By RVR OVR (Tom) on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:11 pm: Edit

OK, here is the challenge I want to put together. After all the blah blah blah going on about slinky suspensions, lockers, lifts, etc. one topic that really should be tested is Slinky vs. Non-Slinky, all other things held equal. To do this, I want to take my truck out to the Badlands in Indiana and hit a lot of the same shit with and without spring retainers of some sort, and then see if the drop kit philosophy (not trying to talk about brands here) is sound or faulty, and in what conditions. My theory is that sometimes it won't help and sometimes it will, but it really won't ever be a hinderance.

Personally, I don't really care which philosophy "wins", because the "winner" will be on my truck at the end no matter what, therefore making my truck better.

I want to set this up to happen in a few weeks or so from now, so if anyone would like to make a road trip out to Indiana to be part of the fun, join in. Also, please respond on this thread with scenarios or input to how the tests should be conducted.

By John Lee on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Tom,

This is a great idea. The debate of retained springs vs. cones has been on the D90 list for quite a while, and we believe that retained is far superior for trail performance. Again, this pertains to locked vehicles. I see from the Gallery that your vehicle has a Detroit Locker as the rear diff, so there is no problem there.

In the spirit of advancing the art and science of offroad suspension design, Expedition Exchange Incorporated is willing to donate a set of spring retainers for the Krispy Kreme Challenge.

If you like, we can ship you a set of of our Expeditionware Spring Retainers for the test. We believe that the RoverTym Quiet Cones are the best of the various cones currently on the market. To make the KKC as fair as possible, we would like it if you would entertain installing the EW Spring Retainers on your vehicle, which we believe are the best of the current spring retainer designs.

The only caveat is that you be as objective as possible and report the results honestly and fairly, which I have faith that you will.

Please contact me if you are interested.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Tom, you know I'll be there

My truck is set up almost identically to yours, except I have clamped springs and you have cones. And yer tires are a little bigger. You even stole my color!

Alex

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit

sadly, here I sit in Phx munching on my Krispy Kreme chocolate-covered glazed with vanilla creme filling........

By Homer J on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:59 pm: Edit

MMMMmmmmmmmm......chocolate-covered glazed with vanilla creme filling........ (drool)

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 01:03 pm: Edit

John,

I have dropped you an email, your donation to the cause is greatly appreciated.

Tom

By John Lee on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Tom,

Thanks for accepting the spring retainer offer.

I think this will be a good test, as the variables will be minimized. The test will utilize the same vehicle, driver, and terrain, and the only change in the vehicle will be the cone vs. retained top of the spring.

I'm not sure what you currently use to retain the bottoms of your rear springs, but it might simpify the test if you use the lower components of our spring retainers in both parts of the test. This would obviate the need to swap out lower retainers in the field, and if your current lower retainers are bent or otherwise damaged, it could affect the results with the cones. I don't think using our spring retainers to retain the bottoms of the rear springs during the cone portion of the test will affect the results when fitting the spring perches with cones.

When conducting the two portions of the KKC, my recommendation would be to be on the lookout for vehicle stability on the obstacles and on the off-camber situations. I doubt that you'll be able to make an obstacle with one set-up and fail with the other. Because your vehicle is equipped with good tires and Truetrac/Detroit differentials, you will probably make the various obstacles with both cones and retainers. Locking differentials are the great leveler and really minimize the affect of suspension on the ability to make an obstacle. Rather, the KKC will probably become a stability contest more than anything.

This was the result in the 1999 Twist-Off competition. If you're looking for testing criteria and results of a very well run test, check out Dr. Rich Hill's write-up on the first Twist-Off's results at: http://www.yellowdefender.com/twist_off_1999/twist_off_result/index.htm

Dr. Rich Hills is extremely knowledgeable about suspension designs and his write-up bears reading as you formulate your own testing criteria.

By Ali on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Tom,

I'll be there - er, with the Rangie (ducking for thrown objects)! My springs are retained with hose clamps for right now until I have the time to make something up.

Assuming ofcourse I'm in town that weekend!

By MA on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Don't forget to video tape the event! If you could, get Four Wheeler and Land Rover magazine to sponser the KKC. I remember that Four Wheeler had an article on the D-90 Twist Off a couple years back.

By Eric N (Grnrvr) on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 06:34 pm: Edit

I will see if I can make it out there just to watch. I'll even bring some Krispy Kremes to feed the bystanders and some good German bratwurst.

By Discosaurus on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 04:31 am: Edit

HeHeHe...

You drop-out suspension guys kill me...

I'll be there ! Just give a little advance
notice as to what weekend.

keith
discosaurus

with long flexy springs securely clamped.

By John Lee on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 07:51 am: Edit

Tom,

The spring retainers are on their way to you. You should receive them in a few days.

I was thinking some more about the KKC methodology last night, and the importance of eliminating as many variables came to mind again.

Before you actually undertake the KKC, you might want to fiddle with both the cones and the retainers and find optimum installations for each so as not to spoil the results of the KKC and the interpretations of same.

The RoverTym cones on your vehicle are probably the best of the current spring cone designs, for several reasons. First, they can be rotated to achieve the maximum amount of smoothness and the minimum amount of noise. Spring cones usually suffer from resonating as the spring unseats, and clanking/banging as the spring reseats. If you optimize the orientation of the RoverTym cones, you can minimize these side-effects during the KKC. Second, the RoverTym cones aren't welded on, so you don't have to F up your vehicle to install them. Also, the bolt-on feature makes them easily replaced and ideal for this test.

For the Expeditionware spring retainers, I would recommend that you try fitting them beforehand, so that you are familiar with how they mount. That way, you'll greatly reduce the possibility of an improper or less-than-optimum install in the field, which could affect the outcome of the KKC. The EW spring retainers are very easy to install. You can find a copy of the installation instructions at: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/retainers/install.htm

Again, I would recommend fitting the lower components of the EW spring retainers for both portions of the test, just to simplify the test and minimize changing parts in the field. I do not believe it would affect the cone portion of the test in any way. However, if you think that it might, please feel free to use your standard lower retainers for the cone portion of the test.

Thanks again for being willing to to run this test.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 09:02 am: Edit

Well , that aint cool cause the stock lowers will bend on a cone truck. Not as bad as on a retained truck but they do pull some because of the angles changing. With severe unretained drop those angles get pretty bad and the housing and the spring are nowhere cloe to a 90. Since the cone keeps the spring from popping outward at the top the little stock retainer must take the brunt of the force... Maybe there are upgraded lowers for the kit you have Tom?


Kyle

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 09:27 am: Edit

No, I am using the stock lowers. My goal here is to see how both setups perform on the trail on certain types of terrain. I wasn't planning on comparing the strength of the different setups or how each could be improved (i.e. beefed up lowers with the cone setup). I don't think that can come out in a one or two day test, unless, of course, something breaks.

In the interest of time, I am planning on installing the EE lower retainers and leaving them on for both tests.

I think another good thing to do for this test will be to include Alex's truck. He currently has his springs retained. While I am testing the retained setup, it would be cool to put my cones on his truck. This way, we can test with a couple different setups and get two separate subjective drivers seat opinions. Works well, too, since I am currently not retained and Alex is. You game, Alex?


Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 09:40 am: Edit

Are your stock lowers pulling yet?

Kyle

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 10:15 am: Edit

I think they were pulling the day I put them on as they were torqued down. They are still tight on the springs.

Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

Yeah , they bow a little when you put em on. Thats some cheese there..

Kyle

By Scott Tschantz (Scott) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Tom , Have you got the date yet? Should be interesting. Alex did you get the lap top?
see ya there

Scott

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Saturday, July 21, 2001 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Scott...not yet...i am going on vacation this week, and will finalize when i get back.\

Tom

By Ali on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 02:53 am: Edit

Tom/Alex,

Bring an extra bottle/floor (small one) jack and few 2"x4" for an easy field installations. I can't wait to see the look on other ORVers when you guys are all huddled around the two trucks! Should be fun.

BTW, has anyone got any input on SG's smaller retaining spring setup? This is the small spring that inside the coil spring thing. Sounds effective from the website.

By MTB on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

Ali
go to window(Kyle's) and see what was thrown out of it.
If you don't plan to run cones go with EE's spring retainers They look very tough.
Ho thats a free be

Michael B

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 06:15 am: Edit

"Ali go to window(Kyle's) and see what was thrown
out of it."

Actually, the drop kit Ali is referring to is made
very much like the EE retainers, with the addition
of the mountain bike spring. I don't think $G
uses the same weak-ass construction that's in the
'standard' retainer.




keith
discosaurus

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 06:18 am: Edit

weelllllll.....

maybe SOME if it is weak-assed !

Actually, you could duplicate this pretty easy.
The spring rate is even visable in pic 1.

I think this is a good comprimise between cones
and retainers !

keith
discosaurus

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 06:37 am: Edit

That thing is interesting Keith. I wonder how it is on reseating though. You ever seen one in action? Seems a bit complicated for a trail rig. I have had to fix some of their less complicated shit enough times now. That thing could be a giant headache...

Kyle

By John Lee on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 06:48 am: Edit

Discosaurus,

"Actually, the drop kit Ali is referring to is made very much like the EE retainers, with the addition of the mountain bike spring. I don't think $G uses the same weak-ass construction that's in the 'standard' retainer. "

Just to clarify, the retention principles between the SG Droop Kit and the EE Spring Retainers are completely different.

The SG Droop Kit's retainer is just like the standard lower retainer, except that it is wider. This retainer is stronger than the standard lower retainer, but not significantly so, and suffers from the same weaknesses as the stock lower retainers: (1) there is considerable distance between the spring and the bolts holding the retainer, and the expanding spring can exert leverage on the retaining strap and bent it up and away from the spring seat; and (2) the retaining strap contacts the spring only over a very narrow area.

If you look at your spring seats (which take considerbly more pounding than any spring retainer will), they are just as thin as the retaining straps, but they do not bend or break becaue they contact the spring over its entire circumference and spread the spring's load over a much wider area. In designing the EE spring retainers, we tried to duplicate the design principles of the spring seats. That's why our spring retaining plates encircle more than half of the circumference of the springs. We believe this is the maximum amount that a retainer can contact the spring's coils without interfering with the spring's operation.

Our spring retaining plates alone would be stronger than the retaining strap that SG uses on the Droop Kit. However, we also add a 3/8" bolster on top of the spring retaining plate to reinforce the plate and prevent any deformation of the plate. The 3/8" bolster is as wide as the inner diameter of the springs, so the pulling force of the spring on the retaining plate cannot "lever" the spring retaining plate up and away from the spring. The thick bolsters do not contact the spring in any fashion and do not interfere with spring operation in any manner.

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 07:23 am: Edit

Thanks for the clarification, John L.

What I ment to imply was that the spring retained
$G thing was more rugged - using a top plate
instead of the thin strap - then the normal weak
retainers. This reminded me more of how EE does
it, which is the much more correct way. I should
really buy a set to replace my $G ones, before
they need to go 'out the window' !

Kyle - yes, I have seen several D90's using that
system. Here's a pic from Twist Off '01 of, I
think, Bill Richey's yellow D90. If one could
add some strength, I think this would be a fine
way to go !

I use 'medium' spring rates, long springs and
retainers. The combo of spring rate and spring
length seems to allow plenty of extension and
decent droop. In looking at pix of RVROVR's cone
set-up vs. my setup, I seem to have ALMOST as much
rear droop as he does - and I'm shock limited.



keith
discosaurus

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit

I'll be there.. Just let me know when you want to do it.

Alex

By John Lee on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit

"I use 'medium' spring rates, long springs and retainers. The combo of spring rate and spring length seems to allow plenty of extension and decent droop. In looking at pix of RVROVR's cone set-up vs. my setup, I seem to have ALMOST as much rear droop as he does - and I'm shock limited."

I believe your observations are correct, at least regarding the Disco I. Unless your springs are very stiff and depending on your shock set-up, you will get almost identical articulation with retained springs as you will with cones.

Compare these two sets of pics, one set of cones at full flex:

http://www.discoweb.org/tompearson/flex6.jpg
http://www.discoweb.org/jbs/RAMP1.JPG

and the other of retained at full flex (the third pic):
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/hochung/comparo.jpg

As you can see, there is very little difference in the two designs. I believe the reason for this is because of the relatively short shock that can be fitted under the Disco's wheel wells. Even if you extend the shock mounts, there's only so long of a shock that can be stuffed into the Disco's wheel wells. Whether running cones or retainers, it's pretty easy to max out the Disco's relatively short shocks.

It's a bit different with the D90, which has room for some extremely long shocks. Here's a pic of my vehicle at full flex with the same shocks Ho is running in the above pic: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/area51/DCP_1151.jpg

Compare that to my buddy's D90 with full RockWare kit installed and longer 9012 Rancho shocks: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/area51/DCP_1168.jpg

You can see considerably more extension in my buddy's vehicle. Whether or not he would lose that extension by going retained remains uncertain with such long shocks. My friend runs OME springs, which certainly stretch, but I don't know if they will stretch enough to max out such long shocks. I'm not into flexy suspensions, so I have not bothered experimenting with the retainers and superlong shocks.

As with most things, time will tell.

By nadim on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:10 am: Edit

John,

I currently have an ~5" lft in the rear, and despite the fact that I still have the OEM Bilstein length +3"...I intend to go for 29" shocks in the future along with the RTE cones...

The beauty of the whole ordeal is to have just enough traction to go through...right?...so in order for that to occur...the tire (lockers assumed) should be touching the ground barely enough to proppel the Disco. Therefore, it would be better to drop the tire completely, even with the small weight of ~250lbs (of the tire/axle-end combo) touch the ground right enough to help with the traction.

I believe you have the LTR 23" shocks... therefore, i am assuming that the most drop you will get is 23" from your top shock mount...but with a 29" shock, the added 6" will provide you with just enough traction so that those large lugs on the tires will crawl away and help you move ahead...

I have yet to have my setup fully functioning (RTE cones 29" shocks)...but that is what I will be getting at...with the addition of longer kinked trailing arms ofcoarse.

By John Lee on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:20 am: Edit

Nadim,

I have LTR shocks all around on my vehicle using the factory shock mounts. The stock rear LTR's are 23.0" long at full extension. I added some home-made shock extensions that are approximately 3" long. Here's a pic: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/drop/drop1.jpg

If you're committed to a 29" shock in the rear, you might want to contact Rancho Shocks at:
http://www.gorancho.com/

By Nadim on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:23 am: Edit

Thanks John...
I am very brand committed, so waiting for some SERIOUS cash to get some serious long travel Bilsteins!

By John on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:37 am: Edit

5100 series....BE5-6249-HO 29.7" ext.
6100 series....B46-1351 31.1"
7100 series....AK7112SB 28.06"

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:50 am: Edit

John, have you had any customers actually use the
7100 short body shock (the AK7112SB) ?? This is
the shock I'm planning to use eventually.

And, still assuming this is the John from RTE,
which rear mounts would you suggest (I'm assuming
you have more then one design) ?

...assume, assume, assume

Thanks.

keith
discosaurus

By John on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 08:57 am: Edit

I use them and like them...Ranchos have their niche...Bilsteins theirs...etc,etc.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:05 am: Edit

LOL , its a metal tube with a rod inside. Throw in some fluid and some disks to valve and you are rolling... I wonder exactly how many combinations of valving there are.... They are all just metal tubes man.... I just dont get the metal tube envy..... Why not just get the shocks that can be revalved from the start and get it over with ? Any of you boys desert racing?


Kyle

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:45 am: Edit

Actually Kyle, I have a real reason to use those
Bilsteins. They're about 3.5" shorter in overall
length then any other 12" or 14" inch travel shock
on the market.

As you know (and have commented on), long shocks
effectively kill your up-travel and force you to
use tall bumpstops and unbalance your rig.

These help - a lot.

BTW, I have ground clearance envy - not metal tube
envy. ;)

keith
discosaurus

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 10:19 am: Edit

Yes , I have that envy too at times. But , keep in mind that the higher you go the closer the ground gets.. A riddle,,,,,


Kyle

By Ron on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 05:13 am: Edit

Sounds like a good test.

The only thing I should like to ad is that HD rear RTE springs will not stretch too much with retainers. If you wish to add another variable perhaps rear springs could be changed to a more stretch friend rate (ie 250 or so)

cheers
Ron

By John Lee on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 05:30 am: Edit

Ron,

Respectfully, I must disagree, for several reasons.

I think the test will have more meaning if we eliminate the variables to the maximum extent possible. Flirting with different spring rates would serve only to confuse the final outcome and lead to several interpretations of the test. With the changing of but one variable (cones vs. retainers), the test results will be more clear-cut.

I am obviously a proponent of retained rear springs, but I have no fears of poor results with the retained heavy-duty springs. Articulation may be limited by the lack of stretch in the stiff RT HD springs, but my guess is that articulation will remain alsmost identical to what Tom has now because of his relatively short shocks. As stated previously, there is only so long of a shock that can be safely installed in the rear of a Disco.

Many people who run retained run with marginal retainers and thus fit medium spring rates to minimize the stress on their retainers. I am fully confident that the EE retainers can handle any spring rate for the Land Rovers such as the OME 763 or even stiffer.

And even if articulation is severely limited (I highly doubt it will be), the test will serve to show that lots of articulation is not necessary on a locked vehicle and serves only to destabilize the vehicle on obstacles and off-camber slopes.

It's really Tom's test, and he's free to run it as he wishes, but my recommendation is that he run with his current set-up for the cone portion of the test, and with the EE retainers fitted for the retained portion of the. The test results should be most meaningful this way because Tom is already very familiar with his vehicle's handling and Tom can better perceive handling changes with his current set-up than if the rear springs were changed out.

By John on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 05:54 am: Edit

"It's really Tom's test, and he's free to run it as he wishes"

Most importantly its all a lets have fun Krispy Kreme Challenge...and Tom is an excellant choice for this good will game....

Reminds me of the TV Junk Yard Wars...
"Gentlemen, prepare your truck"

By pom on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:02 am: Edit

possibly the best TV show on! (The UK version that is!!)

By John on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:04 am: Edit

The UK has a different version of that show?
Differing how so?

By Moe on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:38 am: Edit

If you guys are testing slinky vs non-slinky shouldn't you be using rigs with stock diffs? Locked up it might be hard to tell if flex influences much more than stability.

Last weekend I was out with Josh Weinstein who has a little more flex in the rear end--we both run stock diffs. He has the same OME shocks but with a hinged rear link and drop kit. I have Bearmach HD and he has OME HDs with home made retainers on top. By chance a ramp was in the ORV park and his rig climbed about 6-8" further up the ramp (set at 35 degrees, I think). Clearly his extra drop helped maintain momentum and traction in the tough spots but neither rigs needed to be winched to get through the trails.

Interestingly we were on what would be our last trail when the flexier rig needed trailside repairs. Dropping off a 20" rock ledge that throws the left rear in the air, there was a loud 'boing' and sure enough the wimpy stock retainer failed. We sent a passenger underneath to make the repair, Josh called Expedition Exchange to order beefier retainers, and we were on the trail in 15 mins--but it could have been a lot worse if the rig had dropped of the obstacle.

By Ron on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 06:39 am: Edit

John Lee,

I was more thinking that Tom could run 4 total combinations:

HD rears w/ cones
HD rears w/ retainers
MD rate rears w/ cones
MD rate rear w/ retainers

While I agree that even HD springs have uses with retainers ideally you want to use one which will stretch a bit (one reason for SG using really light rate springs). The only reason I say this is that I could not stand running extremely high rate springs with retainers as it really killed articulation.

Ron

PS I thought Tom was running 12 or 14in ranchos?

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:04 am: Edit

so let me get this straight.

the purpose of this test is to see what truck feels more stable...

the one with cones
or
the one with retainers?

and also see if one allows more articulation ,which may or maynot have an effect on the stability issue mentioned above

did i get that correct?

if no , please keep the real reason simple.. my brain cant hack the long and drawn out explinations

thanks
rob

By John on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

"my brain cant hack the long and drawn out explinations"

Just dont blink...

By ali on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:31 am: Edit

I'll try to make up something in the $G style spring retainers and come to the party. Anyone in the chicagoland area have a spare pair of spring perches (for the bottom perch front or rear)? If you do and don't need them then let me know via email.

Thanks.

By John Lee on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:46 am: Edit

Ron,

"even HD springs have uses with retainers ideally you want to use one which will stretch a bit (one reason for SG using really light rate springs). The only reason I say this is that I could not stand running extremely high rate springs with retainers as it really killed articulation."

We'll see just how much articulation Tom loses after he mounts the spring retainers. I don't think it will be that much.

But even if he does lose a considerable amount, why does that even matter? The only thing lots of articulation gives is sex appeal and nothing more. Obviously, a good offroad vehicle needs articulation for good performance, but not in the crazy amounts most people think. The story might be different if our front suspensions weren't limited as they are. But with our front suspensions being as limited as they are, the answer is definitely not to make up for that by adding more suspension flex to the rear.

On my vehicle, I get approximatley four more inches of drop than before I extended my rear shocks, and there is absolutely no performance difference in my vehicle. I freely admit that the only reason I extended my rear shocks is for sex appeal, and for no other legitimate reason. I don't think there's anything wrong with sex appeal so long as the vehicle's owner recognizes it as fluff and not as a real performance enhancer.

Running the KKC with HD springs is the best choice, IMHO, for several reasons. First, Tom runs the springs now, so he's familiar with his handling with these springs and cones fitted, so he'll be better able to tell the difference when retained. Second, the relatively low articulation will show that articulation is not required on locked vehicles to conquer obstacles. Third, the relatively low rear articulation will show that a vehicle with balanced suspension front and rear is more stable than a vehicle with little front flex and tons of rear flex. Fourth, the relatively stiff retained rear springs will cause the front suspension to flex sooner than it otherwise would, causing more suspension balance and stability on the trail. Fifth, running one set of springs will simplify the testing procedures and eliminate variables to the maximum extent possible.

"I thought Tom was running 12 or 14in ranchos?"

I don't know what shocks Tom is running, but they can't be too long. Again, here's a pic of Tom's vehicle at full flex: http://www.discoweb.org/tompearson/flex6.jpg

Perhaps Tom can chime in with some model numbers and extended/compressed lengths of his shock.

By John Lee on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:54 am: Edit

Moe,

"If you guys are testing slinky vs non-slinky shouldn't you be using rigs with stock diffs? Locked up it might be hard to tell if flex influences much more than stability."

Before the 1999 Twist-Off, there were lots of discussions about using open-diff vehicles for the test so as to maximize the differences between the suspension designs. But the idea of using lockers prevailed for two reasons: (1) everybody could pretty much predict that that RTI would be proportional to trail performance on open diff vehicles; and (2) most people who were interested in the Twist-Off results either had lockers or planned to fit lockers in the future and thus wanted performance comparisons of locked vehicles.

I think the Twist-Off results pretty much coincided with everyone's predictions and came down to a stability contest between the various suspensions. With lockers, all of the vehicles could do all of the chosen obstacles on 21 Road, and the judges were left to choose between the contestants, not by whether or not they could cover the obstacles, but rather by how well they could cover the obstacles.

My guess is that the KKC will end in a similar fashion, with Tom and his Disco being able to cover the same obstacles whether retained or with cones. The differences in the two set-ups will manifest in stability rather than go/no-go comparisons.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 08:45 am: Edit

I can run the same obstacles with my truck to show how retained MD springs work. My truck is set up pretty similarly to Tom's, so the comparison should be good.

Also, is that pic really full flex? It seems that there should be more there. I get the same amt of flex with retained springs (see http://www.discoweb.org/alexschubow/badlands1.jpg and http://www.discoweb.org/alexschubow/blmd-e2.jpg). The springs are the limiting factor in my drop travel - I would probably get another few inches if I was running cones.

Alex

By Ron on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:25 am: Edit

Alex,

That is a good thought. And as Tom mentioned maybe even try cones on your truck. Following the TO 99 model as far as comments and noting all things fitted (spring rates etc.) and such would be great info. Maybe even get them on a ramp to get some hard numbers too.

Cheers

Ron

PS I have one dozen glazed on the MD retained set up. Any takers?

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:50 am: Edit

believe it or not, I'm currently munching #2 of 2 Krispy Kreme chocolate-covered glazed with vanilla creme filling - brought them in this morning and forgot about them until now....mmmmmm....lunchtime doughnuts....

I flexed-out my stock-retained HD front and MD rear OME's this weekend (will post pics soon enough). I've noticed that at least one wimpy rear stock retainer is suffering horribly. I will soon have to put it out of it's misery.

John Lee, I'm interested in your "home-made shock extensions that are approximately 3" long". I can pretty much see what you've done to "extend them" in your picture, and I read that you are using stock mounts - do the LTR's just fit right in with no problems or other mods? Any worry of fatigue or failure at your connection point? Here's that link you posted to the pic:
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/drop/drop1.jpg

By John Lee on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 10:06 am: Edit

Alex - if you're flexing that much and still have shock travel left, you must be running some serious shocks there. Do you know offhand what the extended/compressed lengths of your rear shocks?

Ron - LOL. My bet would be on the HD retained set-up as the best general-purpose suspension. I would guess the MD's would perform better in a slinky-like trail like 21 Road or the Hammers, but that the HD's would perform better on trails with steep climbs and lots of off-camber stuff like at Moab or Las Cruces. But just for the sake of scientific development, I'll take you up on the dozen Krispy Kremes. My favorite donut is the plain cake, so I'll take a dozen of those if the HD's win. If the MD's fare better on the Attica trails, I'll send you a check for the dozen glazed. LOL.

Bill - yes, I use the stock mounts. I would never switch to extended shock mounts. My philosophy is why replace a part that doesn't break with a part that breaks? Yes, the LTR's fit right in. They're the same length as the standard OME shocks, and can be modified in the same way. The only mod you have to do is to drill somewhere to mount the reservoirs. I mounted mine like so: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/drop/DCP_1773.jpg

I don't think home-made shock extension suffers from fatigue/failure. For sure, we have lots of local friends who use this, all without failure/breakage. The coupler nut actually contacts more of the shock stud than the normal nylock nut does. Here's a close-up pic of the orientation of the parts: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/drop/DCP_1720.jpg

The coupler nut in that photo is 1.25" long. I cut the shock stud so that 0.625" of threading would remain and the shock stud would thread in just that amount. The bolt that holds the bushings to the couple is of a certain length to permit duplication of the stock OME bushing surface, plus 0.625" to insert into the coupler. Just thread the bolt all the way into the coupler and your bushings will get the identical amount of tightening as the stock OME shock. I think it's a very elegant extension, and best of all, it costs two bucks!

I'm doing a write-up for the EE site right now regarding the home-made shock extensions, but that write-up has been delayed by the delivery of my new roof rack just now.

Gotta run and install my new roof rack!

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 10:44 am: Edit

very cool, thanks John L.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 11:30 am: Edit

John,

The shocks are Bilstein 6100 series part no. B46-0350. 12" travel, 31.1" extended, 19.37" collapsed. Yes, the shocks are too long. They would be better suited to a defender, and I plan on replacing them with Bilstein 7100 series part no. AK7112SB. 12" travel, 28.06" extended, 16.03" collapsed. I should get the same amount of down travel (maybe a 1/2" less) and gain a good 2" of up travel. That will allow me to toss my super-extended bumpstops out of Kyle's window.

After I put these suckers on, I said "uh-oh, I'll have no up travel at all." It still stuffs surprisingly well (see http://www.discoweb.org/alexschubow/badlands2.jpg ) but shocks that are too long, are, well... too long.

Alex

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 11:36 am: Edit

alex, nice shocks.

what you see in that picture is more of a result from the other side dropping. the more the other side drops, the more it twists the whole thing. and makes it look like it's stuffing nicely.

neat eh?

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 11:39 am: Edit

...The yin and the yang of axle articulation...



Alex

By Ali on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Speaking of shock extensions, I picked up a pair from AutoZone in Missisippi. I've never seen them before so I bought them for around $5. They extend shocks studs by 3" and you must have 3/8" x 24 tpi threading. This threading is good for car shocks not ours. So I wonder if anyone else make these for the larger size shock studs? I wish I kept the package for the vendor's name. When I go home, I'll look for the package and check out my local AutoZone.

By John on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 12:45 pm: Edit

They make 1/2"x 20 as well

By Pvt Joker on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 05:35 pm: Edit

also made by a company called Mr.Gasket: see your local hot rod supplier

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 11:27 am: Edit

Hey all,

I am excited to see so much interest in the KKC. I am actually on vacation in Sedona, AZ right now so I won't have much time to read through all this fun stuff until next week (about Monday). I sure wish I brought the Disco with!! This place looks phenonimal for off-road adventures.

Anyway, I was thinking of doing the KCC on August 11 and possibly 12 (if needed) at the Badlands in Indiana. The next open weekend I have is September 1st.

So, hopefully eveyone who wants to attend or put their own trucks up to the challenge (wink, wink, alex) hopefully can do it on the weekend of the 11th so we can get some solution or create more confusion. No matter what, it will be great fun.

By the way, I have a digital camera and camcorder to bring to document the event. Of course, since I will be driving, somebody else will need to shoot. Anyone who is coming (hopefully) will be up for taking lots of pictures or video for the cause.

If anyone wants to come in from out of town, see my write up on Attica in the Trails section where there is a link to the trails. There is information on thier web site about lodging and camping sites.

Tom

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

you're in Sedona? for how long? some great off-roading up there....

-Blue
Phoenix

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Tom - I just dropped a package in the mail to you in IL...pretty ironic!

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Tom, do you have something in your eye?

I'll be there....

Alex

By Wesley on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Tom,
I am in Evansville, IN, and would love to make the trip up north. Let me know when you finalize your trip schedule so I can see if I am off.
Wesley

PS How many are planning on attending?

By Scott Tschantz (Scott) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Tom the weekend of the 11 and the 12 will work for me so i will see you there.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 01:55 am: Edit

Tom,

Just checked my calendar here and if the KKSC is held on Aug. 11th a lot of your friends from Chicago won't be making it. CLRC members Sue & Neil (yellow defender 90) are having their 10th annual pig roast that Saturday... FWIW

Alex

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:34 am: Edit

John

I moved this back to the KKC thread because I think the portion of your post that I want to respond to have the most relevance here.

"Retain a HD spring you will get an additional 2" drop(approx) through spring pull.With cones you get maybe an additional 2" drop over the above. I see no problem with either. When you speak of stability...thats too little a difference to matter, These 2 mild set-ups are so very similar to the degree that Tom Pearsons KKC will show no difference in perfomance(opinion only)."

If the two set-ups similar animals, i.e., both retained or both coned, then I'm inclined to agree with you. 2" more flex in the rear, if that is indeed the only difference, shouldn't really make any difference.

However, there is a substantial difference between retained and coned that does not pertain to the maximum amount of RTI available to each set-up. With a coned set-up, once the axle drops past the point where the spring begins to unseat, the axle is almost unrestricted and depends only upon the valving in the shock to slow down the speed of drop. In contrast, the retained set-ups have the benefit of the expanding spring to hold the axle, which results in a more controlled drop. The controlled drop reduces the stresses on the rear shocks and shock mounts. If you look at the pics in Kyle's window of the Rockware mounts, they are bent downward. I believe that if these identical mounts are used with retainers instead of cones (assuming equal maximum RTI), these mounts would be much more resistant to bending.

The resistance to flexing on the retained set-ups also serves to transfer some force to the front axle and cause it to flex a bit earlier in the RTI curve. With a cone set-up, it's very common to see vehicles with front axles that don't want to flex until the rear axle is maxed out. With the retained set-ups, the retained springs cause some resistance to flexing before the rear axle maxes out and causes the front to flex a bit sooner on the RTI curve. This results in better suspension balance and more stability on the trails.

These are just my theories based upon my observations of the retained and coned vehicles I've wheeled with. As with most things, time will tell.

Oh, there is one more difference between retained and coned. This difference is glaringly obvious and cannot be denied: the retained set-ups are silent.

By John on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:54 am: Edit

well, look at all my posts...I have never made the statement that cones are better than retaining,or visa versa. I have always said people ask for what they want and make their own choices. I make my choices and havent tried to convince this board its a better choice because I understand people want what they want. I have said my personal suspension works for me and that should be fine to whomever. I have not tried to convince you otherwise. So I am not quite sure why this post is pointed at me...

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 07:20 am: Edit

John,

Take it easy. My post isn't some kind of attack or anything. Rather, is a statement of my opinion. Just as your post about the 2" not making any difference was your opinion. All I was doing was responding to your opinion and stating why I disagreed with it.

The entire thread was about retained vs. cones and the testing methodology for the kkc, which Tom Pearson affirmatively requested input on. That's it. Not an attack or anything.

If you interpreted my post as some form of attack, I apologize. It was not intended in that manner, and I don't think it can reasonably be interpreted in that manner. Take it easy.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 07:28 am: Edit

Its really bizzare to me that only the slinky side of the house ever gets upset about things.... blows my mind... Its just metal and mud after all.. I dont get it..

Kyle

By al hang on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 07:58 am: Edit

"Oh, there is one more difference between retained and coned. This difference is glaringly obvious and cannot be denied: the retained set-ups are silent"

just wanted to respond to that, rovertym's cones are dead silent. anyone who has witnessed them can attest to that.

-al

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 08:55 am: Edit

Al,

I have witnessed RoverTym cones in action. The ones I saw were clunking, albeit less than the RockWare versions I've seen. Perhaps it was an improper install or something, but they were clunking.

By EnoughAlready on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 09:18 am: Edit

I have scene both in action - both work fine. To each their own ... this is starting to get really stupid.

By no more suspension on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 09:59 am: Edit

All this hype had me so confused that I finally welded my axles straight to the frame and run 48's @ 4 psi to compensate for the bumps. The best part was that I had enough scrap sheet metal left over after the trim job to build another Disco.

By EnoughAlready on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:04 am: Edit

damn rights ... game over, give me my ball, I'm going home.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

Kyle,

"Its really bizzare to me that only the slinky side of the house ever gets upset about things.... blows my
mind... Its just metal and mud after all.. I dont get it.. "

Anytime the "slinky side of the house" speaks or, for that matter, types, with a tone similar to yours you say somebody is upset. Are you upset all the time??

Tom

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:24 am: Edit

Blue -

I am in Sedona until Sunday. Next time I will come no where near this place without the Disco and Mountain Bike in tow. However, this trip is more of a relaxed event -- last vacation with the wife "babyless" as we are expecting this December.

Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit

Hmmm , I dont imply that the convo is below me and there for I will ignore and I always throw in facts about the cons. Not opinions. I am always laughing at the reactions I see. we started mention "Cool" along with drop on another board one time and all the droppers got all indignant. Read back through the posts on the topic. And tell me who gets bent. so to speak,,,,lol

Kyle

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:34 am: Edit

Bent...punny!

Tom

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:51 am: Edit

Have fun on your last quiet and restful trip as babyless parents. Very pregnant wife & off-roading don't mix...ask me how I know!

By Tom P. on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit

Ron,

> (one reason for SG using really light rate springs).

Last time I checked (Summer 2000) SG supplied OME 762/761 combo with spacers. Not the soft SG springs of D90 lore...

Tom P.
96 Disco

By at on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 11:00 am: Edit

Tom, they change the springs all the time, it's custom fit to each customer's needs.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 11:00 am: Edit

I just scrolled up and read the posts querying me for info.

As far as what shocks I run, they are listed on my photo gallery page. If anyone wants to know the full specs, hit the Rancho site and see. I am dialed in on a crappy line (21k) and don't feel like downloading that PDF file they have while paying the hotel their nice, cheap, phone rates.

Also, in the comparo pics of articulation, all they are is pics. I don't really know or care if I do have more or less than the other ones posted, but for those that do, consider this: Everyone is probably comparing the top of the tire with the bottom of the fender opening to compare the amount of "drop". How tall are everyone's tires in those photos? I am willing to wager that mine are the tallest. Also, the shot of John's rig may be with his 35's on, I heard he was going to try that. I that case, that thing has way more drop than any of the other pics. Also, I do have some shots with the tire out of the well even more. If anyone cares, I can post them when I get back in town.

Next, I think somebody suggested that I do this thing with a bunch of different springs (Ron ??). Eeek, no thanks, unless somebody else comes out to turn the wrenches while I enjoy a nice double maduro and an extra krispy kreme or two.

Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 11:03 am: Edit

There is some illusion there yes. Just like the stuffage illusion. The amount of lift you have and how thin that front bumper are play into that big time.

Kyle

By Wesley on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Tom,
I know what you mean. My wife and I just had our last "babyless" outing last week.
I think we need to talk with Jeff about rovering with a real newbie.

By Ron on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Tom,

I suggested only two sets of springs. If Alex participates that will be met (he has MD)

BTW all you have to do to change springs is flex a corner and turn the spring off, bit harder with retainers but a 5min job tops.

Tom P,

The specs I was given for SG springs were something like 133 rate, but as you pointed out they are now offering firmer ones. This is mainly to compensate for the 3-link which needs firmer fronts to be stable. And as pointed out you can get pretty much what you want from them if you ask.

One last (ya right) point. In my eyes the best advantage to retainers is they are almost free. Yes they are $135 from EE but for about $12 in bolts and steel you can DIY and I will pretty much garantee they won't break (they also lift about 1/2 or so too but don't look anywhere near as cool).

I am interested to see the result as I have seen both cones and retainers in action and used retainers and would like to see if my choice is backed up.

Ron

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Ron,

"I suggested only two sets of springs. If Alex participates that will be met (he has MD)"

How does this affect our Krispy Kreme bet? Having to look to a completely different vehicle to discern the minor differences from changing spring rates will be difficult at best. But I'm willing to go through with our bet if you are. Let me know.

John

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 05:09 pm: Edit

I'll participate, WTF. The only useful info that will come of that, IMO, is this - we'll be able to tell if retained BM MD springs will flex more than retained RT springs. However, I think we all kind of know the answer to that one already. If my truck had cones instead of spring clamps I would have more drop travel than Tom's because my shocks are longer (other factors are the same - we both have RT trailing arms). That's the reason I don't have cones -- I don't see a need to drop a tire a foot under my rock sliders.

Anyway, this topic is becoming a little tiresome. It has been discussed to death. We'll get out there in the next month and do the comparo and then it will all be settled. Whatever "it" is.

Alex

By Ron on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 03:38 am: Edit

John,

I am in on the bet (hey its only a dozen donuts). But to declare a winner I am not sure will be actually done for that you will need some sort of quasi objective standards (which is why RTI gets abused so much). what I think the goal is (correct me if I am wrong Tom) and what my initial intention was when suggesting Tom try out some retainers and bet him dollars to donuts that he would like them is that it would offer an opportunity for him to try out the same suspension retained and see how it works. Tom had the great idea of turning it into an actual challenge and as a result I think we will see some hard eveidence and also some great feedback on the benifits of the two different methods and also the two methods with MD or HD springs if alex participates too. So the bet is still on, but I think the more important thing is to but theory and sporatic observation and opinion into a more scientific result. So thank you in advance Tom.

Cheers
Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 04:14 am: Edit

Damn man , once you bring "Scientific" into it , its all down hill from there...

Kyle

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 04:26 am: Edit

speaking of cones,... just out of curiousity, does anyone mount the cones at the bottom of the spring as oppossed to the top. all the setups I have seen have always been mounted on the top of spring. Is their an advantage to this over mounting on the bottom of the spring?

By John on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 04:38 am: Edit

Some of the D-90 list guys mount cones front bottom...for whatever their objectives are.

By John Lee on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 05:08 am: Edit

Ron,

"I am in on the bet (hey its only a dozen donuts)."

Cool. Good attitude. I'm still in as well. The KKC just wouldn't be the KKC without at least a dozen donuts on the line.

"But to declare a winner I am not sure will be actually done for that you will need some sort of quasi objective standards (which is why RTI gets abused so much).... I think we will see some hard eveidence and also some great feedback on the benifits of the two different methods and also the two methods with MD or HD springs if alex participates too. So the bet is still on, but I think the more important thing is to but theory and sporatic observation and opinion into a more scientific result."

That would certainly be optimum, but I always thought this test would be more informal than that, with something to the effect that Tom would post something on this BB explaining what he saw and felt and the conclusions he reached therefrom, and then answering whatever questions that other posters may have in follow-up messages to the same thread. Posting some pics on the Tech section is another good way to convey a lot of ideas without spending a lot of time on doing a write-up.

A formal write-up akin to Rich Hills' write-up from the first Twist-Off would certainly be great, but I'm not sure Tom has the time for that.

I certainly defer to Tom on how far he wants to take it.

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:14 am: Edit

Hey Kyle, what's wrong with Science? This sure isn't a bench test or lab experiment, but the scientific method, or at least thinking scientifically is the way to go....with everything.

-mad scientist

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:33 am: Edit

Well , I am more from the school of logical thinking. Logical thinking and scientific thinking dont always go hand in hand. Logically we can assume that a Rover and how it reacts to things is dynamic in a dynamic enviroment. Accurate scientific predictions can hardly be made there. Baselines yes , but thats about it...

Kyle

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:39 am: Edit

Basically Blue , some things work that shouldnt and some dont that should,,,, thats the game.

Kyle

By shuddup on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:47 am: Edit

wily-kyle-ote didn't do so hot in science. he's just a cement head.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:51 am: Edit

There ya go....

Kyle

By Leslie on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 07:26 am: Edit

Now Kyle, why'dya have ta go and bring logic into it.... we ARE talking about Land Rovers, aren't we??

I've gotta admit: "I'm a rock scientist, not a rocket scientist". But still, Ron's right in pointing out that whether you want to call it logic, or science, the entire KKC will be more beneficial with something of an intentional purpose of collecting empirical data. Haveing said that, I think that was already Tom's plan. By it's nature, this IS a scientific experiment, whether it's informal or not.

Science IS Fun!

LOL!

-L

By Mike on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 07:41 am: Edit

Alex,

Try the 5100 bilsteins, part# F4-BE5-6249-HO. They should work well with a 3" lift. They are 29.7" (drop) 17.91" (stuff). They are $69.00 each vs. $180.00 for 7100s. You can have them revalved to 360-80, they come 255-82 or so. John at RTE says these should work well.

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 08:31 am: Edit

Leslie, you a geologist too? Is it you I've seen on the Guns and Rovers board (a truly noble pursuit)?

Wily-kyle-ote, in the context of this whole KKC discussion and workplan, I would use logic synonymously with scientific - objectivity is objectivity no matter how you slice it (we're on the same track here...)

-Blue, mad rock scientist

By Leslie on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 09:30 am: Edit

Yes, Blue....

Didn't we do the Disco holster-thing?? OR is my mind going? I thought that you already knew that there were at least the two of us rockjocks around... Michael of Oz is a geophysist, too....

Anyway, that'd be me on the G-n-R board.... it's my "home" on the 'Net, so-to-speak...

-L

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 09:38 am: Edit

yeah, that's right...that was way back when. I've met quite a lot of people on this board, and on others - hard to keep things straight sometimes (especially since everyone's text looks the same).

P.S. never actually did install a holster - found that the USP is too damn big to live under the dash. Stuffing it between the seats works fine if I'm not wearin it.

By Leslie on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 09:41 am: Edit

Actually....

I've been in the online-Rover world for so long that I've seen people come and go and come again, and not realize that they're someone I "know"...

-L

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Mike,

Hmmm, I don't know about those 5100s you mentioned. They're still 2" longer than the SB 7100s. They're not chrome plated though, so they have that going for them.

Alex

By John on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 03:14 am: Edit

Alex, considering your particular set-up, the SB will work better for you as long as you are willing to pay the price. With your OME lift you may still have to use the alum. lower shock mount spacers I sent you for correct up travel, maybe not.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 01:49 pm: Edit

John,

Eh, you remembered, I'm impressed

This is my logic here, tell me if you can find a hole in it, be brutally honest.

Right now I have about 3" of up travel on my shocks. I'm running 2" bearmarch springs (really about 1.5"), 2" springs spacers, and the 1" spacers under the shock mounts. If I switch to the SB shocks and get rid of the shock mount spacers, I will have gained approx. 2.25" net of up travel (the SB shocks are 3.04" shorter extended, 3.34" shorter compressed than the ones I have now). That will give me about 5" of up travel and about 7" of down travel. Seems like a good setup. What do you think?

Hopefully someone with a D90 will buy the old shocks for $100 for the pair when I do this, this will reduce my investemt to about $250.

Unless of course you are tired of your front shocks and want to go with something longer (or whatever)... I'd be happy to take them off your hands.

Alex

By John on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 03:35 pm: Edit

I always have concerns with 2" spacers holding up BM springs which are known for losing it and sagging and you have the MD's by the look of your truck. A 3 1/2" lift on springs designed to provide 2" lift which are sagging concerns me. Spacers on the right springs are ok...but you know your truck....The SB's as I said will fit you well, proberly without the alum.spacers by your dimensions. I also run 5" up travel front and rear.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 03:46 pm: Edit

What exactly concerns you about them? Too soft/too much lean?

It handles pretty good with the bilsteins, and lean corners is not bad at all (definitely better than stock w/o swaybars). AAMOF I drove Kevin K's truck and mine back to back the other day (he has OME HD and 2" spacers) and his has more lean in corners than mine does!

Anyway, thanks for your opinion. I will be getting the SBs eventually, when I get around to scrounging up the $$$

We will see how the BM springs hold up over time. If your springs do well at the KKC with retainers, I know what my next set will be.

Alex

By Ali on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 06:39 am: Edit

Alex,

As you stated, Ome HD's don't handle spacers very well at all. I tried it with some home made alum spacers (1.5") and found out the spring rate changed drastically. You noticed the same thing as I did on Kevin's rig.

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 08:57 am: Edit

Maybe I'm missing something here (probably...).

Why would adding a spacer outside of the spring change the spring rate ?? Is spring rate THAT dependent on geometry ? I would think a, let's say, 280 lb/in spring is going to compress the same whether there is a spacer under/over it on not.

I don't currently run spacers (well, I have a 0.5" one under the rear springs) but will need to in the future because the length of my springs give me a nose high attitude. Unless someone starts making 19" long ~250 lb/in rears...

keith
discosaurus

By John on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit

Keith, I think what Ali is saying the spacers made the spring "feel" different. Raising the CofG by a 2" spacer with a MD spring making the spring "act differently" or more body sway...nothing to do with rate changes, thats fixed.

By Discosaurus on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit

Oh, OK - it's sure to increase that leaning feeling ! I already drive mine like a boat - turn the wheel, heel it over, then track it around the corner ! toot-toot

IMO, if you want better ground clearance, you need to live with it.

keith
discosaurus

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 11:26 am: Edit

All -

The Midwest contingent of the KKC is now going to happen on September 1st.

Tom

By John on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Congrats are due on the upcoming baby.

By Mike D1 on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 12:35 pm: Edit

The West Coast people got a raw deal when Disco web moved the KKC West to the non tech list! We were putting a West Coast KKC together. Why did the KKC West get moved?? It will die in no-man's-land (non-tech). I would think Tom P. would welcome a West Coast test. Why has Disco Web singled us out?

Mike D1

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Mike...Don't feel so bad. I would like to kill this thread and then start a new one on "events". I think we should both do it there...it is now an event.

Tom

By John Lee on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Mike,

Take it easy. I think the KKC West thread got moved because it degenerated into a thread between some of the wheelers in the Southwest about drinking/shooting/eating/wheeling in Truckhaven, which really isn't a technical discussion. I'm sorry the tenor of the thread changed from a technical discussion to a "let's get together and have some fun" type of thread. I'm as much to blame as anyone for that, perhaps more. But I don't think there was any intent by Discoweb to single out the KKC West for elimination.

By Mike D1 on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Tom & John,

thanks for the reply. One big problem with DW is no one looks at events. A post was placed for Hollister and no one looked at it. When the guy placed it in tech it got people to show up. Maybe DW could look at placing a small notice on the side of tech to highlight upcoming events.

I would like to do the KKC West. I have 3"RT with EE retainers. ARB front & rear.

By John Lee on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Mike,

Your vehicle is stylin and ready for a KKC West. Your Bilsteins should be about perfect as their long travel will demonstrate just how much articulation is lost with the EE retainers holding the RT 3" springs compared to cones, and your lockers will provide the traction. Just like the original KKC, it should become a stability contest.

Do you still have the RoverTym cones?

By Mike D1 on Wednesday, August 01, 2001 - 05:49 pm: Edit

John Lee,

I do, and I have not made a final decision. I'm waiting for the KKC East & West.