More flex without lift. Ideas?

gipcyan bill wrote: Anyway
If you do find longer softer springs please share

www.dfaulknersprings.com/index.htm

Speak to these guys they wind springs for many people who then sell them on in lift kits they can pretty much wind anything you want

Here my 2p worth lol cut the eye off your radius arms and fit rose joints to them that help as will movement than a bush then fit longer shocks +2 or some thin

rusty spanner wrote: Here my 2p worth lol cut the eye off your radius arms and fit rose joints to them that help as will movement than a bush then fit longer shocks +2 or some thin

Makes no difference as the bushes on the axle end binds before the rose joints will have any effect.

I had a bit of a play this afternoon, dislocated some springs and found some stuff out but didn't look into it too much. I'll have another look at it later this week and take some measurements, see what is restricting movement etc. and post my findings here.

Busta wrote: I appreciate they want to limit roll, dive and squat on road but it's those characteristics that translate to better suspension articulation offroad! To me that suggests that the kits are built more for looks than any improvement in ability. If the spring doesn't allow full travel you may as well fit a standard spring with spring spacers.

When you start using them for more severe off-road use then you can end up at some more extreme angles which puts more weight on the springs; along with the higher C of G, that often means that you will be using more suspension travel than a stock system allows.

TomDK wrote: Makes no difference as the bushes on the axle end binds before the rose joints will have any effect.

I'll have to think about that when its not so late but surely the bushes on the axle end are only there to remove vibration, they should hold the axle at a fixed angle relative to the arm.

The bushes on the axle end move quite a lot; I was looking at them today and the twisting force is quite apparent. But Tom's right, rose joints on the chassis end of the radius arms would make little difference. It's hard to spot any movement in them at all.

Rose joints are generally a bad idea on anything that gets muddy. Johnnie joints are better but expensive, but to be honest the standard bushes are very flexible and work in a manner that no metal joint could; Where the radius arms join the axle the twisting force is actually pulling the bushes off-centre. Rose joints would bind up restrict this movement massively. Castor corrected bushes must also be less flexible than standard bushes (another issue with lift kits!). In this respect, I don't think the standard bushes can really be improved upon without a complete suspension re-design.

The panhard rod setup isn't the best, but installing a Defender style A frame would mean re-locating the fuel tank which is a big job. I think I'm getting more flex one way than the other on the rear, which may be down to the panhard. Something to look into when I get another chance to play...

Busta wrote: Rose joints are generally a bad idea on anything that gets muddy.

They can be fitted with rubber boots and usually you use a spacer either side of the rose joint to allow it to twist. The standard rubbers usually are very good, personally I'm not a fan of poly-bushes as I find they don't flex as well.

Rhinoman; They can but it's never going to be as mud proof as a rubber bush! Anyway, it's not the twisting movement that's important; If you look at the bush when the axle is flexing, the bolt hole that is normally in the centre of the bush will be either pushed upwards or downwards (either front bush up, rear bush down or vice-versa). The bolt is pushed off-centre. If you can picture how the axle is trying to rotate relative to the radius arm you should be able to picture it in your head. A rose joint simply couldn't provide this movement.

Here's a quick sketch to show the movement I'm talking about:

I'm not seeing my last post for some reason?

ETA I can see it now!

I'll have to have another look underneath but I'm sure that the reason for having the two bushes is to limit the rotation of the front axle. Ideally you wouldn't want any rotational movement there but you have to isolate the chassis from the vibration from the axles. I can understand that there will be some movement, after all the axle moves in an arc and the panhard rod doesn't, its all a compromise.