----------
From: Shane Ballensky[SMTP:roverme@sunset.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [D90] shocks modifications
> too. can somebody give me a good idea about the mod I sould make to fit
> an eye-eye shock? (to the rear of the D90 - ed.)
Alberto
You can buy shock adapter from Rockware and the like. Or you can make
your own. Its basically a "U" shaped piece of metal thats flat on each of
the three sides. The shock goes through the center of the"U" with holes
drilled on each side of the "U" for the bolt. The bottom of the"U" has a
bolt welded in place that then connects to the stock lower shock mounting
point on your d90.
Shane
----------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:17:46 EDT
From: RVRBRUCE@aol.com
Subject: Re: [D90] Final suspension question
I used the remote unit for several years. DO NOT use it as they become a leakdown problem and its a real bear to lose all your shocks at once. I just gave away all the Ranch stuff as I think they are not as durable as others.
----------
From: Shane Ballensky[SMTP:roverme@sunset.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [D90] Doetsch Tech Shocks
Ryan Mercado ryanmerc@pacific.net.ph asks:
>anyone has had any experience with Doetsch Tech Shocks? how do these shocks perform?
I had these on a j**p. They were the heavier duty ones with a 7/8" shaft. They are one of the few shocks that are actually capable of being used upside down(unlike ranchos-athough many use them that way anyways). They also had built-in bump stops which was nice since I had a new suspension settup and no bumpstops. They performed well as I didn't have any other shocks to compare them too so take that for what it's worth. I paid around 39.00 each. I would recomend an ajustable shock personally.
.02
Shane
94D90#1316
----------
From: Richard Hills[SMTP:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [D90] Suspension Questions
Q,
Yes, the nice thing about coil-overs is that springs are cheap, there are plenty
of spring rates to choose from, you can assembly your own variable rate spring
by stacking different coils, and you can set preload.
The bad thing about coil-overs is the shocks are expensive, if you brake a shock
mount or shock shaft, you are out of business, and most significantly,
coil-overs are not designed to work with the springs in tension (i.e., it would
take some design work and machining to build a coil over that can retain the
springs). Retained coil springs allow longer shock travel to be used which
increases articulation without decreasing or effectively decreasing (as in the
case of the DR system) the spring rate and hence the roll stiffness of the
axle. One disadvantage of dialing in a lot of preload on a coil-over to get
lift is the shocks tend to top out rather vigorously, which is a bit unpleasant
in the ride and bit hard on the shocks and the shock mounts. Top-out circuits
help out some, but shocks are not designed to handle significant top-out.
Rich
------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:23:08 EDT
From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Subject: Re: [D90] Final suspension question
>I would like to do the following:
>- - RR left rear .............. Further, I heard that 9014
>provided to much travel up front causing the D90 to stand up on end. What
>shock should I use up front? I heard the RS9207 is a good choice?
>Remeber, I want them to work with the remote control unit.
I seem to remember reading something about the 9012 on Rancho's website.
Check out http://www.gorancho.com and on the main page there's a button
"products" then look for "specialty shocks". In there, they mention several
part numbers that have either harder or softer valving, and I'm pretty sure
9012 was one of the numbers...Ok, I went in since my browser was up, and copied the text I remembered
reading:
"Soft Valved Shock Absorbers
Rancho part numbers RS5006, RS5008, RS5010, RS5012, RS9006, RS9008,
RS9010 and RS9012 shocks are specially valved for multiple shock kit
applications "
I don't know if it applies to LRs, but the info is on the site for all to
see. I don't know what it means.
Also, please check out: http://www.off-road.com/toyota/tech/shocks/ for
some more info on Rancho Shocks.
Alan_Ottley@mtn.3com.com adds:
I am running 9014's up from with OME 764's with no problems. The springs
are MD rears but work great up front. I also use them in the back with 9012
shocks. The rover sits level with the same springs all around. I have a
winch up front too.
From: Bill Ritchie[SMTP:billnsandi@kingwoodcable.com]
Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 6:19 PM
Subject: [D90] Rancho Shock Guides and a Question
I was researching shocks recently and came across some good info on the lengths of avail. Rancho shocks. 2 pages have pretty good stuff -
http://home.earthlink.net/~thediscoho/menu.htmlhttp://www.off-road.com/toyota/tech/shocks/
Both give stats for the shocks commonly used for the DR and RockWare suspensions.
9012 rears and 9014 fronts (DR) and 9207 fronts (Rockware).
The front shocks as we all know have "S1" pin type ends, so the choice is somewhat limited.
Bill Ritchie
'97 AA Yellow Defender 90 ST #2078 (with a few mods)
----------
From: farvin[SMTP:farvin@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: [D90] Shocks
>I used this site as a reference for awhile, then found a site in Japanese that
>had (to my knowledge) every 9000 made. All 61 of em with specs which is about
>3* the Toyota page.
I just put it up on my site. Go to:
http://gwu.edu/~farvin/Misc.html
and scroll to the bottom. Either right mouse click to "save as target" or
double click to open. Feel free to save this to other sites, D90 references
etc. Again, props to Matt at Rockware for getting the information ball
rolling.
Tom
------------------
From: Leonard Tanti Bellotti
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:30 AM
Subject: Rancho Specs
You might already have this somewhere on D-90.com but just in case
http://www.gorancho.com/images/Specs.PDF
downloads a full spec sheet in PDF format of all their shocks.
Keep up the good work
Leo
----------
From: Gbrovers@aol.com[SMTP:Gbrovers@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Bilstein Shocks
Kelly
You are corrrect in your observations about Bilstein shocks and I have to
say that BP is totally wrong about them. Comparing the bushing size, diameter
of the shock and the weight of them shows a lack of understanding of the
technical aspects of shock absorber design.
(NOTE: Bill is referring to information presented at:
http://www.britishpacific.com/icaweb/britpac.nsf/b141befe8fb1c2ea882564360001be0c/4ff98194c7f235ec8825687f0063af15?OpenDocument
Skipping the technical stuff for a second, here is some other info about Bilstein shocks.
1) Bilstein invented the gas pressure shock in 1953 in conjunction with
DeCarbon and perfected what is called the "high pressure gas monotube"
design. These are different from regular "gas shocks". Most companys don't
manufacture monotube designs because it is harder and more expensive to do.
The other companys that make monotubes are companys such as Penske, Cararra,
Fox and DeCarbon. With the exception of DeCarbon all of these companies make
specialty race shocks. That should give you a hint about the superiority of a
monotube design.
2) Bilstein shocks totally dominate most classes of racing such as
NASCAR, SCORE/HYDA, CART, IRL and Formula 1. This is even more amazing
considering that Bilstein originally didn't pay contingency fee's and may
still not! I've been out of the racing end for a while and just don't know
anymore.
3) Bilsteins have been installed as original equipment on some of the
worlds most expensive sports cars and touring sedans and many vehicles known
for the outstanding performance. Examples Mercedes Benz (since 1957), BMW,
Porsche, Ferrari, Chevrolet Corvette (since 1984 including the computer
controlled Active Ride suspension), all GM uprated optional Z71 off road
suspensions on both mid and full size 4 wheel drives. There are numerous
other examples but I hopefully I have made the point.
Concerning the technical aspects of Bilstein shocks, there are two major
limiting factors to a shock absorbers performance -
1) the ability to maintain its damping efficiency, which is usually lost due
to the oil in the shock "cavitating". Cavitating is a fancy way of describing
boiling. A shock absorber converts motion to heat. Under extreme conditions
there is so much heat generated that the oil literally starts to boil and in
the process the oil turns to foam. Regardless of the type of valving the
shock has, foam just doesn't cut it! i.e. you lose all damping ability. The
major function of the gas pressure in a Bilstein is to raise the boiling
point of the oil. if you understand the function of a pressure cooker this
should be obvious. As mentioned earlier a Bilstein is a "high pressure" gas
monotube. The pressure of most Bilstein shocks (not steering dampers) ranges
from 360 to 420 lbs per sq inch. This contrasts to most other gas shocks
which usually have somewhere in the range of 45 to 60 lbs of pressure,
including OME shocks. Another thing to consider is that a monotube shock will
transfer heat much more efficiently than a twin tube hydraulic shock (a tube
within a tube), which is what most other shocks are, including OME's. A
related point, most people have heard of shocks with external resevoirs, the
major function of an ER is to increase the volume of oil in the system to
keep the temperture of the oil down hopefully below the cavitating point. A
quick point about shock tube outside diameter, the OD of the shock is not
nearly as important as the OD of the piston inside of the shock. A monotube
design shock has the largest possible piston because there is no wasted space
i.e. a tube within a tube.
2) The second major factor in shock performance is valving design. Bilsteins
use what is known as deflective disc valving as opposed to check valve
arrangments. Valving is extremely important because limitations in valving
cause what is known as "hydraulic lock". Hydraulic lock happens when a shocks
valving reaches its limit - the shock absorber temporarily becomes a solid
unit (imagine running over a curb at 60 MPH). The problem with check valve
valving is that they are basicly a hole with a ball and spring to control
fluid transfer. If you remember from high school or college physics - unlike
gases or solids, liquids do not compress! So if you try to ram more liquid
through a hole than it is physically possible to do - the result is hydraulic
lock i.e. no movment/harsh ride!! This is what happens to a normal shock.
There are several ways to try and deal with this - multi-stage valving (when
one check valve locks another one kicks in) or using a low pressure gas
reservoir, so the gas compresses to compensate for shortcomings of the
valving. As noted earlier, Bilsteins use deflective disc vavling. The
difference is that most of the piston is actually mostly open and not solid,
and sealed with flexible discs. The more pressure that is exerted on them the
more they will flex, thereby allowing more fluid to flow thru the valve. This
is why Bilsteins are described as having infinitely adjustable valving. This
is hard to describe verbally so I would encourage anyone wanting a more
complete explanation and pictures to visit Bilsteins website
www.bilstein.com.
Hope this info helps clear up most questions, any more let me know.
Bill
Great Basin Rovers
Disclaimer - I am a Bilstein warehouse distributor (somewhat biased) and have
been selling Bilsteins for Rovers in NA longer than anyone, I actually
started to special order them into NA for Rovers in 1988 thru a previous
company (Rocky Mountain Suspension Specialists) and sold them wholesale to
all of the other Land Rover parts distributors, including BP. Also concerning
OME shocks, do not interpret any of this as saying that OME's are bad shocks,
they are excellent shocks ( I also sell them) and they would certainly be my
second choice but side by side to a Bilstein there is no performance
comparison!
Trivia note: most people pronounce Bilstein as Bilsteen (long E), the best
way to remember how to pronouce it is to think of beer! What do you drink
beer out of - a steen or a stein????
----------
From: matt@rangie.com[SMTP:matt@rangie.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: bilstein shocks
> how do i measure the correct shock length? do i fit the shock fully
> compressed? fully extended? static load? if static load - how do i know
if
> it's 2 inches over compressed or 2 inches over extended?
> ryan
Remove the shock absorbers from that axle. Fully articulate the axle so that the side you are using to measure is fully compressed, i.e. on the bump stops or the springs are coil bound. Measure the length between the two shock mounts. Take a little bit off for safety, and this is the maximum compressed length of your shock. If you didn't want to modify anything else, then this would decide the shock length. This is set so that you will never over-compress your shocks, which causes them to fail.
However, you may also want to measure with the wheel at maximum droop while not retained by the shock absorbers. Bear in mind that for the maximum droop you are happy with, you have to consider brake lines, springs coming out of the mounts etc...
Once you have picked your maximum articulation point, measure the distance between the shock absorber mounting points again. This will give you your uncompressed length for the shock absorber. Obviously an individual shock absorber can only extend by so much, so you may well find that the two readings can't be matched to a single shock, however, you can then decide whether you want to extend your bump stops to allow a longer compressed length without damage, thereby allowing more downward travel. You may then also want to consider moving shock mounts to allow more travel. Once you have the measurements, then you can try various options on paper, and see which one most suits your driving needs.
Matthew
nr Heathrow, UK
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
----------
From: Richard Hills[SMTP:rhills@nmsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [D90] Suspension Question
Ben,
You are correct in noting that the up-down wheel travel (with no
articulation) will be only 9.5". However, the wheel travel will be
larger in articulation. This is because in addition to the 9.5", you
also have additional wheel travel due to the angle of the axle. I
calculated that the additional theoretical wheel travel due to
articulation (as measured at the tire) is approximately 1.6 times that
of the shock travel at the center of the stock wheel. This gives 15.2"
of wheel travel. If you measure to the outside of the tire, or have
tires and rims, this ratio increases.
Keep in mind that this number is theoretical only. The stock front
suspension does not use all of the existing compression travel on the
shock travel as it is. By going to the Fox shock with your new bump
stops, you can use more of the available compression travel (simply
because they are longer when fully compressed). In addition, you gain
2.5" of extension travel.
Unfortunately, the stock front radius arms limits travel due their
overconstrained design and you still may not be able to get the full
wheel travel. This is why many are going to the 3-link or to the
modified radius arm approach.
The ratio on the rear is even larger. This is because the rear shocks
are not vertical. A 1" motion of the shock results in a greater motion
of the axle. Multiply this effect times 1.6 and you get a larger ratio.
The rear suspension is not overconstrained, and it is much easier to
obtain the full wheel travel available by the appropriate choice of
spring rates.
In addition, the stock rear has the same problem as the stock front in
that the rear shocks are not fully compressed when the rear is fully
articulated. The longer shocks (or Greg's drop kit), more efficiently
utilize the available travel of the rear shocks.
Rich Hills
----------
From: Richard Hills[SMTP:rhills@nmsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [D90] Suspension Question
Shorter travel on the SW:
The higher the cg of a vehicle, the less wheel travel one can afford
before the vehicle becomes statically unstable in off-camber climbing
situations. I find that a rti of around 1000 (on a well balanced
suspension - i.e. more articulation from the front that is possible with
stock radius arms) is about as far as I want to go on my SW. This is the
primary reason I no longer run the RR long springs with the long ranchos
on the front. I found that in many situations, I had to back down
because I was about to wheel stand the vehicle. With bit stiffer front
springs and somewhat shorter shocks (I am still running longer than
stock), I have no trouble climbing the same obstacles. With a soft top,
the optimum rti is more if your suspension is well balanced.
Rich later added:
Here are some more specifics for my SW. Because of the increase cg height, I
find that a softer front end with longer travel tends to raise up more when
climbing a steep high traction rock slab. In addition, the added torque exerted
on the rear wheels when climbing tends to lift the front even more. This all has
the effect of moving the cg up, shifting more weight to the rear wheels,
allowing for the generation of more torque on the rear tires, lifting the front
more, etc. With the higher initial cg of the SW, I found that it is easy to lift
the front so much that it wants to wheel stand (or worse if I didn't back down
and try another line) before the rear wheels broke traction under some high
traction conditions. By limiting the allowable upward travel on the front
suspension, one can control how high the front lifts in its travel, limit the
weight transfer to the back, and climb up (or brake traction) without the
tendency to wheelstand.
A somewhat similar effect exist when climbing steep off-camber rock slabs. If
the rear is too soft, I find that it is easier to walk one of the rear wheels
under the chassis, leaning the vehicle over more, walking that rear wheel
further under the chassis, until I have to back down for fear of toppling over.
This effect is worse if the front is soft with lots of travel on steep climbs
simply because there is more weight on the rear tires which allows more traction
to be generated by the offending tire. The higher your cg (relative to the track
width), the more tendency to do this with our suspension geometry.
Soft tops have significantly lower cg heights and are less sensitive to these
effects.
Rich
----------
From: Chris Walker[SMTP:cwalker37@home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 11:38 AM
Subject: [D90] Re: Heim joints
RB,
I was talking to some people at a shop called the Off Road Warehouse
here in San Diego. They sell Fox shocks, Race Runners etc. I was
considering changing the ends of my Stage II Fox shocks to heim
joints. I was told by them that heim joints do not last very long.
They are used in off road racing, where the joints are changed very
often, usually after each race. So I purchased the same ends that
are used for heims, but there are bushings that fit in place of the
heims, and those will last longer. http://www.offroadwarehouse.com/
You'll have to call thier shop on Balboa Ave. if your interested in
that sollution.
good luck,
Chris Walker
95 Disco
----------
From: Nathan Hindman[SMTP:nahindma@wholepeople.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 7:18 AM
Subject: [D90] RE: Limiting Straps &"Koly's little problem" Was RE: Suspension Q uestion
>If you are going to go all out with a disconnecting spring type suspension,
>I'd probably recommend check straps. With the Desert Rover and also the
>Rockware, I assume, you can bolt check straps on the shock mounts and
>rubber band them to the shock. While still hard on the mount you get some
>protection for your shocks. I'd be worried if you were jumping your truck
>and clipped something with the axle... Not that the straps would help a
>whole lot then, but it's only about a $50.00 - $60.00 option from Rancho.
And I responeded:
I have limiting straps on my 90 because due to my shocks, the springs were
constantly falling out below the cones (3-4" below). I ended up installing
the Rancho straps which I believe only ran about $60-75 for the pair. I
installed them running from the chassis to the axle. Ever since the install,
I've yet to have a problem with the rear springs (just ask anybody who ran
with Rover Bruce on Golden Spike last year how big of a problem I was having
before the straps) If there's any interest, I can post pictures to either my
website or the Q's ever informative d-90.com. But the limiting straps would
definitely cure problems like what Koly had last weekend and also solve
future "spring fatigue" related problems too.
No affiliation with Rancho, yadda, yadda. I just really like these straps.
Nathan
94 AA Yellow D90 #1811
97 Discovery XD