Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Has anyone got the safarigard 3 link kit on their rangie/disco/dfendr
or know if they sell the kit over here in oz. and how well does it perform and how much does it cost. thanks

You probably wont get much info for the $G 3 link over on this site...

Search the Rover section on Pirate 4x4...Heaps of info!!

Hopefully someone will pipe up with some real info!

Good Luck...

Dave

in the latest 4x4 monthly there was a black rr with $G 3 linkfront taking part in an OL night drive (i think)
maybe the qld guys know something about it?
might be cheaper to have the set-up made over here.
not too difficult for a custom 4x4 suspension joint.
david

I thought that these things were breaking due to the stress concentrations in the lower links. There is some great analysis of the system here:
http://www.yellowdefender.com/twist_off ... ff_result/

The early model broke, I think because there were some design problems and they were using a basically std gearbox crossmember to attach the link to. I haven't heard of the later links breaking.

They don't call them $G for nothing - better have deep pockets if you want one. Don't know how legal some of the bits like their shock mounts would be in Australia also. Would be quicker and cheaper to get something similar (or possibly better) made in Australia.

i think their prototype one failed in one of a series a comparison tests of various suspension modifications to defender 90's. If I remember correctly their 3 links were horizontally displaced rather than the traditional vertical displacement. It was only a prototype, and I believe they redesigned it into a reliable, safe and workable product, but as Ben has said it may not be engineerable in Australia.

Bill.

risking a hijack, why would you run that over a 5-link? I would have thought this would save bumpsteer.

this US rover has a safari guard three link quiet impressive

AnthonyP wrote:quiet impressive

So you mean it isn't very loud???

Does anyone have any photos of the Safariguard 3 link system? I think their proytype one that failed had the 3 control rods displaced horizontally. It would be very difficult to control torque reaction forces from accelleration and braking with horizontally displaced rods and during the braking test at the defender 90 twist off the front diff toggled up, snapping the propshaft and the vehicle rolled. I believe they have redesigned it and it works well now.With a 3 link, which is actually a 4 link (3 longditudals plus panhard rod ) you really need around
180-- 200 mm of vertical displacement of the control rods and less compliant bushings at the axle attachements to adequately control these forces. one advantage a 4 link has compared to a 5 link is that you can build a 4link with rose joints everywhere if you wish and they still work, but a 5 link needs very compliant bushings to prevent binding for them to give the same degree of articulation.

Bill.

Slunnie wrote:risking a hijack, why would you run that over a 5-link? I would have thought this would save bumpsteer.

3 link wont bind during articulation. But good parallel 5 link is practically as good.

3 link can have geometry to control pinion angle to point at transfer when using dc joint at transfer. Cant do this with 5 link without binding during articulation.

I don't see what your point about bump steer is.

Bill, as far as I know the failure of the prototype was due to using the stock cross member as Ben said. I would have needed similar vertical separation to stop axle wrap.

Thanks for the photos John. They are very revealing. That is certainly one beefy crossmember. I retained the normal one for Nigels Hybrid but gusseted it on 2 planes. I thought that would be more than strong enough, but time will tell I suppose.

The centre link and its bushings appear to have high torsional rigidity. How does it allow articulation without straining the anchor points ?
One thing I am not too keen on is that the ground clearance across the whole width of the axle is not much greater than the clearance under the diff centre. Often in deep mud the vehicle can push the relatively narrow front pumpkin through and the rear pumpkin will follow in a cleared path, but the Safariguard setup looks like it would be like a dozer blade, offering too much resistance for the rear wheels to overcome.

Regards Bill.

Bill, the centre link has a bushed joint toward the front that is free to rotate but still transmit the axial loads. This can be seen in 2 of those pics.

Thanks again John. I thought it looked like a welded joint at first.

Bill.

bill, you seem to be right about the ground clearance.
i guess the sg 3-link mostly gets wheeled over large rocks/uneven surfaces. stability and traction?
i don't see many muddy rutted pictures on pirate or any of thhe yank sites.
have a look at the safariguard web site, there is some interesting shots on there.
let me know when you plan to test the portalled duels out
might come along and watch.
david

The Safari Guard thing on the axle doubles as a track rod protector, so to some extent the "blade" is already there on a standard axle. A little easier to drag in mud, somwhat more susceptible to damage. I have a track rod protector (no tree link) with angled front and rear surfaces that will act as skids on mud. It should be possible to make a similiar setup for a tree link.

Mick whathisname has one in his silver winch challenge rangie trayback in Aussie, used it in the outback challenge, nz challenge etc.
He seems to like it but the standard rangies keep coming home first...

Maxidrive and others make a heavy duty trackrod, but 2 tons of vehicle pushing agaist an embedded rock or stump will still bend it. Does anyone know if it would be possible to make one from spring steel ?
Bill.

daddylonglegs wrote:Maxidrive and others make a heavy duty trackrod, but 2 tons of vehicle pushing agaist an embedded rock or stump will still bend it. Does anyone know if it would be possible to make one from spring steel ?
Bill.

I am gonna be replacing mine soon and was considering maxi drive or sleeving but the spring steel sounds like a good option.... maybe someone could elaborate more on this something thats strong and flexy You dont think it would be to flexable

I think you need both protection and an upgraded track rod. I have a track rod protector with integrated diff skid made out uf 8mm/10mm steel AND "Sumo bars" reinforced track rod and steering rod. I believe they have 6mm wall thickness vs 3mm stock. The protector is not enough, my previous stock track rod buckled from compression loads when I was steering hard against some rocks. You can build an even bigger track rod, but the P-ends stay the same, and I'd rather have the rod as the fuse than have a P-end fail at highway speed after a day on the trails.

I also have steering protection from 8mm steel and a beefed up, adjustable panhard rod, and this set up hold up fine on my Defender 110, which weights in at around 3 tonnes with the family and some gear (2880 kg with wife and kids, jackall, some tools, recovery gear, NO camping gear, NO extra clothes).

The way I see it, if you have a strong flexible track rod, when you push up against a rock, rut or stump as the track rod bows, the tierod ends merely swing aroud their axis and the bowed bar should jump over the obstacle. I wouldn't think it would be too flexible for normal steering duties. I just hate the thought of compromising groundclearance, and this is just one more of the reasons I grafted series 3 swivelhousings on to RangeRover axle housings on my portal axle rig. The best solution would be to convert the RangeRover swivels to high steer front trackrod, but this would get expensive.
Bill.

Bill, your ideas are sound, but not necessarlily compliant with Swedish registration rules, especially with newer wehicles that are approved EU-wide and need to be re-registered ("engineering") if changed.

I loose less than an inch under the track rod, I am still above the radius arms, and the protector works as a skid. I works quite OK in real life, and it is still the diff protector that take most of the abuse.

You are correct Wilsby, I dont think my ideas on front trackrod would be compliant with any country's regulations. Years ago I did see a couple of RangeRovers that were fitted with 9 inch Ford front diff centres, a conversion that necessitated front trackrod conversion. They used a Right hand outer swivel housing from a left hand drive vehicle and a modified trackrod from a Nissan or Toyota. The Rangerover drag link from the steering box plugged into the tapered hole in the Toy/Nissan trackrod.
This setup gives reverse Ackerman angles, ie the outer wheel turns slightly sharper than the inner wheel when making a turn rather than vice versa. I have been running ''Reverse Ackerman'' on my Landeys for about ten years. I am of the opinion that it gives the steering better feel and it certainly reduces the turning circle, and there is no increased tyre wear as some people predicted. In fact my English book titled "New Directions in Suspension Design" favors Reverse Ackerman or Parallel steering over traditional Ackerman linkage.
Bill.

Bill, thank's for the info on your experince on reverse Ackerman. I observed in on a trial Suzuki w Toy axles the past Saturday, and thought at the time that it represented a severe drawback. Does this mean that a significant toe in on a trail-only rig would improve steering, you think?

The vehicle I'm thinking of is not a Landy, but a Suzuki LJ80, which in fact lacks the track rod altogether. It has hi steer with links to both svivels. Cheap, simple and good clearance, but toe in/toe out varies with load.

Bill, please elaborate on that book. I.e. ISBN number or other info on how to get it. Searched Amazon, but no book listed under that name.

On the portalled rangie we played with the thought of moving the tie roc behind the axle for steering box clearance, but that would give negative Ackerman, which is not accepted by the roadworthiness approving engineer for modified vehicles. If I can show some documentation to support the idea it might be feasible.

Thanks
Tobias

Even with proper akerman steering geometry, it only works at low speeds up to around 40km/hr. You don't get akerman affect at higher speeds.

For track rods etc. I would use heat treated 4140. Spring steel covers a multitude of steels including some that would be poor choices in this application.

All steels have nearly identical Young's Modulus (ratio of stress to strain). Deflection under load is a function of size and Young's modulus so a track rod would deflect the same no mater what steel is used. The only factor that you can change to make it more or less stiff is the size.

The important property is to spring back after being deflected without suffering a permanent bend. This is a function of the elastic limit (yield strength for mild steel). Heat treated 4140 provides the best performace for your dollar in this department (ready available in heat treated form). Hytuff would be better if you want to make the rod smaller (to deflect further), but costs more. not as good range of available sizes and needs to be heat treated after machining.

Wilsby, I could not comment on how a Suzuki would go with reverse Ackerman. It is very easy to experiment with series Landrovers because the steering arms can be bolted either top or bottom of the swivel housing.
In fact at one stage I had 2 sets of steering arms bolted on and I could change from Ackerman to Reverse Ackerman in a couple of minutes just by fitting the appropiate track rod on ( Reverse Ackerman requires a shorter trackrod ) I was so happy with reverse that I also converted my other LandRover. Normal series Landys tend to understeer and have a poor turning circle. Reverse Ackerman sharpened things up a bit and tightens the turning circle, particularly on narrow track series 2's and 3's because the outer wheel turns sharper than the inner wheel before the tyre fouls on the spring shackle.
Tobias, if you swapped your portal boxes left to right to put the track rod behind the axle you would have to put a cowbelly bend in it to clear the diff centre, and that would put you in the same boat as RangeRover, LandRover 110/90 , with trackrod exposed and vulnerable.
I was thinking with a RangeRover that one doesn't need a left hand drive swivel housing to convert to front steer. you could just swap swivel housings left to right and use a modified Toyota track rod. You may have to reorganise the brake pipes, and I am not sure the standard panhard rod location won't interfere with the trackrod, but it may be worth looking at.
It looks like the spring steel or Hi Tuff trackrod may be another product Maxidrive could look at.
Bill.

Interference between panhard and track roc is exactly the problem we have with the Volvos on the rangie. That's why we thought about rear mounted track rod. As it stands now we limit axle up-travel by approx 50mm, which is a bad thing in a portal rig, since it is high enough already. Yes with rear track rod it would hang down a bit, but with portal ground clearance we can live with that and a Southdown style skid plate under the track rod will keep it alive I think.
Anuways, we have Engineering scrutineering tuesday, so too late for major changes before that and after that we may have to ;-)

Tobias

Yes Tobias , I had the same concerns with panhard rod/ trackrod interference when I fitted Volvos to a 110. I solved it by moving the panhard rod chassis mount up and back to about 60mm forward of the steering box. I also removed the internals from the pitman arm ball joint and welded in a piece of old steering arm with the tapered hole machined to fit in where the ball joint and seats fitted. This permitted full suspension uptravel and made the drag link and panhard rod parallel again.
Bill.