 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / March 2006Spring pressure????
Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 front coil spring and a rear coil spring, reason for this is I want to experiment with home made air suspension on a Range Rover. Rich -- To reply remove " spam " > Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 > front > coil spring and a rear coil spring, reason for this is I want to > experiment > with home made air suspension on a Range Rover. typical stiffnesses: front 133lb/inch rear 150lb/inch but I have to ask whether the terminology of your question suggests you may not have enough engineering knowledge to do something that could affect ride and handling so drastically. Unless you're never going to take it on the road, your insurers may also have a view on such mods.  SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby Quite right, I don't have the faintest idea what I am doing for the road..... but I think I have a plan for an off road experiment, but it may not work !!!!!!!! Now that I have the spring pressures, I can simulate that pressure with the correct diameter air bag and correct air pressure.. and I can see what happens, obviously there is no progressiveness to the system depending on how the air bags are set up and linked, but I suppose it will be trial and error. Thanks Rich > > Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 > > front [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** > Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby >> > Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 >> > front [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> may not have enough engineering knowledge to do something that could >> affect ride and handling so drastically. > Quite right, I don't have the faintest idea what I am doing for the > road..... but I think I have a plan for an off road experiment, but it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and > error. Hang on, that suggests it's not the spring stiffnesses that you wanted to know, but the load on each corner, which is nothing to do with the existing springs. (weight of vehicle - weight of two complete axles - weight of 4 wheels & tyres) /4 3900lb - 400lb (guess) - 150 lb (another guess) = 3350lb, or say 850lb load on each spring (Reality check - this is about 6" deflection - sounds about right for a spring that's around 16" unloaded, and 4" fully coilbound) You really sure about this? SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby >>> > Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 >>> > front [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >You really sure about this? I've seen air-suspension systems that have been removed from range rovers on ebay, maybe a good place for you to start is to get one of these and work from there. Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) Signature_________________________________________ www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk 1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D (3,000 rivets flying in close formation) _________________________________________ Hi all, ok sorry for the bad way I put the question, what I think I need to know is what sort of force is exerted on each spring when the vehicle is under normal conditions say stationary and not loaded ????? Also with reference to the last post I don't want to use air bags as I want more suspension travel than they can give !!!!!!!! also it will have 3 rear axles to cope with a hi-cap body and smallish hiab, and give good off road capability with all axles driven.. Rich > Hi all what force is required to squash a classic Range Rover 1972 front > coil spring and a rear coil spring, reason for this is I want to experiment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > To reply remove " spam " > Hi all, ok sorry for the bad way I put the question, what I think I > need to > know is what sort of force is exerted on each spring when the vehicle > is > under normal conditions say stationary and not loaded ????? C'mon, you're extracting it now, surely? That's exactly what I answered in my last posting (23/11): (weight of vehicle - weight of two complete axles - weight of 4 wheels & tyres) /4 3900lb - 400lb (guess) - 150 lb (another guess) = 3350lb, or say 850lb load on each spring Or do you need it in these new-fangled metric units? Or in ton-furlongs/square fortnight? And three rear axles? Why stop at three? Ah - just spotted the clue in your email address "r3engineering@..." The engineering bit still has me puzzled. SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby > > Hi all, ok sorry for the bad way I put the question, what I think I > > need to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 3900lb - 400lb (guess) - 150 lb (another guess) = 3350lb, or say 850lb > load on each spring <snip> Ummm, what does the axles, wheels and tyres have to do with it, all this is un-sprung weight, so is irrelevent surley, only the body and chassis act on the springs, so this is the only weight which is important ??? > Or do you need it in these new-fangled metric units? Or in > ton-furlongs/square fortnight? <snip> Old units are just fine for me.... > And three rear axles? Why stop at three? Ah - just spotted the clue in > your email address "r3engineering@..." The engineering bit still has me > puzzled. <snip> Why three ? Why not !!! I have only seen Land Rovers and Range Rovers with two so three would be quite different !!!! to fit a Hiab and high cap body it is going to be long so 3 would look good, and I like a challenge.. The engineering bit is what my friends have nic named me as I generaly over engineer every thing, better safe than sorry.. Rich Ah, just read your post properly, these marks ( - ) are to mean minus aren't they !!! so your calculation is correct except the guessing on the weights which I can understand could be a bit out.. Thanks Rich >Ah, just read your post properly, these marks ( - ) are to mean minus aren't >they !!! so your calculation is correct except the guessing on the weights >which I can understand could be a bit out.. there are 6-wheel Land Rovers about, and Range Rovers. >>Ah, just read your post properly, these marks ( - ) are to mean minus >>aren't >>they !!! A fairly well-established convention, I think, in the context of a calculation. >>so your calculation is correct except the guessing on the weights >>which I can understand could be a bit out.. Well yes, I'd been to enough trouble to confirm the spring rates and initial lengths, which turned out not to be needed, without dismantling the Rangey to weigh an axle. > there are 6-wheel Land Rovers about, and Range Rovers. Indeed, but this chappy is "designing" a 4-axle (I assume 8 wheel) version, but, sadly, with only one front axle and three rear, all of them driven, which Carmichael, afaik, never managed on their 3-axle fire tenders. SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby <snip> > > there are 6-wheel Land Rovers about, and Range Rovers. Yes have driven them in the electricity industry as Simon towers. <snip> > Indeed, but this chappy is "designing" a 4-axle (I assume 8 wheel) > version, but, sadly, with only one front axle and three rear, all of > them driven, which Carmichael, afaik, never managed on their 3-axle fire > tenders. Yes, dead right, 4 axles, 3 at the rear, one steering at the front, all driven !!!! Dont understand you say Carmichael never managed it with two ?? Why do you say "sadly, with only one front axle and three rear" ?? I cant see a problem driving three rear axles, just throw in various props, a transfer box, stir it all about and away you go, only problem could be the overall length and the weight of complete vehicle and turning circle.. But if any one knows better please give some input !!! Rich > -- > Kevin Poole > **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** > Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby > <snip> >> > there are 6-wheel Land Rovers about, and Range Rovers. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > driven !!!! > Dont understand you say Carmichael never managed it with two ?? James Taylor's book "Original Range Rover" shows a few six-wheelers, but all with one driven rear axle and one unpowered. They may, of course, have made 6x6s as well. > Why do you say "sadly, with only one front axle and three rear" ?? I rather liked the notion of twin, steered, powered front axles, that's all. > I cant see a problem driving three rear axles, just throw in various > props, > a transfer box, stir it all about and away you go, I can't quite picture where these extra prop shafts would fit, or indeed where the two extra axle-axle diffs would go, but hey, I'm no designer. > only problem could be the > overall length and the weight of complete vehicle and turning circle.. That's all right then > But if any one knows better please give some input !!! Yeh, c'mon you customisers. What's the opposite of "bobtail"? SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby. No 5,6,7,8, or 10 wheelers carried. >> But if any one knows better please give some input !!! >> > Yeh, c'mon you customisers. What's the opposite of "bobtail"? In increasing order of size: Stretch SuperStretch? Disco 3 Scammell USS Nimitz Hummer He's trying to "Hummerify" a Rangie. P. SignatureIf Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course Does it Matter if Nobody Minds? > > Why do you say "sadly, with only one front axle and three rear" ?? <snip> > I rather liked the notion of twin, steered, powered front axles, that's > all. Hmm, I have seen a pic somewhere of a Range Rover with two front axles and it just does not take my fancy !! > > I cant see a problem driving three rear axles, just throw in various > > props, > > a transfer box, stir it all about and away you go, <snip> > I can't quite picture where these extra prop shafts would fit, or indeed > where the two extra axle-axle diffs would go, but hey, I'm no designer. Ok I will try and explain, standard Land Rover 4x4 gearbox and t/box, out of the rear prop output of Landy t/box goes into a seperate t/box with 2 prop outputs ( 1 and 2 ) to the rear, output (1 ) drives into another separate t/box with 2 prop outputs ( 3 and 4 ) to the rear, so you now have three prop flanges which connect to the axles thus:- output ( 2 ) drives axle 2, output ( 3 ) drives over axle 2 on a carrier to the side of the diff case on to axle 3, and output ( 4 ) drives over axle 2 on the other side of the diff case and over axle 3 to one side of the diff case on to axle 4. Does that help at all Rich > > only problem could be the > > overall length and the weight of complete vehicle and turning circle.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Yeh, c'mon you customisers. What's the opposite of "bobtail"? The opposite of a bobtail is this !!!!!!!!!!!! :) > -- > Kevin Poole > **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. nov2004@mainbeam.co.uk)*** > Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby. No 5,6,7,8, or 10 > wheelers carried. > <snip> >> > there are 6-wheel Land Rovers about, and Range Rovers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But if any one knows better please give some input !!! The problem I could see is that of scrubbing all the tyres. With an 8x8x2 setup you have one steering axle and a further three static axles - when turning your pivot point is going to be somewhere between the #2 and #3 axles with the #1 and #4 axles being further out - the result is that the wheels on the #4 axle will end up getting dragged sideways when you're turning and you will scrub the tyres quite badly. You also stand a fairly good chance of the #1 (steering) axle ending up in what is effectively terminal understeed because it just doesn't have enough traction to drag the other three round. All of this is assuming approx. 100" wheelbase between #1 and #2 axles and then around 40" wheelbase between #2,#3 and #4 If I was doing this I'd look at building an 8x8x4 configuration with either the #1 and #2 axles steering with 40" wheelbase between them and then 100" between the #2 and #3 which would give you a Land Rover that thinks it's a Scammell Explorer, or another (probably better) choice would be to have the axles spaced approximately | || | and have the #1 and #4 axles steering around a turning point dead centre on the car - no tyre scrubbing and turning characteristics similar to a dumper truck. Of course, the other, stranger, approach would be to build an 8x8 with no "steering" per-se and go with fiddle brakes on all axles. At that point you have a Land Rover Argocat. Something to consider with what you are trying to build is that it is effectively a half-track without the actual track. P. SignatureIf Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course Does it Matter if Nobody Minds? >Of course, the other, stranger, approach would be to build an 8x8 with no >"steering" per-se and go with fiddle brakes on all axles. At that point you >have a Land Rover Argocat. the 8x8 one I've seen pictures of has front and rear axles steering. aha: http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/Supacat/HUGO.html I'm sure I had some info sheets about it. I still have a copy of the ad in LRO on the machine here. can't find 'em ATM though. >I cant see a problem driving three rear axles, just throw in various props, >a transfer box, stir it all about and away you go, only problem could be the >overall length and the weight of complete vehicle and turning circle.. > >But if any one knows better please give some input !!! You want 2 transfer boxes, back to back. however... I'd make at least the rear-most axle steer, meself, or mayhap the frontmost one. Otherwise you'll have silly amounts of tyre scrub. someone actually makes an 8-legger, using 2 T-boxes. I had a link to it once, I spect I've lost it now. There was one for sale in LRO a year or so back. > someone actually makes an 8-legger, using 2 T-boxes. I had a link to it > once, I spect I've lost it now. There was one for sale in LRO a year or so > back. This was the old Esarco, renamed MWG then ..... "Two full-time four wheel drive Land Rover transfer cases were used, mounted back to back with the first driving the second through their power take-offs by a dog-clutch and a short drive shaft. The first transfer case drove axles one and three and the second transfer case drove axles two and four. The axle differentials being offset, the prop-shafts could pass neatly over the intervening axles on their way to the appropriate differentials. All in all there were six differentials - four in the axles and two in the transfer cases." Various bits of history here: http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/Supacat/HUGO.html http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/SS/Esarco.html One of the UK 4x4 magazines had an article on the original many years ago. >> someone actually makes an 8-legger, using 2 T-boxes. I had a link to it >> once, I spect I've lost it now. There was one for sale in LRO a year [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > One of the UK 4x4 magazines had an article on the original many years ago. I've just found an illustration of the drivetrain of the MWG version (Perkins engine). Can I send it to someone who's prepared to host it? >>> someone actually makes an 8-legger, using 2 T-boxes. I had a link to it >>> once, I spect I've lost it now. There was one for sale in LRO a year [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I've just found an illustration of the drivetrain of the MWG version >(Perkins engine). Can I send it to someone who's prepared to host it? how big? if it's not huge, then I could. You could try the lot in oz., above - they might put it in their bit. >> someone actually makes an 8-legger, using 2 T-boxes. I had a link to it >> once, I spect I've lost it now. There was one for sale in LRO a year or so >> back. > >This was the old Esarco, renamed MWG then ..... Aye, that's the kiddie. >"Two full-time four wheel drive Land Rover transfer cases were used, >mounted back to back with the first driving the second through their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the appropriate differentials. All in all there were six differentials - >four in the axles and two in the transfer cases." dunno where I got specsheets from. I did, previously, with diagrams and everything. They were also using LR suspension, with ISTR 4 lots of front suspension with turrets. The rearmost axle is a front one mounted facing backwards, I think, while axle 2 is a rear one mounted backwards. Whether you really get enough clearance to run propshafts over axles, I don't know. >One of the UK 4x4 magazines had an article on the original many years ago. There's also a version of the design built in the US, but using US components. >dunno where I got specsheets from. I did, previously, with diagrams and >everything. Did you ever find that spec sheet? If so I would be very interested to see a copy of it. Cheers. Has anyone any info on the 4x4 Raptor and 6x6 Desert Raider from Israel? >Has anyone any info on the 4x4 Raptor and 6x6 Desert Raider from Israel? http://www.ail.co.il/fram1.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.