Spring Relocation Cones or Spring Retainers

[Wilson1730]

I have a 1994 Discovery with a 3in Terrafirma lift. And I was told that the rear axle could articulate enough for the rear springs to dislocate. I thought originally that the rear end would have to articulate a lot for that to happen but I was out roaming the other day and noticed after a moderate section of trail that the spring had come down and wasn't seated properly.

I was able to fix it easily enough with my hi-lift jack and a pry bar but it made me realize that I need to fix this so it doesn't happen again because I felt like I got lucky this time.

I have heard of both the Retainers and the Cones. But have been told the Cones can be a mess sometimes.

Wanted to know what people's thoughts were and what peoples experience has been with either. Thanks.

 

[Eniam17]

I don't have them but I have ridden a lot in a friends D1, he is a rover technician and has cones in his. They work great and those springs will come out a lot if you're articulating. They make a lot of noise on his, not sure if that matters to you

 

[bmxer06pa]

Retain the top and use cones on the bottom.

 

[David Harris]

Dislocation cones don't really make a lot of sense to me because they allow more weight to be transferred off of the wheel, Yes, the wheel stays on the ground, but there's little weight on it to provide grip. I would go with the retainers top and bottom.

David

 

[owhiting]

Personally I like to retain the spring top and bottom with some heavy duty retainers. The dislocation cones are noisy and as stated in an earlier reply very little weight is on the tire at full drop out and if you have lockers there is not much need for the extra drop. It also places a lot of stress on the shock absorber that is not designed as a limit device and you can break the shock.

 

[bmxer06pa]

Please explain how fully retaining the spring puts more weight on the tire.

 

[Fivespddisco]

O boy
Here we go :lurk:

 

[David Harris]

O boy
Here we go :lurk:

:Wow1:

 

[Fivespddisco]

Take it for what it is worth


Springs
Compression springs are made to function in "compression", not "extension".
They are coiled in a particular way so that they will "resist" compression in either a Linear, or Progressive manner.


The purpose of the spring is to resist the sprung mass of a vehicle's body (and all the goodies on it) from its natural tendency to go down towards earth.


Compression springs do not "like" to be "extended" beyond their free unloaded total length, this is because it can damage their inherent compression rating and it's coil elasticity.


Springs part B
Linear springs resist the forces acting on them in a linear/constant manner.
Progressive springs become progressively stiffer as forces act on them.


My opinion about the two
The progressive springs' initial coils will resist "whimsically" for the delight of on-road comfort but to detriment of off-road performance. Progressive springs are not so much designed for off-road but more for a "limousine ride" on-road. With a Land Rover weighing around 3 tons and running on 33 in plus tires I want it to perform in a linear/constant/predictable fashion, especially off camber.


Retaining
If you want to retain an axle from extending beyond what you desire it to do, just use a strap to hold the axle from going any farther then you like.


Shocks
Some shock absorbers are large enough and strong enough that they will perform the function of retaining the axle. This is not to difficult in the case of a relatively light rover axle, but if they where not designed to do so you run the risk of over extending the shock or (Bottoming it out)


Cones
Because of space constraints in the Rover wheel wells it is often useful and without many downsides, to use spring cones to gain more wheel travel. When used in combination with long travel extended shocks. This will give you more flexibility with out building a coil over system for you truck.


Putting it all together
The "sprung" mass of the vehicle will not compress the springs when the axle articulates in the opposite direction. Imagine a teeter-totter in a kid's playground. As the axle falls down to look for more traction the opposite side compress more under the added weight. When the direction of inclination changes back again the shock absorbers will slow down the initial return of the axle also slowing body roll. Then the spring will come in contact with it's spring perch, and it will perform it's loyal duty as the compression spring and start to hold the body again.

A side note about Traction
The old constant about traction is you can only put down on the ground as much torque as the terrain's available traction factor. If the factor is for example 0.1(Ice), you can have the truck fully locked, but the terrain will allow for only so much torque, or momentum, to be applied before the contact between tire and terrain will fail, resulting in slipping. So by keeping all the tires on the ground you are able to increase your traction patch

 

[redneck44]

Try these http://www.x-eng.co.uk/X-Spring.asp
or if you really must http://www.gwynlewis4x4.co.uk/page68.html

 

[David Harris]

Justin, what we need is a shootout between cones and retained springs, same conditions to see the actual differences in action. For example, I read a claim on a forum that a retained sprung truck will keep traction longer up an RTI ramp than one with cones. Let's see them side by side, rather than just debating theory. What do you think?

David

 

[Wilson1730]

Thanks for all the idea's, what I ended up doing was purchasing the Expeditionware Spring Retainers from Expedition Exchange.

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/cart/product.php?productid=18475&cat=272&page=1

I think they will be a good fit for my vehicle and the type of off-roading/Overlanding that I do. I will let everyone know how they end up working out.

Cheers.

 

[Fivespddisco]

In my opinion the reason the Rover community is anti-cone goes back about 15 years. At that time we did not have the shock availability that we have today and the cone was a jagged piece of metal.
If you had this set up on your truck and needed to use the cones this is what happened.

As the axel dropped down the spring would stay attached to the metal cone until could not hang on any longer. There would be a clang sound and the axle would drop.

When the axle drop the shocks would be in charge of controlling the body roll, unfortunately they were not up to the task. The body would jerk giving the driver that horrible "oh my God I'm going to roll" feeling.
Things did not get any better when the spring went back into the bucket. The bang was twice as loud and the truck would usually shake and give the driver that horrible out of control feeling again.

So the next question is why did everybody think retaining the springs was best?

People would keep the exact same setup except remove the cones and retain the springs. Immediately they felt the truck was more stable.
The reason for this goes back to the shocks again. The shocks could not control the body roll. By retaining the spring they have added a 2nd shock in a way. In short the retained spring was acting like increased valving.

Fast forward back to today's time where we have shocks valved correctly for the weight of our vehicles and cones made out of plastic that are silent when used. This makes the cone option pretty attractive.

 

[Fivespddisco]

Justin, what we need is a shootout between cones and retained springs, same conditions to see the actual differences in action. For example, I read a claim on a forum that a retained sprung truck will keep traction longer up an RTI ramp than one with cones. Let's see them side by side, rather than just debating theory. What do you think?

David

People always say the truck is more likely to roll. I just need to find an obstacle were a truck will roll close to the shop.

 

[David Harris]

People always say the truck is more likely to roll. I just need to find an obstacle were a truck will roll close to the shop.

I theory, I can see how that sudden rocking motion of dislocation and relocation could shift the weight abruptly and roll it more easily, but I myself have never seen an actual case of this happening. Anyone out there have a verified experience of rolling because of a cone?