And let's hurry with the replys so I can nail this biatch down and wheel!!
I'm in the process of stickin' my 60's under my Suzuki Sidekick and ran into a little wonderment. Everything else looks good and right on par with my links, only I am wondering how I want to center the truck upon the axles, so to speak. With the engine up front, and very little weight in the back, should I center my links with the wheelbase or the rigs weight distribution? Right now, it is set up as the picture with the red ink. All four lower links are equal length at 42 inches. This does, however leave the rear link and the front link about 4-6 inches from each other at the tops.
Now, should I leave it this way, or shorten the front links to move the mounts closer to the vehicle's center of gravity?
Iwill have a 38x14.15 SX full size spare hanging off the back as well as possibly a rear winch. Engine is a 4.3 V6 mounted relatively low in the frame.
So, basically my question, in the short version, is: Should I center my link mounts based on vehicles weight distribution, or it's wheel base?

Just fix it right, pull the radiator cap off and drive a jeep under it. Then it will be fixed.:flipoff2: Sorry for no tech, just couldn't resist messing with another SD boy.

Erin

So THAT"S how it's gonna be, hmm?:flipoff2:

Hey, you ever done Flatnasty? If so, is it all that, or not?

It really comes down to personal preference. The longer the arms the more potential travel you can get and the less foreward and backward movement of the axle through the suspension cycle. With that said, you would never need anywhere close to that much travel. My first thought would be to make them the same length so you only have to carry one spare.
60's under a sammy???

well I'm not sure if this is the correct way but I am setting up my links so that they mount to the frame in line with my t-case u-joint. Then they will move with the same arc as the driveshafts.
I think you want them to point at the center of gravity, so I would assume that the links would be shorter than in the pics. But it's kind of hard to explain. I assume you did a ton of searching already, and if not you should as you will learn about everything you need to .

I like the idea of the 60s under a kick, but will it be wider than long?:D

Technically, it's not a Sammi, it's a Sidekick! The difference being that boys can drive sammis, but apparently, only 15 year old girls can drive a Sidekick:confused: . This all started as a $100 bet that I couldn't make one sweet and respectable, so it HAD to go bada$$!
I was just worried that having the top mounts of my lower links so close together might also affect my sidehilling as basically, the truck is connected to its axles on a peak of about 6 inches. It is in a 3-link configuration, however-traditional in the front, but with the wishbone on the bottom(to protect driveshaft) in the rear.
And as far as spares are concerned? Hee, Hee. The links are made from solid 1.50 ETD cold rolled steel! Unfortunately, they weigh 52 pounds a piece, but they cannot be bent. They also cannot be welded, so I'll still probably carry a spare.

Originally posted by fcfred

I like the idea of the 60s under a kick, but will it be wider than long?:D

I stretched the WB to 95" over the stock 86" and cut the axles down to 63." And just to be on the safe side, the axles are 35 spline throughout, spooled and Detroited:D . You just never know when that 1800 pound Suzuki might get nasty!
The links are almost directly in line with the driveshafts. The front shaft is 33" and the rear is 32," so I managed to center everything almost perfectly on pure luck! That means only one beefy spare driveshaft as well! So, actually, the picture is pretty damn close to the real thing, only the angles aren't as steep on the rig. I'm not sure about the links pointing at the CG, but the whole powertrain is dropped pretty low. The links are going to almost sit flat.
Oh, here's a pic of my sweety going in the front.

I wanna see pics of your rear links. I have been debating on doing the same 3 link setup. I like the idea of have a DS protector.

I haven't done many trails. It seems that I keep breaking and not having enough money to fix it right. I just finally ordered my new brake fittings after losing my brakes 3 wks in a row at the race track. I want to completely redo the thing, but we have a '58 Willys pickup in the garage that we are working on for another guy. Paying jobs come first unfortunatly.

Erin

Originally posted by willymutt


Paying jobs come first unfortunatly.

Erin

Dude, I hear that! By the way, need any bumpers built?

I don't have the rear done yet. It's easier to do the front first as everything has to be a certain way with the steering, oil pan, etc. It's easier to add or subtract lift in the rear to make up for the front. But I will keep you posted. BTW, you ever get signed up on our website, www.midwestcrawler.com ? it's kinda' cool. It's doing a great job of keep the "bean feild wheelers" connected and entertained!

No bumpers needed. The bender is waiting my time in the garage. I am going to build a new body first though I think. Haveing a 8' sheet metal brake in the garage rules.

Erin

Originally posted by willymutt
Haveing a 8' sheet metal brake in the garage rules.

Erin

Ooh! Wanna be my new best friend?:bounce: :bounce2:

I have unlimited access to a 10 footer and a full HVAC sheet metal shop. :D I need some bumpers BEOTCH.

Originally posted by twistedmetal
Ooh! Wanna be my new best friend?:bounce: :bounce2:

Originally posted by MattS
I have unlimited access to a 10 footer and a full HVAC sheet metal shop. :D I need some bumpers BEOTCH.



OK, fine. You can be my friend, too.:rolleyes: :D

I'll make your bumpers, but nuthin' :rainbow: ! I want to see some badass shiat!:mad2:

60's...under a sidekick?

imagine running 44s, when it flips over the wheels will be touching, so hit reverse and keep driving!! :D :flipoff2:

Will see if I have time to mock em up in cardboard this weekend. And you can try and fit my 44's when I bring it up for the bumpers! :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

Originally posted by twistedmetal
OK, fine. You can be my friend, too.:rolleyes: :D

I'll make your bumpers, but nuthin' :rainbow: ! I want to see some badass shiat!:mad2:

Originally posted by BJ On Roids
60's...under a sidekick?

imagine running 44s, when it flips over the wheels will be touching, so hit reverse and keep driving!! :D :flipoff2:

Now THAT is an idea! All I need now is a remote control and it would just be a big toy! I could get out at all the scary stuff and just watch and laugh!

tee hee hee

just need an aeroplane engine, or dry sump it!!
and run a dry sump style setup for your diffs and tranny and you are good to go!!

maybe i have wasted wayy too much thought on this already :eek: :D :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin: :smokin:

Originally posted by MattS
Will see if I have time to mock em up in cardboard this weekend. And you can try and fit my 44's when I bring it up for the bumpers! :flipoff2: :flipoff2:



Don't worry about the mock-up. Show me a pic of what you want, and I'll take over with my sick imagination! I've already got some basic ideas in mind, but I want to see what you're thinking of first.

I need some more input. Anyone else have some ideas?

I would do the equal length ones. That way one spare fits all 4 corners. Since you going long anyway I see no disadvantage. They only problem I can even think of with the short fronts would be that they are too short and they have backward movement on droop.

Originally posted by twistedmetal
I need some more input. Anyone else have some ideas?

Originally posted by MattS
I would do the equal length ones. That way one spare fits all 4 corners. Since you going long anyway I see no disadvantage. They only problem I can even think of with the short fronts would be that they are too short and they have backward movement on droop.

the rear lower links need to run as paralel to the drive shaft as possible and mount cloes to end of tcase yoke.the upperlink needs to run at least 80% PARALEL MONTING A LITTLE CLOSER AT FRAME IF UPPER LINKS ARE LOTS SHORTER THEY NEED TO BE PARALEL IF POSIBLE .THE LOWER LINKS CAN BE LOWER THAN TCASE YOKE BUT SHOOD BE IN OR CLOSE TO A VERTICAL LINE THE MOOR PARLEL THE BARES THE MOOR BITE YOU HAVE THE LESS PARLEL LESS BITE AND IT WILL MAKE AXLE CRAWL UNDER TRUCK INSTED OF POWER TRANSFER THIS LINK SETUP WILL KEEP DRIVE SHAFT IN LINE WITH TCASE UPPERBARES 75%OF LOWWERBARES .THIS SET UP WILL KEEP CASTER PRETY CLOESE THREW SUSPENSION CYCLE UPPER AND LOWER BARES EQUAL LENGTH AND PARLEL SPLITTING DISTANCE BETWEEN OUT PUT YOKE AND MOUNTIG AT OR NEER TCASE YOKE .I HOPE THIS HELPS THIS IS MY SUGESTION FROM MY TESTING IM STILL LEARNING AND TESTING ;)

Originally posted by frankie fountain
the rear lower links need to run as paralel to the drive shaft as possible and mount cloes to end of tcase yoke.the upperlink needs to run at least 80% PARALEL MONTING A LITTLE CLOSER AT FRAME IF UPPER LINKS ARE LOTS SHORTER THEY NEED TO BE PARALEL IF POSIBLE .THE LOWER LINKS CAN BE LOWER THAN TCASE YOKE BUT SHOOD BE IN OR CLOSE TO A VERTICAL LINE THE MOOR PARLEL THE BARES THE MOOR BITE YOU HAVE THE LESS PARLEL LESS BITE AND IT WILL MAKE AXLE CRAWL UNDER TRUCK INSTED OF POWER TRANSFER THIS LINK SETUP WILL KEEP DRIVE SHAFT IN LINE WITH TCASE UPPERBARES 75%OF LOWWERBARES .THIS SET UP WILL KEEP CASTER PRETY CLOESE THREW SUSPENSION CYCLE UPPER AND LOWER BARES EQUAL LENGTH AND PARLEL SPLITTING DISTANCE BETWEEN OUT PUT YOKE AND MOUNTIG AT OR NEER TCASE YOKE .I HOPE THIS HELPS THIS IS MY SUGESTION FROM MY TESTING IM STILL LEARNING AND TESTING ;)

wow, that's hard to follow with the caps lock on and no punctuation.

but if I followed.. having the uppers and lowers close to parallel will help in the prevention of the axle trying to walk underneath the vehicle. yes yes very nice. i have the same found true

looking back, i wanted to add that on the 4-link we did on my friend's scrambler we did upper and lowers are the same length so we only needed one spare. the uppers and lowers are paralled in the horizontal plane and make opposing Vs in the overhead view. it worked great last weekend, no binding, no bouncing, lots of flex

Originally posted by JohnnyJ


wow, that's hard to follow with the caps lock on and no punctuation.

but if I followed.. having the uppers and lowers close to parallel will help in the prevention of the axle trying to walk underneath the vehicle. yes yes very nice. i have the same found true

looking back, i wanted to add that on the 4-link we did on my friend's scrambler we did upper and lowers are the same length so we only needed one spare. the uppers and lowers are paralled in the horizontal plane and make opposing Vs in the overhead view. it worked great last weekend, no binding, no bouncing, lots of flex YES YOU CAN FOLLOW ELLITERAT PEAPLE BAD WRITTING SPELLING HAY WHATS PUNIATION:D on the rear if they are equal and parallel the yoke on axl at full droop will point with axis of links not the yoke on case .this meens like you jump or lift up on arack most rear sus.travel greater than front and you dont have to worry about caster .keeping the links parallel and the uppers 75% of lowers points shaft at tcase no shaft bind

Frankie you're making my head hurt!
Suspension is complicated enough without you're crazyCAPSbabble.
I'm not doubting what you are saying, just that if you slow down, use the puctuation and complete sentances maybe it would help us slower fellows.:D

Originally posted by twistedmetal
I need some more input. Anyone else have some ideas?

Paint it pink

I would split the wheelbase.

Originally posted by fcfred
Frankie you're making my head hurt!
Suspension is complicated enough without you're crazyCAPSbabble.
I'm not doubting what you are saying, just that if you slow down, use the puctuation and complete sentances maybe it would help us slower fellows.:D ok,i'm going to slow down. i have seen many suspensions that do not work.i have proven setups as we test them.the geometry i 'm discusing at this time, has only to do with ,pinion angles,caster,and axle axis pivote.for rear suspensions.lower link's need to run parallal with the drive shaft.the lower link's need to mount at a virtical line at transfercase yoke.this is the first part of setup. the second part,the upper link needs to be shorter than the lower's,about 75% ,the legth of the lower bare.example lower bar,40" long this meens ,the upper bar wood be 30"in lenght. the next step. if you'r mount's on the axle are 7''apart ,by this mesurment i'm talking about virtical line.they need to be 80-90% of the 7"axle axle mounting distace.this means if your mounts are 7"apart at axle,85% of this is ronded of to 6''apart at frame,i'm talking virtical distace not horizontal.this set up will work at keeping the drive shaft pointing at transfer case yoke.if you need moor bite ,tractin,weight tansfer, make bars run parallal . for front links,caster is the facter ,to keep caster during suspension cycle , mount bars parallal to each other ,same distance apart .split the mounting distance between front output yoke on the transfercase.but this will limit travel due to u joint bind .works good on hi pinion's.this set up plant's all the weight on the axle .
if your a travel junkie then caster changing threw suspension cycle will not bother you at low speed,just use same setup as the rear,just re calibrate for front drive shaft.and yoke locatin.
you can controll weight transfer with spring weigth ,if it's to soft in rear machine try's to roll backward,if its to stiff machine spin's out no taction.there is a spring weight bias its hard to find,but its out there.
if you have aproperly set up front and rear link system,it dominates,and is controlable,has weight transfer and plants tractin to the terrain.i use coil over's becaus of spring rate ajusability, with hundreds of rates avalable it helps get all the advantage of the link systeme.hey i tried i'm a shop guy, my english techer said i was allways day dreaming and not paying attention .she was correct i was dreaming of world wide off road domination:vader2: hope this helps this is a smale step into the coplexty of link systemes.;)

BRAVO! I'm now feeling smarter!
Thanks frank.

now I have a question
if the upper link is shorter than the lower link won't it cause the pinion to point down as it droops? and not up?
or am I back to being confused?

Originally posted by fcfred
now I have a question
if the upper link is shorter than the lower link won't it cause the pinion to point down as it droops? and not up?
or am I back to being confused?

Yep. I'm actually making my upper slightly longer to push the pinion up at droop to keep my pinion in line with my driveshaft, as well as keeping it out of the rocks. There shouldn't be that much upward travel of the axle as life got complicated when I sat the motor in there so low and now have to keep the pinion and the oilpan from meeting each other. Sounds like a little shaving is in order.

Originally posted by frankie fountain
ok,i'm going to slow down. i have seen many suspensions that do not work.i have proven setups as we test them.the geometry i 'm discusing at this time, has only to do with ,pinion angles,caster,and axle axis pivote.for rear suspensions.lower link's need to run parallal with the drive shaft.the lower link's need to mount at a virtical line at transfercase yoke.this is the first part of setup. the second part,the upper link needs to be shorter than the lower's,about 75% ,the legth of the lower bare.example lower bar,40" long this meens ,the upper bar wood be 30"in lenght. the next step. if you'r mount's on the axle are 7''apart ,by this mesurment i'm talking about virtical line.they need to be 80-90% of the 7"axle axle mounting distace.this means if your mounts are 7"apart at axle,85% of this is ronded of to 6''apart at frame,i'm talking virtical distace not horizontal.this set up will work at keeping the drive shaft pointing at transfer case yoke.if you need moor bite ,tractin,weight tansfer, make bars run parallal . for front links,caster is the facter ,to keep caster during suspension cycle , mount bars parallal to each other ,same distance apart .split the mounting distance between front output yoke on the transfercase.but this will limit travel due to u joint bind .works good on hi pinion's.this set up plant's all the weight on the axle .
if your a travel junkie then caster changing threw suspension cycle will not bother you at low speed,just use same setup as the rear,just re calibrate for front drive shaft.and yoke locatin.
you can controll weight transfer with spring weigth ,if it's to soft in rear machine try's to roll backward,if its to stiff machine spin's out no taction.there is a spring weight bias its hard to find,but its out there.
if you have aproperly set up front and rear link system,it dominates,and is controlable,has weight transfer and plants tractin to the terrain.i use coil over's becaus of spring rate ajusability, with hundreds of rates avalable it helps get all the advantage of the link systeme.hey i tried i'm a shop guy, my english techer said i was allways day dreaming and not paying attention .she was correct i was dreaming of world wide off road domination:vader2: hope this helps this is a smale step into the coplexty of link systemes.;)


Well, I have some question about your link lengths theory, but it may also change things when I say I am running 3-links, not 4 links. This changes a few things.

But no one has really answered my question:
What affect does weight distribution front to back have with the location of my links? At this point, I am going to center the links with the wheelbase. But, only because I am confident that I can balance this baby out fairly well.
Maybe this is a better example: A Suburban. Long wheelbase. Let's pretend that the front end weighs 2500 pounds. The rear is totally stripped and only weighs 1000 pounds. Would it affect handling(yes, I know the weight difference would) if the link mounts were in the center of the truck, or would it be better to make the rear links longer, and the fronts shorter? See what I am saying? Or does front to rear weight bias have anything to do with anything?

Originally posted by twistedmetal



Well, I have some question about your link lengths theory, but it may also change things when I say I am running 3-links, not 4 links. This changes a few things.

But no one has really answered my question:
What affect does weight distribution front to back have with the location of my links? At this point, I am going to center the links with the wheelbase. But, only because I am confident that I can balance this baby out fairly well.
Maybe this is a better example: A Suburban. Long wheelbase. Let's pretend that the front end weighs 2500 pounds. The rear is totally stripped and only weighs 1000 pounds. Would it affect handling(yes, I know the weight difference would) if the link mounts were in the center of the truck, or would it be better to make the rear links longer, and the fronts shorter? See what I am saying? Or does front to rear weight bias have anything to do with anything? the geometry i was talking about is the same,3 link or 4 link . the location is not as important ,as the links being parallal . if you follow past where the links mount,imaginary lines ,they may go threw about the back of the distributer area?, this is the point of lift,weight transfer. the amount of weigth transfer will depend on the spring rate,so this means you are pulling weight and loading the links and suspension, the longer you make them the less the axle will walk,when one side of the axle is at full stuff the link moves up and back pushing the axle back.the other side of axle is at full droop and the link moves down and foward pulling the axle foward.this is axle walk or axle steer .so shorter links make the axle walk more .the angle also has much to do with axle walk. less angle on the lower links helps .example , if the links were parallal to axle and frame and the suspension traval was 50/50 and the axle was fully articulated axle walk wood be very little if any.the geometry i was talking about erlier with links, uppers being 75% of lower length is to keep the drive shaft pointing at the transfer case and will allow full droop of suspension during a jump ,but if you dont need to be able to use full droop, then you can make links parallal and use a limiting strap to stop u joint bind. the drive shaft angle is not afected during articulation by parallal and equal length links,but if allowd to droop will bind u joints ,with lots of wheel travel . also the longer the links are they come in contact with the terain more often ,because they hange lower .if you get the front to rear spring rate correct you can over come weigth distribution.the suburban you speek of shood use the same basic link formula and use stifer springs in the front to suport the weight ,and less in the rear ,and then play with spring rate for weight tansfer.if the front springs ar hevier rate they will lift,and if the rear springs are less rate they will squot and load the weight onto links and suspensin ,if it loads to much use hevier rear spring rate .ore less front spring rate .this will depend on handaling and if the fronts soft or stiff or vise versa. whats your wheel base ?whats your weight ratio 70/30?.how much wheel travel are you after?are you using coil overs?where is travel50/50droop and compresion?what is machine being built to do? wher is motor and tranny located is machine?by the way thats some bad azz fab work on that axle did you do that?i like it ;) if i can help let me know:smokin:

Originally posted by fcfred
Frankie you're making my head hurt!
Suspension is complicated enough without you're crazyCAPSbabble.
I'm not doubting what you are saying, just that if you slow down, use the puctuation and complete sentances maybe it would help us slower fellows.:D hey i needed that;) i will try to do better.i'm not very good at spelling or hell english ether:D i have built many off road machines and i have done lots of testing so im just trying to help am i helping or do you all just wont me to shut the hell up :confused:

Keep talking!! Spellcheck would be nice but hard to read is better than nothing to read!! Thanks for the info. :D

Originally posted by frankie fountain
hey i needed that;) i will try to do better.i'm not very good at spelling or hell english ether:D i have built many off road machines and i have done lots of testing so im just trying to help am i helping or do you all just wont me to shut the hell up :confused:

Thankyou for the compliment on the axle work. Yeah, I did it, just have to wait and see if I really know how to weld or if I just fake it with style:D .

My question with the links though: Would it not be true that shorter upper links will pull the force the pinion down despite their angles? The only way I could see them working properly is if the shorter upper links are actually mounted lower on the frame than the bottom links. See what I'm saying? In theory, a wishbone mounted solid to the axle(a mono-link) with a large Heim directly beneath the rear output would be ideal in maintaing pinion angle as it could never change its arc. If the pinion was aimed directly at the joint, it would always stay aimed at the joint, correct? So at full droop, or full stuff, the pinion angle would always be right where you set it. So, with long links, couldn't I go as far as using the same bolts to mount the uppers as I use to mount the lowers? Assuming they are of equal length, the pinion angle should change very little, correct?
Here's my set-up thus far:
WB=95 inches
Track width=78 inches
weight=hopefully under #3000?
Coil springs=6"liftXJ's front, stock XJ's rear, both #160 rated

Vehicle is a Suzuki Sidekick, engine is a 4.3V6 mounted low and as far back as possible. TH350 trans with a Toyota case. Transfer case is near centered with a 33"front shaft and a 32" rear shaft. Axles are dual Dana 60's, tires are 38x14.50 Super Swamper SX's. Include a heavy(er) front bumper with a platinum 9500, full cage, fullsize spare and rear #5000 winch.
If it works out like I plan, the weight distribution SHOULD be equal front to rear, prefering a little more on the front to keep it on its wheels during steep inclines. The links are long-42 inches-NO, 44 inches! I forgot to include the joints Center to center. That means that my links are nearly touching in the middle where they mount to the frame, and they still sit relatively high up, but are at a shallow angle, so axle steer at droop should not be much of an issue. Honestly, I am not going for max travel. I think it's over rated and unnecessary. I just want a dependable, predictable suspension with USEABLE travel. No more, no less.
Unfortunately, it will have to allow more droop than compression do to vehicle, but It should not be too bad. It will be an all-around rig, but built for rock, of course. But since I live in the midwest, I'll have to keep playing in mud:( .
It will also be a street cruiser/Saturday night poser/Sunday race car:D .
Am I asking too much? I don't think so...

Originally posted by fcfred
now I have a question
if the upper link is shorter than the lower link won't it cause the pinion to point down as it droops? and not up?
or am I back to being confused? if you mount links at the frame 85-90% of the distance the links are apart on the axle this will point pinion towards tcase yoke.

Originally posted by twistedmetal
Thankyou for the compliment on the axle work. Yeah, I did it, just have to wait and see if I really know how to weld or if I just fake it with style:D .

My question with the links though: Would it not be true that shorter upper links will pull the force the pinion down despite their angles? The only way I could see them working properly is if the shorter upper links are actually mounted lower on the frame than the bottom links. See what I'm saying? In theory, a wishbone mounted solid to the axle(a mono-link) with a large Heim directly beneath the rear output would be ideal in maintaing pinion angle as it could never change its arc. If the pinion was aimed directly at the joint, it would always stay aimed at the joint, correct? So at full droop, or full stuff, the pinion angle would always be right where you set it. So, with long links, couldn't I go as far as using the same bolts to mount the uppers as I use to mount the lowers? Assuming they are of equal length, the pinion angle should change very little, correct?
Here's my set-up thus far:
WB=95 inches
Track width=78 inches
weight=hopefully under #3000?
Coil springs=6"liftXJ's front, stock XJ's rear, both #160 rated

Vehicle is a Suzuki Sidekick, engine is a 4.3V6 mounted low and as far back as possible. TH350 trans with a Toyota case. Transfer case is near centered with a 33"front shaft and a 32" rear shaft. Axles are dual Dana 60's, tires are 38x14.50 Super Swamper SX's. Include a heavy(er) front bumper with a platinum 9500, full cage, fullsize spare and rear #5000 winch.
If it works out like I plan, the weight distribution SHOULD be equal front to rear, prefering a little more on the front to keep it on its wheels during steep inclines. The links are long-42 inches-NO, 44 inches! I forgot to include the joints Center to center. That means that my links are nearly touching in the middle where they mount to the frame, and they still sit relatively high up, but are at a shallow angle, so axle steer at droop should not be much of an issue. Honestly, I am not going for max travel. I think it's over rated and unnecessary. I just want a dependable, predictable suspension with USEABLE travel. No more, no less.
Unfortunately, it will have to allow more droop than compression do to vehicle, but It should not be too bad. It will be an all-around rig, but built for rock, of course. But since I live in the midwest, I'll have to keep playing in mud:( .
It will also be a street cruiser/Saturday night poser/Sunday race car:D .
Am I asking too much? I don't think so... THE UPPER LINKS ARE ONLY 25% SHORTER AND YHEY MOUNT 80% DISTANCE AT FRAME APART AS THE AXLE MOUNTING DISTANCE THIS WILL TRANSFER WEIGHT AND KEEP PINION ANGLE HAPPY.ABOUT THE SOLID WISH BONE THIS IS A STAND ALONE LINK CORRECT? YES IT SHOOD KEEP PINION ANGLE,BUT WHATE ABOUT SIDE LOADS, PANHARD BAR WILL WORK WITH THIS SET UP,BUT THIS BASICLY A SINGLE LADDER BAR.ABOUT USING EQUAL LENTH UPPER AND LOWER BARS MOUNTED AT SAME BOLT LOCATION THI WILL CRAWL THE BAR.AND JACK UP REAR SUSPENSION SHIFTING WEIGHT AWAY . I THINK YOUR RIG WILL BE COOL NO YOUR NOT ASKING TO MUCH ,SOUNDS LIKE YOUVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK:smokin:

I am so glad I didn't read this stuff before I went coils. Now that I have done it and know (kind of) what you're talking about I can appreciate the great knowledge you are spewing off. Main things and most important things I have learned since coils and links suspension are 1) Make your links long 2) Make them as parrallel as possible 3) Try to keep them the same length, which I did not, but has not caused any problems to date, yet I can atest to the caster and pinion angle change due to the different lengths.

Twisted- you been questioning my spring rate and I don't know why, but I can tell you right now that yours will be way, way softer than mine and you may actually want to think about going a bit stiffer. By all means try it out and see how it works, but believe me buddy considering the weight of your drivetrain alone I am thinking the xj springs may be too soft, but hell what do I know. All that I do know is that the 150#'ers I have up front with no winch, no cage, no fenders, stock engine, case, and tranny, felt fairly soft and I would shurly not go any lighter in coil rate.
I'm not trying to act like a know it all, but simply trying to give you some advice after building mine and wheeling it.

As for the uppers being shorter than the lowers - and the pinion pointing downward as the axel drops down... that is correct if the entire axel is dropping away.

If the upper links are wishbone or 4-link triangulated to the centre of the axel, then when the axel articulates (that is, one side goes up, and one side goes down), then the upper links won't drop or rise as far as the lower links (that are connected on the outside of the axel).

Soooo, the change in pinion angle will not be as severe as you would first think.

Originally posted by nuttzack
.

Twisted- you been questioning my spring rate and I don't know why, but I can tell you right now that yours will be way, way softer than mine and you may actually want to think about going a bit stiffer. By all means try it out and see how it works, but believe me buddy considering the weight of your drivetrain alone I am thinking the xj springs may be too soft, but hell what do I know. All that I do know is that the 150#'ers I have up front with no winch, no cage, no fenders, stock engine, case, and tranny, felt fairly soft and I would shurly not go any lighter in coil rate.
I'm not trying to act like a know it all, but simply trying to give you some advice after building mine and wheeling it.

Easy, Nuttz! I wasn't questioning your judgement, I was asking how they were working for you. You started to tie up your project right as I was beginning mine, so I wanted to see how it was working out for you. I kinda' figured that your springs were going to be soft. The XJ's are a bit stiffer, and they are meant to support a Cherokee with that heavy ass 6 banger and a winch, so I SHOULD be OK for now. That is also why I was asking about your sidehilling and general handling-cuz' your links are long,like mine, and they are mounted very near center of your rig, also like mine.

Frankie Fountain- You were saying that the uppers should be shorter than the front, but be mounted a little closer together at the top mounts than they are on the axle, right? Well then, keeping in mind that you are speaking of shorter links than I will be using, technically, you ARE using the same mounting point at the frame for both the uppers and the lowers. See pic:

If you were to continue the links in the same angles as you described, they would eventually intersect. My links, at 44 inches, is just doing this. I won't actually be using the same bolts, in fact, I was thinking of mounting the upper wishbone slightly ahead and below the lower link mounts. Am I right on this?

OK, listen very closely, this doesn't happen very often...

I WAS WRONG, YOU WERE RIGHT!

I went outside after my last post, grabbed some cheapy 3/8 rod ends off the shelf and built a 1/2 scale model of my rig. Whaddaya' know, you're way works! Thank you for being persistant, but I gotta see things for myself before I will believe it.
Now, I'll be in the garage! Frankie, a few more posts like this one and you'll ditch that NEWBIE status in no time. Just keep replying to my posts, I tend to drag things along more than necessary :D .

Oh yeah, Welcome, Newbie!:flipoff2: :flipoff2:

Originally posted by twistedmetal


Easy, Nuttz! I wasn't questioning your judgement, I was asking how they were working for you. You started to tie up your project right as I was beginning mine, so I wanted to see how it was working out for you. I kinda' figured that your springs were going to be soft. The XJ's are a bit stiffer, and they are meant to support a Cherokee with that heavy ass 6 banger and a winch, so I SHOULD be OK for now. That is also why I was asking about your sidehilling and general handling-cuz' your links are long,like mine, and they are mounted very near center of your rig, also like mine.

Frankie Fountain- You were saying that the uppers should be shorter than the front, but be mounted a little closer together at the top mounts than they are on the axle, right? Well then, keeping in mind that you are speaking of shorter links than I will be using, technically, you ARE using the same mounting point at the frame for both the uppers and the lowers. See pic:

If you were to continue the links in the same angles as you described, they would eventually intersect. My links, at 44 inches, is just doing this. I won't actually be using the same bolts, in fact, I was thinking of mounting the upper wishbone slightly ahead and below the lower link mounts. Am I right on this? in the first pic. this is bascicaly what i am talking about,but maybe alittle closer together at frame than what i am talking about. i under stand this is just a drawing for comprasin.in the first pic. the links will pivet sepretly . if you mount links like in the second pic at the meeting point of the lines you drew the axle will pivot off of the mounts,and will make the suspension unload,i am saying that the axle and the machine will jack apart and this will happen when power is aplied to drive train.like say power braking,hard throtle inputs,or front axle against a ledge.in the first pic. if you follow the lines drawn like in the second pic. the meeting point is the point of weight transfer,with the mountig points spread apart it holds the upers and pushes the lowers this makes leverage or rezistance ,this pulls the wate bake on the suspension and transfer's this to the tires. if the links are mounted like in the second pic the distanc the mounts are is again pushing the lowers and pulling the uppers the close link mounts are pivoting off of the mounts ,the link separation meaning distace apart,is like a pry bar ,if they are to cloes the axle mooves toward leest rezstance ,this means it will follow ark of mounting location.like a circle .and will jack.the only situation i can see where the close mounted links will help is if the machine's rear axle was climbing a vertical wall say loading dock ,the front is past the dock and the rear is climing the tire wiil jack into the wall,forsing traction ,but befor you climb the dock or wall the front tire must clime it.when the front tire starts forsing its self against the wall the rear will start to try and load the links with the close mounts it will pivit and jack up the rear suspension making the machine force itsself over .i'm saying lean over ,i am also talking about one tire at atime pulling the wall like you hit the wall at a angle .thats all i think i blew a fuse.:eek:

Originally posted by twistedmetal
OK, listen very closely, this doesn't happen very often...

I WAS WRONG, YOU WERE RIGHT!

I went outside after my last post, grabbed some cheapy 3/8 rod ends off the shelf and built a 1/2 scale model of my rig. Whaddaya' know, you're way works! Thank you for being persistant, but I gotta see things for myself before I will believe it.
Now, I'll be in the garage! Frankie, a few more posts like this one and you'll ditch that NEWBIE status in no time. Just keep replying to my posts, I tend to drag things along more than necessary :D .

Oh yeah, Welcome, Newbie!:flipoff2: :flipoff2: well i just sent you som more info trying to explain what iam talking about,but you posted before i sent mine.i am no expert but i am working on being one .this is why i do so much reserch to better understand total world wide off road domantion:vader2: just kiding :D about total domination ill take world domination hell i will take what i can get.:smokin:

Originally posted by frankie fountain
this is why i do so much reserch to better understand total world wide off road domantion:vader2: just kiding :D about total domination ill take world domination hell i will take what i can get.:smokin:

Yeah, you go, boyee!
BTW, how about some pics of what you wheel? And it better not be a Civic!:mad: Send them to me and I'll post them for ya'.

Frankie Fountain:
I am building a 4 link too, just getting ready to do a mock up of it this afternoon. I am planning on a design similar to DesertToy's (with a few modifications). I think I am understanding what you mean by the difference in the links mounting positions from the axle and the frame but I had some questions. I think I understand that the mounting position is going to affect antisquat. If I follow you the top picture would keep the weight on the tires vs the bottom which would cause the axle and frame to seperate (like scissors). What about rear steer do your links need to look like XX from above or will IVI work?

Hey, Frankie. I'm trying to post your pics, but I am having problems with it. I'll keep working on it, though.

Well, I'm probably just a smuck, but I can't enlarge these pics for ya, so everyone's gonna have to squint!

another,

How bout sending me pics of both your rigs setup:) It won't quit raining here so i can't get shat done (don't mind working in the rain but the power tools don't like being wet).

Someone want to tell me how to post multiple pics in a post?

And one more...

Originally posted by GreenMachine
Frankie Fountain:
I am building a 4 link too, just getting ready to do a mock up of it this afternoon. I am planning on a design similar to DesertToy's (with a few modifications). I think I am understanding what you mean by the difference in the links mounting positions from the axle and the frame but I had some questions. I think I understand that the mounting position is going to affect antisquat. If I follow you the top picture would keep the weight on the tires vs the bottom which would cause the axle and frame to seperate (like scissors). What about rear steer do your links need to look like XX from above or will IVI work? IVI will work,if rear steer is a problem for you i suggest a revers 4 link this system keeps the long links flater .the flater the links are the less they arc from axle location .this means les steer .in the picturs that twisted posted of the reaper the link system is a revers 4 link with 14'' sway aways my travel is 9'' up travel 5'' down at shock with 1/2'' axle steer under fuul articulation . and the links are out of harms way. this system also puts four heims at impact point.wich is the axle.this system is still under reserch and testing.back to the standerd 4 link you must parallal the lower link with drive shaft or stay close .and if this puts the links at lots of angle it will steer more if the shaft angle alows flat or cloes to flat angle steer will be less.need more info or think im crazy let me know i already know i am crazy so keep that to yousef:rasta: hey twisted :bounce2: :bounce: thanks

I had a question for you about gusseting too. Under my transfercase yoke between the frame rails I have welded a piece of round tube. I didn't go through the frame rails just welded it to the inside (I know I should have gone through). I was planning on tying it into my transmission crossmember which is rectangular tubing directly in front of it. Do you think that would be strong enough?

Also on your reverse 4 link are you talking about the XX ( reverse V's) or something else? I wish it hadn't rained all day and I could have got the dummy links on there to show you.

Originally posted by GreenMachine
I had a question for you about gusseting too. Under my transfercase yoke between the frame rails I have welded a piece of round tube. I didn't go through the frame rails just welded it to the inside (I know I should have gone through). I was planning on tying it into my transmission crossmember which is rectangular tubing directly in front of it. Do you think that would be strong enough?

Also on your reverse 4 link are you talking about the XX ( reverse V's) or something else? I wish it hadn't rained all day and I could have got the dummy links on there to show you. what are you tying to cross member?i do not understand unless your mounting revers 4 link which i do not think you are doing.only yhe uppers on std.4 link will have trianglation(V)and this will will mount wide side of V at frame and narrow side at axle.if you are welding on a frame of a cj? its thin and you will need to weld a scab plat say 4''x5'' or watever to transmit load over more suface aria.

here is what I am thinking about doing... This is a rough mock up but it should give you an idea whether or not I am on the right track. This is a YJ frame not a CJ and I am planning on tying the bar the lower links go to into the tranny x-member......
http://tellico.off-road.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offroadteststuff&Number=828606&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

I see what you're talking about, now. I think you are going to have issues with the the uppers and the lowers contacting each other.

Originally posted by GreenMachine
here is what I am thinking about doing... This is a rough mock up but it should give you an idea whether or not I am on the right track. This is a YJ frame not a CJ and I am planning on tying the bar the lower links go to into the tranny x-member......
http://tellico.off-road.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offroadteststuff&Number=828606&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= the yj frame is very strong and you did fine welding onto the inside of it .the links transmit's when properly set up, lots of load to the mounts. does the cross member hang off the frame very far?if so this mutiplys the leverage on the crossmember.if you mount to crossmember how close are the joints apart i,m saying side to side ,how far apart at axle? are you mounting by housing ends on the other end of link.? if this side angle is to much it will fite with upper links ,what i am sayig is then both links are trying to triangulate .and this is bad .but it takes lots of angle thats why i'm asking the locations:smokin:

Originally posted by twistedmetal


Yeah, you go, boyee!
BTW, how about some pics of what you wheel? And it better not be a Civic!:mad: Send them to me and I'll post them for ya'. hey twisted how do you like my civic:rasta: when does newbie go away?

Originally posted by GreenMachine
here is what I am thinking about doing... This is a rough mock up but it should give you an idea whether or not I am on the right track. This is a YJ frame not a CJ and I am planning on tying the bar the lower links go to into the tranny x-member......
http://tellico.off-road.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offroadteststuff&Number=828606&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= im slow about computers i just figerd out you gave me your web page pics. in the picture the links on the bottom will need to go staight forword .the side pic you show has great shaft to lower link parallalnes .the distance you show the links apart is full leverage avalable with the distancs the mounts are apart on the frame.but the yoke will stay with the arc of links .they need to close up a little at frame say 80% of axle mount distance . it all looks good do wheel in telico?lets go :bounce2:

Ok so what you are saying is that the upper links look good but the lower ones need to go I I instead of ^. Right? As far as parrallel with the driveshaft they are pretty close. My top links are going to be about 38" and my bottoms about 46" to 48" sound good? I will have them about 7" apart vertical plane at axle and about 5-6" apart at the frame. Horizontal I am assuming doesn't matter a great deal? I will plan on doing a IVI mock up tommorow.

And Yes I used to whell Tellico a bunch before I tore my Jeep apart in March and started over. I am about 1 hr from the trail head on the TN side. I would love to go if I ever get this thing back together (hopefully by the end of this month).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GreenMachine
Ok so what you are saying is that the upper links look good but the lower ones need to go I I instead of ^. Right? As far as parrallel with the driveshaft they are pretty close. My top links are going to be about 38" and my bottoms about 46" to 48" sound good? I will have them about 7" apart vertical plane at axle and about 5-6" apart at the frame. Horizontal I am assuming doesn't matter a great deal? I will plan on doing a IVI mock up tommorow.

And Yes I used to whell Tellico a bunch before I tore my Jeep apart in March and started over. I am about 1 hr from the trail head on the TN side. I would love to go if I ever get this thing back together (hopefully by the end of this month). [/QUOTE that sounds close enogh :smokin: hey i wona go to tellico :bounce2: when are we goin ooooooooooooooooo wood pecker caneter ,slick rock, guard rail ,lower 2, upper 2, school bus hell im on my way :eek: hey i got carried away tellico is bad azz if any of you get the chance go you will be hooked .let me know about your mock up.

Frankie - I didn't know you were THAT Frankie! I took the pictures of your rig, which were posted (tiny) by TwistedMetal. I was on that trail ride in Memphis with Dan that day he brought your machine out on the trail, and shot a bunch of pictures of the thing.

I've talked with Dan and Bobby Barrom, who I think you also know?

Here's some bigger pictures of Frankie's buggy for you guys following along at home. FYI, I crawled all over this thing, and rankie knows his stuff. Didn't find anything on it which looked like a hack-job - which is unusual when you look at a home-built ride close up.

http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1065.JPG
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1051.JPG

Only shot of the suspension I took :(:
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1047.JPG

http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1046.JPG

http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1045.JPG
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1077.JPG
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1109.JPG

I don't think I've ever met you personally, but here's a picture of my rig nd (sort of) me, just in case you have:
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/1073.JPG

And for all of you, here's a link to my site, where all the pictures from that trail ride are still up: http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/trails/04-28-02/index.html

That is impressive Frankie. That thing looks awesome. Wish there were a couple more pictures of the suspension. :D I think I see basically how you did your links the bottom starts to the inside and gets closer the top starts further out and gets wider. Is that what you meant by reverse 4-link?

Originally posted by GreenMachine
That is impressive Frankie. That thing looks awesome. Wish there were a couple more pictures of the suspension. :D I think I see basically how you did your links the bottom starts to the inside and gets closer the top starts further out and gets wider. Is that what you meant by reverse 4-link? .the revers 4 link is a flipet up side down std. 4link and the locating V is turned around.the outer bars go straight .
dr.evil thank you for the complament. and pics.the reaper has seen a few improvments since last time you saw it .stiffer springs and fox 4'' travel hyd. bump stops .also installed a sway bar for road use.and rear mounted lt1 distribter .and vortech super charger .:smokin:

Ok basically all I did was take the lower links out of the ^ and mount them straight although they are still inside the frame. I could go to the outside if the benefits warrant it but I prefer to keep them at least somewhat tucked up and protected. I am going to use bushings on the axle side and heims on the frame side..... Here is the link
http://tellico.off-road.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offroadteststuff&Number=829011&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

GreenMachine: are those ZJ coils:question:


Brook

I think so.... They were some 3" lift coils I bought off someone. I don't even know the brand on them. I have a set of front TJ (stock) coils but they are quite a bit stiffer for some reason. I originally planned to use those. I still haven't figured out a good way to capture them at the bottom yet.

Originally posted by GreenMachine
Ok basically all I did was take the lower links out of the ^ and mount them straight although they are still inside the frame. I could go to the outside if the benefits warrant it but I prefer to keep them at least somewhat tucked up and protected. I am going to use bushings on the axle side and heims on the frame side..... Here is the link
http://tellico.off-road.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offroadteststuff&Number=829011&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= that shood work. when the axle articulates it will swing the axle sidways a little you do not wont the link to pench or hit frame.

Did some browsing... and found some pics for you guys - all stolen from this thread (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21197).

Camo's 4L / Coilover, mid-build:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=205444
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=207590
Originally posted by DRM
So how do you decide on link mounting positions, lengths, etc?

I try reading the other threads getting into this, and just get lost

I figure I can butcher it enough to work ok on the trail - not like mine sees any road time anyway
Originally posted by PIG
Here DRM. A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/test1.gif
The angle of the links in the side view determine anti-squat. The two points of intersection determine roll axis. If you look at Desertoy's you can see that the two points of intersection are almost at the exact same height from the ground. These two points show a nearly flat roll axis. Next, if you look at the the side views of camos and desertoys you can see that they are close to parallel to the ground. This would give a realativly low anti-squat value which IMO is good in Rock Crawling.

Matt S, with enough trianglulation a panhard bar in not needed, in the rear that is.

Desertoys 4L/ 1/4 Elliptic:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=199197
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=199207
Originally posted by desertoy
One reason I triangulated both upper and lower links is because standard 4 link setups on stock toyota frames tend to rip the mounts loose on the inside of the frame. This is because the inside of toyota frames are kinda thin. I figured that if I triangulated both the upper and the lower links, that would spread out the forces that would cause that to happen. I also welded patches (doublers) on the inside of the frame where the mounts weld on. If you look real close at the picture [BELOW] you can see them.
Also, I came up with the length of the arms by setting the wheelbase, centering the rear link mounts on the centerline of the axle housing, and aligning the front link mounts with the u-joint on the transfer case (or as close as I could get it). This keeps the rear driveling the same length through out the suspension travel.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=208390

Also, anyone doing link-suspension research should take a look at the "God of suspension" (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7503&highlight=my+links) thread... although you'll have to wade through all the BS to find what you want. Just don't post in it and bring it back to life unless you want your ass handed to ya by everyone. :rolleyes:

Dr Evil,
Thanks for posting those picks of Frankies chassis. If I had known you were taking pictures I would have shown more ass or somthing. This four link hooks.
PLEASE NOTE: Frankie has lent out his chassis for many rides that he has not attented. His rig is BUILT. Call him for rental rates. 205-594-5098
Thanks, Dan

Hey Green Machine, we recently put a similar setup on my friends scrambler and we used parallel arms upper and lower since he was using a standard 2-joint driveshaft, not a cv (he has the wheelbase to do it).

It hooked up really well on our recent trip to Tellico. Here's a link to pics, but there really aren't too many. Most of the time we were hitting the big obstacles it was raining. http://www.msg4x4club.com/events/tellico2002.htm Note that there were two different green Jeeps down there, the green Scrambler and the green CJ-7 on its side on lower 2. The Scrambler did really well with hooking up and no bouncing or binding from the suspension. That setup works sweet.

Here's the original thread with the build up documented: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59312

Originally posted by Dan Dibble
Dr Evil,
Thanks for posting those picks of Frankies chassis. If I had known you were taking pictures I would have shown more ass or somthing. This four link hooks.
PLEASE NOTE: Frankie has lent out his chassis for many rides that he has not attented. His rig is BUILT. Call him for rental rates. 205-594-5098
Thanks, Dan thanks dan every yahoo in the world is calling to rent the chasie.every body if you buy a chasie from frankies off road the reaper asm1 is on loan for some rides if you do not buy a chasie then i will take you for a ride otherwise thanks for the phone calls peaple.;)

I had to go out of town so I haven't got to work on it the last three days. I still have to figure out a way to capture the spring on the bottom. I am using the speedway lower mounts (cheap and easy) but the shelf on them is about too narrow for a u-bolt. I was thinking about widening it out and using two u-bolts per side.
JohnnyJ I looked at the pics of your buddies CJ8 and was wondering if he captured the spring at the bottom or if his limiting cables kept it from dropping low enough that the spring comes off. I am planning on using a limiting strap in the middle but it might not be a problem the springs should only let it drop so far and if it doesn't pull the driveshaft apart and give me a horrible pinion angle I might not need it. The scrambler looks good. Did it have much anti-squat? From the looks of the links I am guessing no (or very little) rear steer?

I am running Xj coils on mine, and I am using a puck slightly shorter than the thickness of the spring. I welded two tabs on the puck and it fits inside the coil and bolts to the mount through the middle. I don't know if this would work for you or not with the Speedway mounts.

Actually that's kinda what I was thinking about building. You don't happen to have any pictures do you? I would like to see your setup too (dunno if you have a digi cam).
And thanks for the help from everyone I would probably still be scratching my head instead of fabricating at this point.

GreenMachine - the limit straps are serving a double purpose on the scramlber. the first part is to limit the amount of work the rear does so that the front will flex (still SOA..) the second part is to keep the springs in. if we do something to make the front flex better then we'll probably lengthen the limit straps and we'll have to clamp the springs in. I guess we'll burn that bridge if/when we come to it.

doh.. i always remember something else I was going to say after I hit the reply button. anyway..

we originall didn't plan on running the limit straps on the back, but when we started messing with it on the ramp we noticed that the rear would flex and flex while the front didn't work at all. we ended up tuning the limit straps to work with the shock and spring length and also help the front end do some work.

overall, it still flexes the back more than the front, but it worked really well with the setup and seemed to be consistent when going over stuff. I think I remember reading about somebody saying they liked an unbalanced flexing rig, and it seemed to work pretty well in this case.

Now this is some sick flex, and I've never seen this type of design have you guys?

http://www.orp.com.au/Gigantor/Gigantor_page.htm

Chris