You wouldn't happen to have a digi camera handy would you?

It depends on why you ask?:p

We have one, but I have been too cheap to pay for posting privs. on the bulletin board.

Rich

Send them to Doug or myself. I would be happy to post them for you. I will even optimize them for the web.

Way

Originally posted by rhills
It depends on why you ask?:p

We have one, but I have been too cheap to pay for posting privs. on the bulletin board.

Rich

Free photo hosting here:
http://dkg.elmo-the-dog.com/

And you can link the pics

Rats! I was hoping you would post before I left work!

But I was going to say...."THEN POST SOME FAWKING PICS MAN!"

Seriously, many of us would be happy to post pics for you....you cheap assed bastard....

Gotta' get us some spy pics my brotha!

--D

Presently, my d90 is sitting in the garage with the top and bed off and the gas tank sitting on the floor. There have been no modifications so nothing worth taking a picture of. It is still sitting on its stock axles with its stock wheelbase. Nothing has changed. I have been telling my local club members that I don't plan to be rolling (on the stock axles) until latter this summer. I'm still conceptualizing how I want to make the new cab and where the roll cage will go. Finally worked out the basic geometry of the tub last night and will start on the top tonight.

Presently, Im planning on making the fender boxes 12" high (above the floor of the bed) to allow more articulation and growth potential to larger tires. Does this sound like enough for 38.5" tires with stock bump stops. I'm also planning to make the structural part of the tub about 4-6" narrower behind the seats and then adding bolt on panels that follow the current outer shape of the tub and have the nice surface finish. The panels are intended to be non-structural, very flexible, and easily replaceable.

Since my present design of the cab extends about 30" back from the seat box, I still have about 2 feet of unused real estate behind the cab. Thinking about a very short flat bed over a raised tank. What do you guys think?

My overall goal is to keep everything as light as possible to keep the weight off the back and to keep the cg down and forward.

I'm looking forward to see what Sam comes up with as far as suspension modifications. Since I am not planning to get to the suspension part until after the cab is functional, there is still some time to think about it. My present plans through are to keep the wheelbase 100" or less and to design in near zero anti-squat.

So far, five of our club members have stretched their 5's, 7's, and a TJ to the 98-102' range. Amazing difference in off-road performance. Especially those with little anti-squat. They are currently running 35" to 38.5" tires. However, 5's, 7's, and TJ's have their cg's back compared to a d90 (our engine is shorter and more forward). So I am not totally convinced that we need to go to the same wheelbase to get a good weight distribution. I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that Currie runs 96" on his competition vehicle and he did ok last year.

Thanks for the offers to post pictures. When I have some to post, I'll take you up on it (or pay my $20).

Rich

Yes, but Rich, you have to understand that I'm asking you for pics for purely selfish reasons! The primary of which is that there is someone else out there that's as fin' crazy as I am...(even though you put more "thought" into your designs!). I'm just a choppin' metal butcher/figure it all out later during the mock-up phase! hmmmmhmmmm....

12" should be plenty with a 38.5" tire...I figured it this way...With 4.5" bump-stops, and the 35 SSR's I was within 1/2" of rubbing the tops of my rear fender-wells...And, if I remember correctly, the current rear wells are sitting at 9.5"...So your more than fine....Even with 2.5" bmpstps.

If you can, keep the tank between, and just behind your seats...Sure you'll have a lump there, but your keeping the weight distribution more towards the center...and the cell shouldn't have to be any higher than your new raised fender wells' anyway...It would make a better, more usable load space IMO anyway.

For the rear 2' of "space" I would put a nice split level cooler/tool tray back there. Cooler on top (for obvious reasons) and under, all your necessary tools...

As far as the suspension goes, I have to ask, what don't you like about the 90 now? I've decided (yet again) to just shit, so I can get off this damn pot, and build it just like stock, only make everything longer and bigger relative to the new WB. My roll axis will be lower because I plan on mounting my rear links on TOP of the axle CL rather than below. I'm sure I have enough spread between the upper and lower links (with the height of the 70)....What do you think Rich? Rear steer will be somewhat of a bitch, but without triangulating my upper and lower links like 'X' I don't really know what else to do other than running a pan-hard and wristed radius arms in the back (PAIN IN ASS!)

Like I said before, the plan in the rear is to make the lower links as loooong as possible...Right now the plan is at 54" long, and I'll make the upper two links the same (proportionately) as the stock set up (just a tad longer however).

I've had a million ideas floating in my head the past YEAR :barf: and I keep coming back to the KISS principle. Primarily to get the beast back on (off) the road, and off the jack-stands.

Let me know (you too Sam) about pro's and con's of running the rear trailing arms on top of the axle rather than under. I'm gonna' be building the links next weekend! FAWK YEA! The 2.5" Jonney's are ordered, the tube is ordered, the threaded inserts are ordered, the 3/4 3/4 heims are ordered, and the poly bush's are ordered! Won't be long till she's sprung in the rear (next weekend) boy's and girls!

TTFN,

-D

Doug,

Unfortunately, I spend all of my time thinking and none doing?

Rich

ROCKROVER

cant wait to see the next batch of picys :D

you are going to take plenty of photos for us arnt you???????

Yup...Lot's of pics to come...But only after some substantial progress...Don’t want a bunch of yawn's after she's "finished"...

Hey Rich...You didn't answer my question...Do you see a major problem with mounting the lower trailing arms ABOVE the axle CL rather than below the CL? I just can't see any issues other than reversing the compression/tension action from the "norm". I suppose that compression during acceleration wouldn't be a problem if the links were nice and straight...No kinks...Tension/acceleration could handle a little "wanker" in the link...I dunno'...I need your thoughts! The time is near!

--D

Tell us more about your trailing arm ideas. What is the frame side going to look like? The board has been slow lately.

Way

Doug,

The vertical distance between the upper links and the lower links is the primary issue as far as strength (assuming that the mounting points are more or less in the same vertical planes as stock).

If you are still using an upper a-arm, but raising the lower links on the axle to above center line, the forces under acceleration in the lower links will still be compression (just more), and the forces in the upper links under acceleration will still be under tension (just more).

Raising the whole system on the axle (due to attach points on the axle and due to larger diameter tires) will also increase the forces. So as long as you build strong enough, you should be ok from a strength point of view.

As far as how this affects suspension geometry (axle roll axis inclination and hence rear axle oversteer), anti-squat, depends on the actual locations of the mounting points on the chassis, on the axle, and the operating diameter of the tires. So I don't know how this may affect high speed stability.

However, lengthening the wheelbase has a very positive effect on yaw stability. The rule of thumb is this type of stability is proportional to the square of the wheelbase. So most people (I have seen one exception) that increase their wheelbase by going to 4 links from rear leaf springs are surprised at how much more stable the vehicle is.

On the surface, the more parallel the trailing arms (regardless of height of mounting point on the axle), the less roll over-steer. This is good.

Thanks heaps Rich...The main reason that I'm really considering mounting the lower links on top of the axle tube is that, in conjunction with the proposed ride height I'm considering, the links will be close to parallel (maybe 6 deg down) to horizontal (ground). I've got a whopping 14" of ground clearance with the UN-shaved 70 (unsprung with 20 psi on the 42's)....Obviously that's gonna' go way down. The other motivator is that with the lower links that height, I won't have to worry about hitting them as much, and won't have any need to bend the links themselves for ledge/break-over clearance. O'yea, the rough measurements of the rear links will be 54" centerline of bolt to centerline of bolt....That's at a 115" wb.

I'll make the uppers I'll mount as high as possible to keep the bending moment as low as possible (torque arm long) and still keep the upper's at or near parallel....Can you tell it's been 14 years since my Statics class? :rolleyes: My goal (attainable) is to have the lowers parallel with the uppers, and on an horizontal plane.

Way,

I'm using the SG frame mount (ear-less) mounts (still have um welded up). Supper basic...Two lower parallel and an two links on top....Supper basic 4 link really.

Think the SG mounts will be strong enough with what you are using them for??? They were designed for a lighter rover axle with 37" tires max. I know that other companies (James Duff) jump to the big 1" to 1.5" Heims for strength issues. You will proabbly be fine, but may want to give it a thought before you fab up a bunch of arms.

Way

Well, I've heard of failures with the 3/4 x 3/4 heims...But these are the NASCAR XAM (?) series...Rated at 40K+ tensil. I think that's gonna' be more than enough.

Were did you get the 'rated at 37" tire max' figure? Or is that just Greg blowin stink out his hole again?