I am building a coiler for my '71 IIA based on a shortened D90 chassis. Keith over at RoverTracks has fabricated the HD links both front and rear (thanks!). The front suspension is being based on the SG 3-link. I decided to take on the center link setup myself. A hand fabricated crossmember was built using the same materials as the SG piece. To aid in brake loads, additional plates are welded to the chassis behind the crossmember. These plates will prevent the crossmember from pushing backwards and possibly shearing the eight mounting bolts. The biggest issue has been the talk of the third link failing on the SG design. It happens to be a lower link used in a Teraflex lift kit, as I understand it. My center link is being fabbed out of 2" (.250" wall) DOM, 1" threaded inserts (BlueTorchFab) and 1" threaded poly bushings (PolyPerformance). The inserts for the polys allow the use of 3/4" bolts. I felt that overkill was the only way to go here. Based on the shear bulk of these materials I feel that failure due to hard braking or even frontal impact should be completely negated. The axles are trussed 9" HP with custom brackets made from 3/8" thick material. The rest of the driveline consist of a LS1, 4L60E and flipped Dana 300. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have...hell, I'll even tolerate some flaming... :flipoff2:

Even I can fabricate a story like this. Show us some pics :flipoff2:

Sounds like a cool build!

The danger is in the placement of the links. That is what caused the mishap you are refering to. Radius arm need to mount up high above the third arm.

JP

yes - do some searches using a combo of link and separation

I'll post pics soon but here's the skinny. The brackets are welded to the axle housing now. At the frame the vertical separation between inner and outer links is 2.5". At the axle the vertical separation is 8". The outer arms are approximately 31" long and the center link is approximately 22". The center can be adjusted the control caster/pinion angle. The center link points downward and mounts to the bracket which is angled back and even with the bottom of the pumpkin housing. The outer arms are nearly horizonal at rest. Any thoughts on anti-dive or roll center?

8" is plenty. The SG 3 link is based around a single radius arm. If you measure its separation, its identical to a Stock radius arm. The problem with Gregs 3 link in the begining was the mounting to the stock cross member. He fix that problem with a new X member. Now, if you want the bushings to last etc, I would go with a bit more separation, or go with a 4 ,link. Teh only major issue with the SG 3 link now is that with big tires, you will go through poly bushings really fast. They really should be upgraded to heims or some other hard bushing once you cross the 35" tire barrier.

I would recommend 3/8 wall. This link sees lots of abuse.
You don't want to use the threads for flex. The threads will wear out and pull out of the link.
But I agree with KC and say you should go with a four link instead.

2"-.025 wall is pretty stout material. I seriously doubt that the teraflex link used by SG is as much so. The poly bushings will probably be okay for my limited use and aren't too expensive to replace. Heim joints in the center link were considered but I'm going with poly first. Transition to heims will be very easy if required later down the road. I understand the issue with threads wearing. In reality, I've seen less than an 1/8 circumference's rotation in close to full motion. The threads extend fully into the insert (approx. 2") as well. I can run up the jamb nuts and probably be just as well off. Once I get some pictures up you'll see how stout that link really is. A four link is very doable but I wanted to try something different this go-a-round. I'll watch the tire issue as I want to go from 33" to 36". That's about all the Currie HP9's can handle, so I've heard.

I pulled these pics to save the eyeballs....hehehe. Look lower for a couple of links.

hard to see the angles from the size of the image!!!
now my eyes hurt. Coming back when it is not gigantualistical.

Sorry about that. I should have saved the photos in a reduced size! (DUH!)

Here are three photos to show the progress. More bracing and trussing is in the works.

All I see are red X's :confused:

2"-.025 wall is pretty stout material.

Uhh? Unless you guys use a different decimal system in the States that's pretty fawking thin.

Typo.....corrected as 2"-.25 wall. New 'reduced' sized pictures will go up soon. :p

I'm thinking some links will suffice.

http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20005.jpg (http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20006.jpg) http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20007.jpg (http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20009.jpg)

It ain't purdy but when finished the chassis goes to the galvanizer and the housings get powder coating (or maybe some Hammerite paint).

:rolleyes:

What happened to resizing the photos?

Do you have any side on shots showing the angles of the links relative to the frame?

Whats the verticle seperation at the axle and at the frame?

I'll need to get better pics. #005 above is about as close to side as I have. Separation is 8" (axle) and 2.5" (frame). radius arms are 31" long and the center link is 22" (center to center). When raising or lowering the axle the pinion rotates keeping near perect alignment with the xcase front yoke. If viewed from the side, the center attachment point is behind the radius arm points by roughly 2". The center link bracket extends downward and is near level with the bottom on the pumpkin housing. The radius arm points are about 5" above axle centerline. It should be darn close to the SG setup. The crossmenber is 3"x3" .250 wall and the link attachment material is .375" fully welded.

Hey,

Did you go with the Hi-9 centers? If so, please be sure to tell us what you think of them while your intalling them.

I think they will be great. The HP9 centers have 4.10 r&p on Detroit lockers. I'd like to convert to air or E lockers but this is what was in these when purchased. They'll be motivated by a slightly modified '00 LS1, kitted 4L60E and flipped D300. I don't see much chance of damage with this combo and 36" max tires. At 2900 lbs, this truck should haul ass on and offroad.
:smokin:

http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20009.jpg (http://members.cox.net/mark4460/3%20link%20006.jpg)

One more shot

More pics. I know it doesn't compete with some of the outlandish rigs in here but it should be fun for a daily driver. HP9's front and rear, 2000 Corvette LS1, 4L60E and flipped D300. The springs are RTE 3" lift and the outer links were made by Keith at Rovertracks. I fabbed up the center link and had the brackets laser cut at a local metal fabrication company based on my drawings. The chassis is a 94(?) D90 with approx. 12" cut out of the center to get the WB back to 88" for my IIA body (last photo). Ignore the surface rust as it will go away with the galvanizing hot dip once all the chassis work is complete. Oh yeah, sorry about that first pic (it hurts my neck too).

http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-001.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-002.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-004.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-005.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-007.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-008.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-009.gif
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88-010.gif

Between work, fiancee, daughter, house projects, soccer, 240Z project, etc. it's damn hard to get anything done! I really need to complete this before the 06 MAR because the IIA hybrid is showing it's age after 5 years of use and abuse.

It's looking good, really good.

Uhm, regarding cutting the frame down, you do know that the D-90 is 92.9" so you would want to cut out about 4.9" to get back to a 88" wheel base. But the 88" wheel base has the rear axle a bit forward in the wheel well so really 3.9" would be about right to get it centered.

Hopefully its a typo and you shortened a D-1 or RRC 100" chassis by 12", otherwise you might want to start looking for a Series I 80" body.

Pete

I had grand ideas of doing similar until reality intervened in so many ways.

From what I understand of the Safari Gard setup, I always thought a weak point was the attachment of the lower steering guard/attachment point being held to the differential housing with fairly weak hardware, what is it, 7/16".

As for lower link mounting, (Pendy's comment) if one looks to Adam Way's setup, his setup appears to move those links much higher awya from the axle housing. Hopefully, he'll chime in.

Three link vs. four link. Is the assumption that the axle will never articulate enough to bind with the four link? Seems to me there are an awful lot of pieces twisting that could get tangled up, versus the relative elegance of the three link.

Soon, I'll be able to afford to buy a real brandy new three-link. Shopgrrl says so! :flipoff2:

yeah, looking good. Why did you decide not to go with the Teraflex link again?

OH yeah, and about looking for an 80-inch body...don't do it. :D

I actually don't recall the section length removed. The axles sit on 88.5" centerlines front to rear. This centers the rear tire in the wheelwell as it doesn't have to move so far back in full compression like the leafsprung version. The SG uses (or did use) a teraflex piece for the center link. It was part of a 4 link Teraflex sold for the TJ(?). I chose to over build mine using 2" .25"wall DOM. The ends are poly rods with 3/4" bolt holes and 3/4" grade 8 hardware. The brackets for the center are laser cut from 3/8" plate. I'll be reinforcing that bracketry brfore it's finished. I considered rotating the brackets to move the mounting point further down and spreading the link separation. I decided that it's present location, no lower than the diff housing, would reduce impact possibilities offroad. Again I forget the actual separation but it is actually a good distance apart. The crossmember is made from 3"x3" .25" wall sq. tubing and the rear centerlink brackets from 3/8" plate again. Four 3/8" grade 8 bolts on each side fix the crossmember to the chassis. 1/4" plate will be added to the backside of the crossmember mounting plates to take the load off the bolts in case of a major hit up front. If any of these break I'll have a lot more to worry about than the front axle rolling under me. Thanks for the compliments and constructive observations. I consider you guys the masters of this craft!

.250 for the center link seems a hair to thin for me, lots of force there. Same for the crossmember, especially for a collision. Just think of how many .250 wall links have crushed on the trail.

.250 for the center link seems a hair to thin for me, lots of force there. Same for the crossmember, especially for a collision. Just think of how many .250 wall links have crushed on the trail.

I think he'll be alright. That center link appears to be very short to me. The guys killing the 0.25" wall links are usually running very long links, and dragging them over rocks.

I thought about this and spoke to several people too. While it may seem small in wall thickness the tube is only about 18" long. I see very little in the way of serious rocks as well. It would take a strong blow to cause enough damage to incapacitate to frontend. If it shows signs of bending I'll just replace it or sleeve it.

It may have been mentioned already but is there any particular reason why the third link is lower than the outers rather than the traditional way of lowering the outers a couple of inches and locating the third link above the differential,or offset to the left side? I have done it this way to 3 trucks , 2 v8's (1 with Volvo portals)and my own 4 cylinder 2a with portals, and didn't have any difficulties finding operating space for the top link. My lowers were made from lower rears with a section of the pin end of the original front radius arm cut and welded in. The top link was just a stock rear link with the stock 3 bolt chassis bushing attached to a suitable bracket on a reinforced stock crossmember. because the loads are purely compressive and tensile there is no need for heavier wall tubing.In addition the the extra loads on bushings inflicted by portals, my 2a has the coil springs mounted behind and below the axle centreline which placed the chassis bushings under permanent compression loads, leading to a relatively short life. I cured that problem by replacing the bushings with series 2a engine mountings after boring through them with a 1 inch hole saw. they last very well now. The top link chassis bushing I replaced with an A frame ball joint. The other 2 trucks with conventional coils work fine on stock bushings. The offsetting of the top link did not present any handling problems on any of the 3 trucks.
Bill

It may have been mentioned already but is there any particular reason why the third link is lower than the outers rather than the traditional way of lowering the outers a couple of inches and locating the third link above the differential,or offset to the left side? I have done it this way to 3 trucks , 2 v8's (1 with Volvo portals)and my own 4 cylinder 2a with portals, and didn't have any difficulties finding operating space for the top link. My lowers were made from lower rears with a section of the pin end of the original front radius arm cut and welded in. The top link was just a stock rear link with the stock 3 bolt chassis bushing attached to a suitable bracket on a reinforced stock crossmember. because the loads are purely compressive and tensile there is no need for heavier wall tubing.In addition the the extra loads on bushings inflicted by portals, my 2a has the coil springs mounted behind and below the axle centreline which placed the chassis bushings under permanent compression loads, leading to a relatively short life. I cured that problem by replacing the bushings with series 2a engine mountings after boring through them with a 1 inch hole saw. they last very well now. The top link chassis bushing I replaced with an A frame ball joint. The other 2 trucks with conventional coils work fine on stock bushings. The offsetting of the top link did not present any handling problems on any of the 3 trucks.
Bill

:eek: PICS PLEASE BILL :)

I was following the basic SG design. Yours sound fine too. I'd also like to see pictures of your rigs. I've seen similar setups on jeeps. It's always interesting and educational to see how others have engineered their machines.
One more run on details of mine. The center link tubing is only 14" long. The separation at front is 8.5" and 1.75" in the rear.

Ez,
if you don't mind, how much did the custom cut parts run you?

How did you find the place that did it?

Did you supply the metal or just the drawings?

Pete

I used a local company called 'Metal Concepts'. I looked in the phone book under 'metal fabrication' and they were one shop nearest me. It turns out that they are a great shop willing to take on small projects if you are willing to wait (they use this mostly as fill work between big jobs). I only supplied my drawings and Jim, the owner, put the data into his computer. Total cost was around $150.00 (maybe a little bit lower) for 13 pieces. I've used him several times and have always been satisfied.

:eek: PICS PLEASE BILL :)

I wish I could post photos, but that would require equipment that I don't have such as a digital camera and/ or scanner. Hell the way my wife and kids keep me poor I could barely afford this old steam powered computer. Grimace maybe someone could find the photos in the archives of Outerlimits and crosspost.

Could someone clear up a question I have about the original SG 3link ?
I recall reading a few years ago now about a comparison of variously modified D90's called Twist Off or something similar. The front end of the prototype SG 3 link "toggled up under brakes, snapping the driveshaft and causing the truck to roll."
My theory, right or wrong of why that happened at the time was that most of the separation of the three links at the axle was horizontal rather vertical.
What did SG do to resolve those issues on their production kits?
Bill.

...Could someone clear up a question I have about the original SG 3link ?
I recall reading a few years ago now about a comparison of variously modified D90's called Twist Off or something similar. The front end of the prototype SG 3 link "toggled up under brakes, snapping the driveshaft and causing the truck to roll."
My theory, right or wrong of why that happened at the time was that most of the separation of the three links at the axle was horizontal rather vertical.
What did SG do to resolve those issues on their production kits?
Bill.
Here is how I understand it.

Lower links at front see the highest loads during hard braking. With SG style 3 link all of this compression load is directed through the single lower.

The SG prototype used the stock crossmember, which failed.

The production units use a beefier crossmember.

Link to thread with some pics of Hybrid (page 2) -

http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22705&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=volvo&start=30

Bill, I'll have to bring the camera around one day.

Dave.

First, that aussie machine is crazy!
Aloha (Pete), the original SG failure has been discussed many times on many forums. The stock thin skinned crossmember failed allowing the centerlink to move back and the axle literally rolled under the vehicle. SG fixed that problem with the new crossmember. I followed their lead and constructed mine from heavy material too. Mine does drop down to accomodate the 4L60E transmission. The centerlink is much bigger than the SG piece. I was more concerned about a frontal collision than braking forces.
Aloha, you might remember me (Mark) when you lived over by the Landstown(?) intersection. I purchased a Travelall Dana44 front axle from you for my 71 hybrid 88. You were preparing then for your move to Hawaii.
Lastly, 'Metal Concepts' is one block off Hampton Blvd at 1075 W 35th St in Norfolk. I actually found them under 'sheet metal fabricators'.

the twist off failures were from too little of vertical seperation at the axle and during hard braking the system folded.
The crossmember failure was something that happened to Gregs D90 during 24 hours on the hammers. He was going high speed(well to fast for circumstances) and cased the front suspension in a washout.

With that in mind, what is adequate separation? I'm in a position that some changes could still be incorporated. Is my 8.5" enough. Note that it isn't merely separation but how it relates to the axle centerline too. Mine is roughly 65/35 with favor to the bottom where brake forces are greatest.

First, that aussie machine is crazy!
Aloha (Pete), the original SG failure has been discussed many times on many forums. <snip>
Aloha, you might remember me (Mark) when you lived over by the Landstown(?) intersection. I purchased a Travelall Dana44 front axle from you for my 71 hybrid 88. You were preparing then for your move to Hawaii.
Lastly, 'Metal Concepts' is one block off Hampton Blvd at 1075 W 35th St in Norfolk. I actually found them under 'sheet metal fabricators'.

Aloha Mark.
Yes I do :D I also heard through some folks in ROAV that the Hybrid turned out very nice.

I think your first paragraph you meant to refer to someone else, I didnt question SG :D

I was curious about getting parts cut though. I will definately look into farming out some of that work when I get to that point in my next build. It takes forever to cut out 1/4" parts when all you have is a torch and sawzall. Couple hundred bucks to get everything done, and most importantly done more accurately, is a good idea to me.

8.5" of verticle seperation should be plenty good.

Link to thread with some pics of Hybrid (page 2) -

http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22705&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=volvo&start=30

Bill, I'll have to bring the camera around one day.

Dave.

I remember someone posting that before here and I saved a couple of the images. I still think the entire forced articulation thing is awsome.
Love watching the thing perform

http://users.bigpond.net.au/hybridlr/hybrid/hybrid4.wmv

That is HOT!!!

Can anyone educate me as to what happens with the forced articulation setup when you drive up or down a very steep hill?

Will the forced articulation provide the final nail in the coffin if your truck is trying to roll over one front wheel going downhill with the rear almost without any weight on it?

Trialers tend to solve this very crudely - zero uptravel, lots of downtravel.

Bill? Anyone else?

When we discuss link separation (and I admit a good bit of ignorance in the finer points of such designs), are we referencing the separation o fht elinks at the frame end, the axle end, the max distance between the two links when mounted, or???

When I look at the Safari-Gard setup, it looks to me as though the links are only separated by a coupla inches, not some of th enumbers bandied about here.

PT

there's vertical seperation at both the frame and at the axle.
Generally more seperation is needed at the axle vs the frame.
The SG 3 link has about 7.5" at the axle and ~2" at the frame.
The stock radius arms have 6" at the axle.
These figures are from memory, even though I just measured these the other day I wouldn't depend on then being accurate!

Can anyone educate me as to what happens with the forced articulation setup when you drive up or down a very steep hill?

Will the forced articulation provide the final nail in the coffin if your truck is trying to roll over one front wheel going downhill with the rear almost without any weight on it?

Trialers tend to solve this very crudely - zero uptravel, lots of downtravel.

Bill? Anyone else?

Wilsby, It wouldn't be fair to EZZZZ to hijack this thread on 3 link front ends to discuss forced articulation, so perhaps I'll endeavor to explain on a new thread.


RoverHybrids. That 7.5 inches of separation on the SG unit. would that be vertical or total separation? The way my admittedly half blind minds eye sees it, lots of longditudal separation would offer very little control compared to vertical separation.
Bill.

If you look at the links from a sideview there is 8.5" of vertical separation at the bolt centers at the axle and 1.75" at the chassis. On the horizonal plane the outer links are located where the stock radius arms would be. The centerlink is offset to the passengerside about 3". I did that for one reason. I had to clear the diff housing for ease of bracketry.
As for locating the centerlink above the axleline and outer links below that was questioned, I copied the SG design somewhat and the LS1 sits so low that I would have had to locate the centerlink further off center to clear the oil pan in suspension compression. I felt that keeping that lower link closest to center would provide the best on-road balance.
Agrover please provide us more info on your design. I don't mind a hijacking
since most questions and observations have been addressed regarding my setup.

As for locating the centerlink above the axleline and outer links belows has was questioned, I copied the SG design somewhat and the LS1 sits so low that I would have had to locate the centerlink further off center to clear it in suspension compression. I felt that keeping that lower link closeest to center would provide the best on-road balance.


Curious, did you look into using a wishbone design for the third link to clear the engine?

IF you could build the wishbone so that it would clear the engine couldn't you just mirror the rear suspension and you could get rid of the panhard?

Pete

I did consider the wishbone design. One problem is exhaust. The headers only clear the rails by 3/8" each side. The downpipes would preclude the wishbone being spaced out as far as the rear factory piece. Also, the front driveshaft would inhibit a viable mounting point on the driverside. I know it could be done but I wanted to stay within the constraints of the stock chassis as much as possible. The panhard rod is not a huge issue in my situation although I have considered a watts linkage here. Again, that would probably be overkill engineering for my needs. I keep thinking that this will be the LAST major project (just like the 240Z) and I want to keep things as 'stock' as possible for PMS (preventative maintenance schedule) purposes. One-off parts are fine but having to reproduce them to replace damaged pieces can be a pain in the a**. Besides, if I do all the cool stuff then there's nothing to shoot for later......oh yeah, I forgot, this is my LAST major project! :D

Wilsby, It wouldn't be fair to EZZZZ to hijack this thread on 3 link front ends to discuss forced articulation, so perhaps I'll endeavor to explain on a new thread.

Please do. I'm trying to understand whether this is something to incorporate in a Prototype trialer design.

............RoverHybrids. That 7.5 inches of separation on the SG unit. would that be vertical or total separation? The way my admittedly half blind minds eye sees it, lots of longditudal separation would offer very little control compared to vertical separation.
Bill.

I was refering to just the vertical seperation of the SG system. I think there is a couple of inches difference in the verticle plane.

I was refering to just the vertical seperation of the SG system. I think there is a couple of inches difference in the verticle plane.

Thanks, I must have been looking at the photos all wrong. Does anyone have a photo of their current system? I have seen their new crossmember but haven't seen a clear view of the axle attachments.

When we discuss link separation (and I admit a good bit of ignorance in the finer points of such designs), are we referencing the separation o fht elinks at the frame end, the axle end, the max distance between the two links when mounted, or???

When I look at the Safari-Gard setup, it looks to me as though the links are only separated by a coupla inches, not some of th enumbers bandied about here.

PT
With link suspensions, the vertical separation at the frame has little affect on the loads in the links, but does affect what happens as the axle articulates (changes to instant center location, anti-dive etc).

The vertical separation at the axle affects the loads on the links.

Take for example, front links during braking. Assume:

1. braking force between the front tires and the road surface is 1000 lb at each tire (assumed equal for simpicity here). Total of 2000 lb.

2. vertical height from ground to lower links is 14"

3. vertical separation between upper and lower links is 8"

And for simplicity assume links are parallel to the ground (small angles don't make a lot of difference, but introduce trigonometric functions to the calculations).

Now the load in the upper links is 2000 lb x 14" / 8" = 3500 lb (sum of moments = 0)

Then load in the lower links is 2000 lb + 3500 lb = 5500 lb (sum of horizontal forces = 0)

If the separation between the upper and lower links is reduced then, the load in both the upper and lower links will increase (and vice versa)

Then for SG style 3 link:

Load in each upper link is 3500 lb / 2 links = 1750 lb tension

And load in the single lower link is 5500 lb / 1 link = 5500 lb compression

For 1 upper and 2 lower links:

The load in the upper link will be 3500 lb tension.

And the load in each lower link will be 5500 lb / 2 links = 2750 lb compression.

It should be clear that loads are worse with SG style 3 link. Cross member, links, joints etc. just need to be suitable for the loads encounted.

Here's the latest. It seems to take forever with all my other responsibilities.
This is the balljoint mount cut from a rangie axle and fit into a bit of square tubing fabbed into a C channel. The small hole on the front is for access to the cotter pin. I'll add some gusseting to strengthen it. The axle is hanging freely in the chassis. I guess the A-frame is keeping it from dropping more. I welded in dislocation cones and the springs are not seated in the photos. Jacking up on end of the axle doesn't show too much articulation but I suspect it will have to increase once everything is assembled and sitting on four tires.
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88%20011.jpg
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88%20012.jpg
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88%20013.jpg
http://members.cox.net/mark4460/hybrid88%20014.jpg

Looking very repectable. Even on a fully assembled vehicle their is a huge difference in articulation when you place the jack or other lifting device at the base of the tyre compared to under the axle. As you are probably aware, due to the angular displacement of the bushings, Rover ''A'' frames don't pivot around the bolt axis. It's a combination of twisting and compression of the bushings that occurs. This resistance is what is reducing your droop and articulation with the truck only partially assembled.
Bill.

"angular displacement of the bushings, Rover ''A'' frames don't pivot around the bolt axis. It's a combination of twisting and compression of the bushings that occurs"
The exact reason that the suspension works as well as it does... Barring full on stupid this aspect of the stock suspension that most of us retain keeps our wheels on the ground.
Good work!!!

"
The exact reason that the suspension works as well as it does... Barring full on stupid this aspect of the stock suspension that most of us retain keeps our wheels on the ground.
Good work!!!

I don't disagree with you on that Keith, I was just trying to explain to EEEEZ why his axle doesn't move as freely in the workshop as he might have expected.
Bill.

I kinda figured it was the bushings restricting the movement. I'm a newbie to the coiler world and always looking to learn something new from the pros here.