By Mike on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Anyone know anything about Rock Ware suspensions? Thanks for posting your info.

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 06:54 am: Edit

it's not as beefy as the Rovertym stuff but does a similar job.

By Mike on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 07:29 am: Edit

Is anyone running the Rock Ware stuff??

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 07:59 am: Edit

If you go and look out "The window" that all junk gets thrown out (Like the airforce one) you should see a whole pile of mangled rockware.. Do yourself a favor and skip it. If slinking is your thing I think rovertym has that covered..

Kyle

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:08 am: Edit

Kyle,

What RW stuff have you broken? What have you thrown out "the window." Most people who get rid of it are basically going back to a non-slinky suspension not because it failed in any way.

Ron

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:17 am: Edit

Mike-
I use RW's upper and lower rear shock mounts as well as the drop kit and pinion protection front and rear. all parts have been installed over 2 years with absolutely no problems. I'd feel better buying from a guy that actually came up with the concept rather than someone who just took that idea and changed it around. Don't get me wrong here! I use a few Rovertym pieces on my rig as well. I think you'll be happy with either company. c'mon Kyle, to put RW in the same category as AF1? funny how RT uses the exact same concept that RW came out with years ago.

eagerly waiting for the hate mail follow ups.
Tom

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:30 am: Edit

Tom,

No hate mail here. Happy with the sliders, pinion gaurd and fuel tank skid plate. As sad as it may be for kyle to acknowledge SG came out with most of the ideas first, of course they took those from other vehicles stuff. Remember Desert Rover? Same idea. Drive up the ramp and look real cool. Of course people in the UK have been doing this kinda stuff since the 80s. Little different but the same principal.

Ron

By al hang on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 09:17 am: Edit

I have the rockware setup posted on this site under the tech section. I was one of the first to get it and will be one of the last to trash it. Too many problems, too noisy, too many friends with broken trucks. The mounts are weak and the cones are noisy. John from Rovertym also had Rockware but his system is much better. All the material is thicker and his cones are bolt on and silent. Just call rovertym and call it a day. If you have more questions you can email me directly.

-al

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 09:56 am: Edit

Ron , LOL , there have been way more then a few clunkware failures.. Are you so far out of "The loop" that you dont know of any at all? Bent cones , broken mounts , bent mounts and so on.. Rob has some pics of a detroyed RW setup that came off of hos truck and he has never done anything really rough with his truck.. That should say enough.
Tom,,
You telling me rockware came up with long travel suspension???? Damn , I didnt give them enough credit,,,they must be a very old buisness.. You figure they would have made that shit better if they have been doing it since its birth....

Kyle

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:02 am: Edit

Kyle,
The cones do suck seen them bent but still functional, albeit loud.

Never heard of bent mounts but if you know better . . .

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:05 am: Edit

Yes , bent uppers and ripped off/ bent lowers. Exactly how was it a good idea to lower the lower mount? Can someone explain to me the logic in doing that in a game where ground clearance is key? I dont think I would want to lay claim to that one...


Kyle

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:10 am: Edit

Kyle it allows the wheel to go way below where it normally is and you look cool when you drive up a ramp or lift a corner with a folklift under the wheel.

Duh!!

Ron

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:14 am: Edit

I have met many a hard wheeling at the Cat Dealer, why once they had this extra hilift bucket loader, man that thing nearly flipped the rover in lifted that wheels so hi, but I sure did look cool.

Ron

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:51 am: Edit

Kyle-
in no way do I claim that RW came up with that design, but he was the first to market such a kit in the U.S. ($G crap does not count in my book). give your readers some credit. my reference was to the fact that RT's stuff seems to be a RW knockoff. Yeah RT is beefy. (like I said I have some RT stuff as well) But, adding more metal to someone else's kit? ie.. bigger spacers, bent rear arms, steering relocation kit. It's all just like RW(within reason). It shows a lack of discipline in design.
My RW equipment has been hammered hard for a couple years, quiet operation, no breakage. I did weld in a few places to insure strength, but have no complaints. Some of you sure get defensive concerning RT. WHEEL SPACERS? WTF?
Tom-

By John on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

It shows a lack of discipline in design.

Kinda like Ford invented the auto....now how many choices are there now? Everyone trying to make a product that they feel is a little better because the public wants choices. When my stuff broke, bent and rattled...I made it better for me, then friends...now people like you...RW has their diciplines...SG has their diciplines...None of those deciplines are bad, they fit the owners choices. RT has theirs...We could have stopped at the Model T...

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

Tom , man , how many different ways are there to make an upper shock mount? John should have gotten all complicated and crazy in design to accomplish a simple task ? That makes no sense... Rock ware by no means invented shock mounts nor did they invent/introduce the relocation of them to suit personal needs. Cmon man , think about that...

Kyle

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:22 am: Edit

We could have stopped at the Model T...

We should have stopped at the 1959 LR hehehe

You bring up a good point but most of the stuff done to rovers is so obvious as to not really be considered original. I mean you lift it you bend the arms to suit, obvious. You want more travel you make the shock mount up higher in the back.

More innovative stuff (like the hinged arm, which is actually a bronco trick (PS LR stole the suspension design from ford bronco for the RR in 1970 but improved on it)) and the 3 link (which has been done to TJs and Broncos too. Requires a bit more originality but overall it is just common sense and taking what others have done and adapting it to your preferences.

Ron

Next step ideas:

Replace the rear A frame with a johnny jointed four link style suspension

Relocated Panhard rod mount

Does it mean I am smarty pants for coming up with these, no, they are obvious developments

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit

I think you guys are reading a little too far into the thread. Who knows when or by whom it was invented, I don't care. Let me say again ( for the third time) I use RT equipment as well. John seemed to put it in perspective for me though. let's move on-
Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

LOL...


Kyle

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:35 am: Edit

"I'd feel better buying from a guy that actually came up with the concept rather than someone who just took that idea and changed it around"

I think we read it exactly correct...

Kyle

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:37 am: Edit

kyle or ho or ax, you guys can take the pictures from the files section of discoveryoffroad and paste them in my gallery if you would like.

or you could start a carnage gallery...

i'm sure some poeple would be interested in seeing it.

rd

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:39 am: Edit

Yes carnage gallery. Good.

Have cracked (yes it cracked) fender (new last week) and bent drop SG kit.

Ron

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:45 am: Edit

carnage gallery would be great...

Show the Disco world which components work and which fail.

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

so then apples to apples, who did RW borrow his setup from? And I don't mean long travel suspensions and so on in general, I mean Rover applications containing cones, bent arms, spring spacers, steering relocation etc.. I was trying to show the similarities between RW and RT and why.

Tom

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:48 am: Edit

Tom,

Desert Rover.

Ron

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

And DR took their ideas from what a couple of people did on their own to D90s circa 95-96. If you know the way things went you will know who I am talking about. Exactly who look at a LR and said "man I can build a mount to make that shock sit way up there" we probably won't know, but I can tell you they probably took the idea from a mount they saw on something else. What did Winston Churchhill say about plagerism?

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

So you boys want a section with what went out "the window" ?? I gotta tell ya , its getting pretty cluttered down there...

Kyle

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

I give up. You win
Tom

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:56 am: Edit

uh huh

"Kyle's Window"

I like it!

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:56 am: Edit

The redneck boys and race car boys were doing taht shit long before the land rover crowd in the US. Dont make the topic so narrow and closed to just rovers. Most of these ideas came from use on american cars and trucks as Ron pointed out earlier. I know the Rover wasnt the first thing I ever struck and arch on...


Kyle

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 11:56 am: Edit

I give up. You win

what kind of attitude is that.

Ron

Kyle's window would be good.

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Ron- The attitude is a direct result of a fruitless attempt to convince some of the contributors to this list that there are good choices out there besides RT.
Mike- If you have the patience to read on this far, go with what you like.

I think I remember a post about bent RT springs from a RR owner. whoops, was that out loud?
Tom

By Ron on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Ron- The attitude is a direct result of a fruitless attempt to convince some of the contributors to this list that there are good choices out there besides RT.

I agree, you may never convince Kyle but a lot more people listen than post so hearing different perspectives helps them make informed decisions, otherwise everyone would all still be stuck winching with their REally Slow winches and riding on shot woodhead shocks. So the question then becomes do you want the $275 trailing links or the $150 trailing links? the 175 mounts or the 225 mounts. You get what you pay for, and if you think you need that extra strength get it, if not you will probably be fine with RW, but comparing the two RT looks a little better.

Ron

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 12:35 pm: Edit

I second what Ron said about "a lot more people listen than post so hearing different perspectives helps them make informed decisions"

don't give up - keep in it. Kyle just likes to play devil's advocate

you also almost had me convinced on the value of RW shock mounts, but then I noted that you chose to weld on your own to ensure strength...these kinds of components should come ready-to-be-used-HARD from the manufacturer, which is what RT seems to be doing. I've faced the same issue in my search for a worthy front skid plate - at one time I decided that I'd just get the thickest steel plate I could from whomever and reinforce it on my own (and at my expense), but then I thought, screw that, I'll go without or just fab my own from the ground-up. RW's other stuff (cat skid, pinion guard, stabilizer relocation) looks good...

Trying to figure out who came up with these parts & ideas first is a moot point, since there's only so much room for creative ingenuity (a spring is a spring is a spring).

for what its worth...

By chrisvonc on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 01:31 pm: Edit

I got tons of pictures to add to the failure section if you guys get it going.

By Tom on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 01:54 pm: Edit

FYI-

I did have the opportunity to visit RW's new shop a few months back. Looks like Matt has come up with a few new products as well as some improvements on his earlier products. Strength being the main focus.
Mike- I would advise talking to a few shops personally before dropping any cash.

gentlemen, thanks for the conversation, I'm off to find a forklift to park on top of.
Tom-

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Well , I say what I say because first and foremost the part should be bomb proof. If it boosts performance but will let you down at some point it really isnt worth two shits is it? Its easy to know whats borderline and what will get the job done so why not go that extra little bit and know that the part you are manufacturing will get it done. R&D should take care of any doubts a person has about something they are making before it hits the market , dont you think? John had a spring failure but John doesnt manufacture springs does he? He took the steps to insure in every way that you would get a good spring in the end and I know many that have them and thats just what they got. Have there been any shock mount failures , or for that matter failures of any parts that he has manufactured himself?
I think the slink factor is wasted energy that could be spent more wisely . But if you are going to do it dont compromise any durability , thats just foolish....If you save 50 bucks on a part that will break and leave your ass you havnt really saved a damn thing have you?

Kyle

By chrisvonc on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Well, for me on this topic(or others relating to product dependability), actions speak louder than just reading words or product hype. I know 3 friend who have had the RW stuff of this thread and all 3 have dumped the kits after they failed. One of those failed bad enough to cause additional body damage. So for me, seeing a product do that on 3 differant trucks, in 3 differant parts of the country, in 3 differant terrains of wheeling, and with 3 differant kinds of drivers, tells me to look at other options. Now if new heavier versions of the products are forth coming then I might be interested in seeing how they do but if I had to choice cones right now, I would go to RoverTym's without a 2nd thought.
If the shit is failing for people, no matter how you try to site the marketing hype, scientifc calulations, or theories about how great the product is supposed to be, the fact remain... those people had the breakage and its an issue that, no matter how hard someone attempts to smoke over it, will still be something that exists. Not to start another battle but a perfect example was the last 3-Link debate. We saw more scientific evidence and theory flying around in support of the product, we probably could have proven that Oswald was on the moon at the time JFK was shot. But still, the fact remains, the shit failed and it has failed for others.

By chrisvonc on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 04:44 pm: Edit

"..If you save 50 bucks on a part that will break and leave your ass you havnt really saved a damn thing have you?"

Kyle.. the opposite can be applied as well. Just because the stuff costs a boat load more than others, doesnt mean its going to be the most reliable. A good example in this case would be the Stage III Kit.

By Milan on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Ron: "Next step ideas:

Replace the rear A frame with a johnny jointed four link style suspension "


Why exactly is a triangulated 4-link with joints that wear out quick better than the LR 3 link?

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:22 am: Edit

Milan,

The reason is that with a four link designed like that you can lift the rear higher (at a certain point the stock a frame needs spacers or needs to go and a four link will have better geometry). Thats really the main reason. That and with a four link (two links on top of the rear dif and two new longer trailing arms) you can move the axle back farther and all sort of other stuff that people are starting to do.

Ron

By Pan Hard Head on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:55 am: Edit

So I guess then we have to add a watts linkage or pan hard rod,running out of room and geometry looks like to me....a 3 link like the LR'er cant be beat. Put the frame on jacks, remove the rear arms, take off the tires and watch what that 3 link axle will do,swivels everywhere in a 360 degree radius,cant make it simplier or better.

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:02 am: Edit

Yes the A frame is good but at some point you need more room. A panhard rod or watts linkage is not the next step in the rear. They limit travel considerably (look at the front). A watts is ok (look at the rear of a DII) but a four link is the way to go as it is closest to what is there already.

Ron

By Tom on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 09:06 am: Edit

Ron-
have you looked at avalanche engineering?

http://www.avalancheengr.com/parts/suspension/suspension_start.htm

they specialize in one-off suspensions, rock-buggies, etc...

if you can think it, they can build it.
Tom-

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 09:33 am: Edit

I am well aware of avalanche but its really not my thing for a couple reasons:

1. No rocks here

2. I don't have 20k for a set of axles nor do I need a tube frame chassis (It will warp when I galvanize it hehehehehe )

3. For what I am doing the stock A frame is fine. The most lift on any of my trucks is about 3-4in on the 110 and it is still fine.

Ron

PS Their portal D60s are so cool, to bad volvo did the same thing in the 1970s.

By Tom on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:05 am: Edit

how about hummer geared hubs? i know they are independent, but i imagine the hubs could be grafted to rover axles.(?) It sure would be a lot more work than an axle swap, but I don't see too many Volvo 303's laying around. I've seen new hummer hubs available for around $350.
Just a thought-
Tom-

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit

A very interesting thought. I shall look into it.
Do you know the gearing reduction at the Hub?

Ron

PS if there is a set of 303 axles lying around I will find them

By Tom on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:20 am: Edit

Ron-
3 to 1 at the hub. 3.5 inch drop from axle center line.
Tom-

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:31 am: Edit

No way that would work! Top speed would be like 40-50mph with 35s. Maxi drive is going to make portals with a 1.3 or 1.5 at the hub and a five inch drop. 303s are supposedly something like 5.38 final ratio with the difs an hubs combined. I am looking to run no more that 35s so anything in excess of 6:1 final is unacceptable, maybe 7 or 8 if I get a GKN OD but 3:1 and 3.54:1 is like 10.6:1.

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:33 am: Edit

But I wonder what pinzy hubs are? Ever hear of the agrirover? It was rover axles with portal hubs. Not too far fetched for sure.

Cheers
Ron

By Tom on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:44 am: Edit

Ron- I remember a post on egroups (yahoo) concerning agrirovers, but was never able to find many details. give Jim Molter a shout. he is a pinz owner as well as a roverdork like the rest of us. I'm sure he'll have all the pinz info you need. you can reach him at [email protected]
Tom-

By nadim on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:45 am: Edit

Ron...
Many Lebanese have Range Rovers with Mog portal axles...donno how they fit them there...but I have seen one up close in a 2000 competition...try the photo gallery in www.landroverunion.com, under "union's day...it is a grean RR...
nadim

By nadim on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:51 am: Edit

http://www.landroverunion.com/unionday.htm

this is hte link...it is the green RR with the yellow rack...those are NOT 35s, that is a typo...they are 11.5-20!

The stuck disco in the other pics are yours truely trying out the then new trac edges!

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit

Tom,
Thanks again. I have an article on the agrirover. Basically it was just a conversion with bolt on hubs. What Maxidrive is doing is somewhat similar. The only thing is that argirovers did break the hubs occasionally and of course they made like only 7 or something like that. I can dig it up if you want more info.

Nadim,

I have seen a couple too (most noteably Chemog one of my favorite rovers) but the main thing is that Mog axles are wrong in so many ways for a stock drivetrain rover. The difs are in the wrong place, they spin backwards and they are really over geared and the links are completely wrong. In order to mount them you usually end up transfering a mog drivetrain to a rover or "flipping" the axles so the difs sping right. You will often see them with two front axles and all sorts of other crazy stuff. Me, I just want something differnt. Something that I can run 35s and a couple inches of spring lift on an otherwise stock truck. Something that will keep it somewhat streetable.

Cheers
Ron

By nadim on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Ron, if you find that, then tell me...I BET in Lebanon these Volvo 303 axles exist like hell...so maybe we'll get something oging!
nadim

By Ron on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 11:09 am: Edit

Nadim,

I wonder what shipping from Lebanon to Philadelphia will be. Somehow I doubt that there are any in lebanon but you never know.

Ron

By Tom on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Ron-
do you have any more info on the Maxidrive equipment? .
thanks-
Tom

By Milan on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Ron,
I see what you mean. I guess you could replace the ball joint with radius arm joint or a heim, or if you like them, the Johnny joint.

I agree on the watts linkage and panhard rod.

By Ron on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 03:25 am: Edit

Tom,

Its in the prototype stage now. I have an email about it. Probably be about 4-5k US complete with new half-shaft etc. Email me if you want more info. 5k and I keep the rover housing not such a great idea but . .

Milan,

Yes I guess Hiems would work best but Johnny joints or similar I think its the way it might go.

Ron