Spring pressure????

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
R

Rich

Guest
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 "


 

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
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



"Autolycus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> Kevin Poole
> **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
> Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby
>



 

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Autolycus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > 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.


> 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.


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?


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
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
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



"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 "
>
>



 

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xr3pd.126$%[email protected]...
> 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.



--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby

 

"Autolycus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:xr3pd.126$%[email protected]...
> > 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


<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


 
On or around Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:35:58 GMT, "Rich"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:35:58 GMT, "Rich"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>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.

--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
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. [email protected])***
> Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby
>



 

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <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 ??


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"?


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. [email protected])***
Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby. No 5,6,7,8, or 10
wheelers carried.

 
Rich wrote:

> <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 !!!
>


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.
--
If Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course
Does it Matter if Nobody Minds?
 
Autolycus wrote:

>
>> 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.
--
If Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course
Does it Matter if Nobody Minds?
 
On or around Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:11:28 GMT, "Rich"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.


 
On or around Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:01:55 +0000, "Paul S. Brown"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.
 
>> 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
> http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/SS/SS300.html
>
> 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?

 
On or around Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:12:59 +0000, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>
>> 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
>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."


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.
 
On or around Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:28:35 +0000, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>>> 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
>> http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/SS/SS300.html
> >
>> 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?


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.

 
Back
Top