Rancho Boots...a little late.

[jmbrodsky@domain.elided]

Tom, Yank, et al.

     I'm sure that most of you know this, but for those that don't,
The only REAL reason to mount the boots on the bottom is to lessen the weight of
the axles or unsprung weight (ie. weight not resting on the springs).  What this
means is that (mostly on buggies and race trucks) the weight of the mass 
suspended on the spring is less, and the springs have to work less to move the 
axle/wheel/brake assemblies.  Some (few) racers like to lessen the weight of the
vehicle and leave the weight to the axles.  Race Motorcycles have 'upside down' 
forks, meaning that the thin movable part (piston rod) of the fork assembly is 
on the wheel, contrary to most motorcycles (with big fat tubes from the wheel 
hubs, and little skinny shafts in the triple clamp).  The reason to keep the 
boots up top is that they stay out of the junk more.  If you ford (in water not 
the blue oval) to the depth of the axle, the polished chrome piston rod will get
some debris on it, and *eventually* cut the dust wipers, and the shocks WILL 
begin to leak.  The failures are compunded by: rough roads kill shocks, and 
dusty/muddy conditions deposit dirt on the shaft, even inside the boot.  The 
racers like the piston down and the shock body up, and of course, they replace 
theirs every 25-1000 miles depending on the race.  Heck, actually most racers, 
don't even run boots, they weigh more, and don't pretect much at 100+mph.  For 
those of us without that kind of disposable $$, mount the boots up top.  There 
should also be drain holes in the boot.  If not, cut some 1/8", that way at 
least you can clean them out when stuff gets in there.  Believe it or not, I 
have seen some boots (come in to my Uncle's shop, "the car/truck's making a 
clunking noise") half filled with sand and mud, some still wet!  If you check 
them when you get home after wheeling you should be OK.  On my Chevy, I had the 
boots up towards the body, the springs were so g@&&amn strong they hardly flexed
even when I caught a few feet of air!  I wasn't worried about the sprung weight.
Also, keep in mind that the predicted life of a shock (from various manu.) is 
about 35-40K miles.  That's not that long if you think about it.  I think the 
shocks on my '75 T'all have the IH logo!  How's that for old?  They'd have 114k 
if original and they SUCK!  I'm planning to do the lift, and the shocks, so I'm 
lagging.

     The other little ditty is that most shocks from OEM manu. have a steel 
shroud over them, and MUST be mounted piston side up, so the shroud can drain.  
Otherwise it's an 8" mud cup.  Rancho/Monroe prolly built the same body, with no
steel shroud and reversed the mounts for the racers.


ALSO, One thing that everyone missed on the best mod. to their rig!

Vent the pumpkins with fuel hose, so you don't drown them in 12"or more of 
water!  Cheapest insurance out there.  What, like $1.00 each for the fittings (2
needed) and maybe $2.00 for the hose?

     Before I sold it, I went out with 19 Hummers, 2 LR Disco's and Me with the 
'72.  Did everything they did (with open diffs even, and 3.07 ratios never 
slipped a wheel), forded almost 30" of water (the rig was a 40deg. nose down, 
and water was over the hood) kept running just fine, AND had 31" tires!  It's on
the HML home page www.humvee.com look in events and the Winkleman rally Feb '97.
 Pictures show the truck.

Now the question,  What's this talk about only being able to ford (again water 
not oval) 14" or starter height?  A stream will not short out a starter unless 
it's remarkably polluted with ionic compunds, or salty.  Mine never sputtered.  
Any ideas?  Is it just a rumour?

OK enough rambling...

Hope it helps...


     -Joel Brodsky

         '76 IHC Scout II 345/tf727
         '75 IHC Travelall 150 4wd 392/tf727
         '72 Chev Carryall 3dr 4wd 350/th350 sold, but not forgotten.
               Had a 4" lift Hella 2000s, tube vented pumpkins, etc...

-----INCLUDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS-----
------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:31:53 -0700 (MST) 
From: Tom Mandera <tsm1@domain.elided>
Subject: Re: Rancho 9000

Not that I have 9000s.. but it seems to me folks mount 'em both ways, 
depending on your mounts and preferences.  At the same time, some folks 
use the boots, some don't.. 

- -Tom

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Yank Yarborough wrote:

> IH All,
> Could someone currently running Rancho 9000 shocks please tell me if the 
> front shocks are installed with the red boots at the top or the bottom. 
> Mine would only mount with the boots at the bottom. Most photos in mags 
> show the boots at the top.
> Thanks in advance for your replys, 
> Yank 
> 

------------------------------