So if anyone in Australia has some "normal springs" to sell please let me know or even if you want to swap some of your normal springs for my heavy duty springs let me know.
![Image](http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/gazzz21/Forum%20Posts%20Album/2013-07-12_16-57-38_614_zps513d2cdb.jpg)
![Image](http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/gazzz21/Forum%20Posts%20Album/2013-07-12_16-57-56_839_zpsb79d24d8.jpg)
Cheers
Garry
John while the payload may or may not have been increased but the ability to carry heavy loads continuously would be increased. I assume that when at max load on normal springs the rear would be on the bump stops where with heavy duty springs there would still be wheel travel left.heinkeljb wrote:Looking good then, I wonder if the "claimed" payload for your Haflinger was changed due to the thicker, longer springs? The standard Haflinger is claim to have a payload of 500KG. I wonder the Kommunal variation had a different Spec and if your "old" springs are actually the same as those fitted to the Kommunal? Could quite easily be "specials" made for the gold miners!
John
Yes, looking along the length of the side members (from the front), the side members droop ~5mm in the centre compared to the two ends. Not sure how this might have happened, as the low point is at the mid point and it would be difficult to put a huge weight in that area.heinkeljb wrote:On another point, Julian's platform looks like it suffered from overload at some point in it's past with the side rails looking a bit bent if you look down the length of them. Do yours suffer from the same issue?
Posible - but to do so would require the removal of the sideboards (otherwise they would collapse under the pressure), and there won't be many occasions when a Haf is trailered away _without_ the sideboards installed.heinkeljb wrote:Admittedly, this is speculation on my part, but I can't think of any other reason for the bend in the bed. unless it is because it was strapped down when being transported and the straps were just over tightened?
Hi Garry,garrycol wrote:I managed to get some standard springs and installed them today.
Here is the old heavy duty spring compared to the new standard spring. The new one is just under an inch shorter than the heavy duty one and the coils in the old are just under 15.5mm thick and the new ones are just over 14.5mm.
Hi Julian - my heavy duty springs are 26cm tall so your 23cm is about right for standard springs - I cannot help with the washers etc as I did not take note of these. After about 60km on the new springs the rear wheels still point in a little but no where near what it did before and should settle further with use.Julian B wrote:I have just removed my rear springs, and they are 23cm tall when out of the vehicle, and ~14,.35mm cross section. It is very likely therefore that, based on cross section they are the lighter duty springs, but could you tell us how tall yours were?
Whilst on the subject - and being slightly concerned about my arguably excessive camber on the rear wheels, I now see that there are a series of washers / spacers between road spring support cones (#21) and the hub casting; they have a total thickness of 10.6mm and 12.4mm on each rear axle, but none are shown in the Parts Manual. I can't quite get my head around whether these spacers are helping or hindering, and whether I should re-fit them when I re-build the suspension ... ???
Julian
Jim, The washers go between the rear swing axle and the supporting cone that attaches to the lower end of the road springs. It is either to overcome an excess space between the upper cross member and the swing axle, or it is a mistake by a previous owner. I'd like to leave them out when I re-build this area, but if the springs rattle around in their seatings I will presumably have to put them back?walderse wrote:Julian, Can you post photos of these washers in place? I have not seen such washers on any trucks with which I am familiar.