have to wait and see.
Why the switch from rangie to disco? Do you run the same sort of cv setup in the disco?
With the arb/axle combo is it projected to be stronger than maxidrive or just a competitor?
How do you find the arb in terms of reliability etc.
Regards and Thanks
Giles Lilley

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Mike , you braking theory is not correct either. I dont have a wonderfull equation for it but the shock of a high speed brake stomp is much more strenuous then a low speed. One of the factors is weight transfer. More weight will transfer to the front in a high speed braking instance. That will in turn give the front paws more grip and therefore will transfer more energy to the links.Thats the problem with engineers , they work off of static measurements , not real world. You cant read whats happening there in a book or be taught it in a class.
You have an equation for how much more ground pressure the tires have under a 70 MPH "Holy shit" stop ? How about the leverage increase as the tire size is increased? How about both increasing at the same time as tire width increases with tire height..How about the transfer on a disco that has a loaded roof rack vs a disco with a loaded cargo area? The Disco with the loaded roof rack will have a much higher rate of weight transfer. These are variables that you arent going to find in a book. The thickness of the links/bolts/mounts and thier load capacity depends greatly on the enviroment they are used in. A certain part can be very strong when force is applied in a certain way , but be like butter when the direction of force changes... Its not static at all...

Kyle

By Alan Stuart on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Wayne,

Thanks for the phone number for Rangie Spares. They have not replied to my e-mail inquiries, so I'll try the phone. One more question: How is it that you don't break your CVs with stronger stub axles? Are the CVs you use the ones that mate to the larger diameter 23 spline inner axle, or the newer and smaller diameter 32 spline?

Thanks, and regards,
Alan Stuart

By nadim on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit

guys...
what is the URL, email of rangie spares please....thanks in advance...

By quaddrive on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Alan,
Yes the cv's that wayne and i run are the 23 spline ones, these are substantially stronger than the 32 spline smaller ones, the main problem with the 110 county cv's is that the cv and stub shaft are all in one, this means you increase the strength of the cv but still have the weak stub shaft which from what i can gather is where with upgraded cv's and axles, the next failing point is, so upgrading this with a hytuff stub solves that problem. I have not experienced a failure with the 110 county cv but wayne assures me with my engine power and tyre size that i will. Thus i will do the upgrade to the rr cv and hytuff stub (the rr cv's are much cheaper than the 110 cv's anyway)once i break a 110 cv.
Regards
Giles Lilley

By Wayne on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Giles,

We run stcok Rangie cv's, one of the reasons being if they did fail we can replace them anywhere in the world from a Land Rover dealer, but they also appear strong enough soo far. Make sure you only use new cv's, not second hand as they do fateque over the years.


We run the simex centipedes, I think they are the best thing on the market for 35" size. Swampers don't even come close on slippery clays, and for climbing steep hills cover in wet clay with large rocks sticking out everywhere they kick arse. I think the tires being a semi direction tread helps as they allow you to manovre through the best line where the swampers/boggers have little or no lateral stability, so side slopes can be exciting.

Cass has made a great job of the Patrol, in Malaysia it looked very capable, and with the new engine he is droping into it I'll be interested to see how it performs.

We are switching to a disco for few reasons, one being or Rangie body is soo dented, damaged and rough. The Disco is also a little lighter and 15years less wear and tear. We are running the ARB diffs in the disco, they are being tested in the Rangie.

I think ARB recognised a short fall in there air lockers, as they were breaking standard axles with air lockers installed. So to complete the installation package and eliminate negative feedback such as 'air lockers are breaking axles'they are developing these axles as an additional aftermarket option to suit the air locker. Therefore it will be a competitor for maxi drive, but if we can't break them and we also can't break maxi drive than which is stronger ?
We haven't given the ARB lockers a really hard core run yet, nut I can't foresee any problems with reliabiltiy. Hope fully the tough truck challenge will prove their strength although we will not being making many points in the snow'n'shine section with the Rangie.

Catch you latter

Wayne

By Wayne on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Giles,

We run stock Rangie cv's, one of the reasons being if they did fail we can replace them anywhere in the world from a Land Rover dealer, but they also appear strong enough soo far. Make sure you only use new cv's, not second hand as they do fatigue over the years.


We run the simex centipedes, I think they are the best thing on the market for 35" size. Swampers don't even come close on slippery clays, and for climbing steep hills cover in wet clay with large rocks sticking out everywhere they kick arse. I think the tires being a semi direction tread helps as they allow you to maneuver through the best line where the swampers/boggers have little or no lateral stability, so side slopes can be exciting.

Cass has made a great job of the Patrol, in Malaysia it looked very capable, and with the new engine he is dropping into it I'll be interested to see how it performs.

We are switching to a disco for few reasons, one being or Rangie body is soo dented, damaged and rough. The Disco is also a little lighter and 15years less wear and tear. We are running the ARB diffs in the disco, they are being tested in the Rangie.

I think ARB recognised a short fall in there air lockers, as they were breaking standard axles with air lockers installed. So to complete the installation package and eliminate negative feedback such as 'air lockers are breaking axles'they are developing these axles as an additional aftermarket option to suit the air locker. Therefore it will be a competitor for maxi drive, but if we can't break them and we also can't break maxi drive than which is stronger ?
We haven't given the ARB lockers a really hard core run yet, nut I can't foresee any problems with reliability. Hope fully the tough truck challenge will prove their strength although we will not being making many points in the snow'n'shine section with the Rangie.

Catch you latter

Wayne

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 08:19 pm: Edit

you guys need to post some pics, I want to see these rigs.

By quaddrive on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Wayne,
Thanks for the info on the tyres and cv's.
Cass is running the centipedes and they do look an awesome tyre. There is one other guy running them over here, 6 vehicles from our club will be competing against 6 from his club, so we shall see what is the best tyre as there will be trekker 2's, baja claws, swampers, centipedes, ground hawgs and boggers, im sure some will handle different areas better than others and vice versa.
What do the baja claws work like?
What transmission do you run?
I'm running a zf auto.
Did you decide whether to three-link or not to? If you get one custom fabbed or use sg then the good thing is that if you dont like it or it isnt what you expected then you can simply revert back to normal by unbolting it.
Do you run the 3.54 diff ratio and change the high range transfer case to diesel or do you run different diff ratio?
Cass was mentioning that the organisers or the Outback challenge etc. were trying to set up a competition in each state to make a national competition, do you know anything on this?
Regards and Thanks
Good Luck in TTC
Giles Lilley

By Wayne on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Giles,
Let me know how the comp turns out and tell Cass I said G'day.
I am not at all impressed by the Claws in what we do, they are quite good on sand as they don't dig like the Simex but they are useless on side angles and wet clays in the High Country.
We run the original four speed in the Rangie, with a roller bearing kit through it, the Disco will run the standard five speed, they seem to handle the power well, though a few guys have broken them. The best box is still the Nissan GQ for indestructibility, there is a standard kit to fit them to Land Rovers available know.
Still bouncing the Three Link idea around, this has given me some new aspects to consider.
We have just setup the 4.1 diffs and have the lower gears in the Rangie transfer to drop the ration even more.
The National competition is something we are all keen to see take off, with the same rules and tyre size limits to keep it even across the country. Currently we are limited to 36x12.5 as a general rule.
I have a web site set up, with all the competition pics in it, but they are changing DNS providers so it has been down for the last week. I hope it will be up and running this week. I'll let you know.

All the best

Wayne

By Discosaurus on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 11:28 am: Edit

TO MIKE BAUMANN:

Mike - I'm following your calculations with
interest. This is the first time I can recall
anyone actually doing a stress analysis on the
3-link (it's possible $G didn't even do a full
one).

Could we move this to a new thread to get it
out of the way of all that 35" I can/no you can't
crap ??

BTW - in the few early failures of the $G 3-link
(2 if I remember correctly - all in competition)
it was the stock LR cross member or the weld to
same that failed. Since $G started shipping a
stronger aftermarket cross member, they have not
been able to break one that I know about.

keith
discosaurus

By Richard Hills on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

Wayne,

In your opinion, is the cv part of the range rover cv as strong as the 110 cv (i.e., not the stub shaft)? Does Mal plan to go into production with the custom stub shaft for the RR cv?

By the way, I am running Maxi-drive axles front and rear with my ARB's, stronger cages in the cv's, and have twisted a rear axle and shattered a front axle/cv. This is while rockcrawling in a d90 on 35".

Rich Hills

By quaddrive on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Rich
I cant speak for Wayne but i was speaking to Mal Story from Maxi Drive and according to him the only real difference between the 110 county cv and the pre 87? range rover cv was that the 110 cv had the std axle material as a stub attatched to the cv, whereas the rr cv can have a hytuff shaft in place of the std stub and as a bonus the cv's are about 1/3-1/4 of the price.
As far as the breakages go the front is understandable as even with the hardened cage the point where the 23 spline cv and axle join is still the weakest point. I have heard of this a few times, as the cv breaks it shatters and in so doing often takes the axle splines at least out with it.
In australia the maxi drive axles that you guys run are not marketed. That is if you want a maxi drive locker and your vehicle does not have at least the early rr cvs(ie pre 87?) then you either upgrade cvs or dont have a locker. Maxi Drives opinion of the 32 spline cvs is such that they are not suitable for a locked diff and so Mal will not make lockers for vehicles so equipped.
With the rear this is more interesting as there are only roumours of a failure or two and these were on BIG horespower vehicles with BIG tyres.
I myself run maxidrives front and rear and have no fear of breaking an axle even with my 38's and 5.0litre rover v8. If Wayne chimes in later then he may be able to shed some light on the matter.
Not wanting to sound rude, are you sure they were maxi drive axles and not ashcroft or other such.
If indeed they were maxi drive then i would get on to where you got them and get them to get in contact with maxi drive in aust or do it yourself as when i first spoke to Mal he said that if there was an axle failure then he would be very interested in hearing about it, he may do the right thing by you but he may not, however it is worth a try.
Regards
Giles Lilley

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 09:04 pm: Edit

I think Rich twisted his rear when it was wedged (trapped)in some rocks and he tried to climb out. Its a different sort of strain then you get in mud and sand..


Kyle

By Richard Hills on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 10:43 am: Edit

Giles,

Thanks for the information. What does it take to convert from the stock set-up to the early RR set-up? Just a RR different drive member? Or is the spindle of a different length?

According to GBR, they were from Maxi-Drive. I also visited with Mal by e-mail about the axle and I believe Bill Davis had already told him about it. Doug Marbourg also twisted one of his rear Maxi-Drive axles (don?t know if Bill or Mal know about this one yet). Both of us got a rear tire wedged against a rock which is a surprisingly common occurrence in extreme rock crawling. In both cases, one can tell that we are stressing an axle, but until we twist one, we don?t know how much they can take.

Rich Hills

By quaddrive on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Rich,
The conversion is quite simple, the spindle is the same length and i.d the only modifications apart from the axles are some slight clearancing of the cv endfloat control bush in the spindle and a new drive member. If you want precise details( cant remember off hand as i did it a while back) then get in touch with maxi drive.

With the twisting did it actually break?
A while back i spoke to mal and he suggested that the axles were easily able to do in excess of 360 degrees in twist before any detrimental effects showed.
I assume you are doing a lot of slick rock work. I do not have a lot of experience on that but a friend over here has a similar rig to mine. Maxi drives, 38's etc but he has a 383 chev engine dynoed to 430hp. He fairly frequently selects c/d lock f/r lockers dials up 4000rpm and dumps his clutch for 4x 38" swamper burnouts on pavement, he has had no failures of axles but he now blows transfer cases and salisbury(read dana 60) ring gear instead.
What i'm suggesting is that the axles are pretty good. I would appreciate you letting me know if you or doug actually broke or just twisted axles and how you knew that you had twisted them or if you visually inspected them.
Also there is a little problem over here with the axles and drive members in that the bolts that hold the drive members have on occasion under high load situations sheared. Some of us are now substituting the std High tensile bolts for grade 12 socket head screws to prevent this.
Hope ive helped
Giles Lilley

By Richard Hills on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 11:31 am: Edit

Giles,

I twisted the splines at the ARB 10 degrees. I don't know what the corresponding axle twist was, but the axle did slide out easily. Doug twisted the splines sufficiently at the ARB that it took some work to get the rear axle out. After I think I overload an axle, I pull it when I get home and inspect it. I was with Doug when I think he twisted his axle. He stresses it hard and I suggested he inspect it when he got home. He did this about a month later after doing some more 4x4ing.

The stress slick rock puts on our axles (at Moab for example) is less than the stress we put on our axles here in Las Cruces (however, we don't drop clutches) and it is mostly due to torque effects when something hangs up while climbing very rough falls while we are slipping clutches. I run Maxi's transfer case gear set, 4:10s. Doug has 4:7s with an automatic - and he was very hard on the gas while hung up when I think he twisted his axle.

However, we are not the extreme of the extreme bunch. These are the ARCA boys. The destroy 35 spline Dana 60s. But they also heavy on the throttle - but mostly autos.

Rich