we just started to get into this discussion in the mog vs. rockwell thread but i thought it deserved a new thread. We were discussing how one would have to limit uptravel with mog axles to be able to run with a reasonable amount of lift. So, what do you think?? Is it worth sacrificing uptravel for ground clearance?

-Steve

btt, no opinions?

-Steve

hmmm.... interesting thought....

id say if your plan from the get go was to do it this way you could design the suspension to be a lot higher up without fear of hitting things, this would then allow for more droop with out as much axle movement(s) as you would have in a 50/50 stuff/droop or similer % set up....

in other words start off with a suspension links like

**************

rather than

***
........*****
................. *****


excuse my ascii art.....

-yag

IMO i'd want the uptravel.... get the rockwells... shave em.... plenty of clearance.:D

Uptravel is over-rated..

MY last truck had most of it's travel on droop, not compression... Worked VERY well, no complaints here.

Originally posted by sceep
IMO i'd want the uptravel.... get the rockwells... shave em.... plenty of clearance.:D

Hm. My vote is for both, which is possible depending on what frame you choose, and if you decide that you can modify the frame.

The Hulk is big, but I have (and use) all 5 inches up travel at the shock. No worries about interference in the frame, I could lose some lift and things would still be okay. The big problem is the oilpan.

Then other guys that I know, but just don't seem to get to 'wheel with any more, build very little (if any) up travel into their suspensions, it's all droop.

Different strokes...

--Rob (18+ inches diff clearance is barely enough!)

Desert racers seem to like to run just a few inches of up-travel, and gobs of down travel.

Sure, they're traveling at a high rate of
speed and FLYING over things, but who says 3" of up and 11" of down is better or worse than 11" up and 3" down travel?

If anything, the less up-travel, the less tippy the rig should be "at-rest" since you'll sit lower.. you just won't be able to stand up under your rockers for some shade during lunch..

Originally posted by tsm1mt
Desert racers seem to like to run just a few inches of up-travel, and gobs of down travel.

Sure, they're traveling at a high rate of
speed and FLYING over things, but who says 3" of up and 11" of down is better or worse than 11" up and 3" down travel?

If anything, the less up-travel, the less tippy the rig should be "at-rest" since you'll sit lower.. you just won't be able to stand up under your rockers for some shade during lunch..

wtf are you talking about :confused: the whole point of this thread is that keeping ride height constant, most of the time there is a tradeoff between uptravel and ground clearance.

-Steve

the more compression you have the more stable your rig will be over given terrain. because instead of the suspension compressing 5" and then transferring all of the motion of going over an obstacle to the body, the suspension will take alot more of the rock without moving the body.

IMO droop is overrated, id rather have the body level with little chance of rolling over than having a wheel stuff 3" and then droop to oblivion with very little contact pressure.

look at the way the scorpion was built, almost ALL compression. and that thing works like a fucking dream.

i will draw up a chassis really quick that will give you monstrous uptravel and a good amount of down with a good COG.

post in a little while.

Originally posted by offroadr35


wtf are you talking about :confused: the whole point of this thread is that keeping ride height constant, most of the time there is a tradeoff between uptravel and ground clearance.

-Steve

I missed the "ride height constant" bit.

I wasn't following the Mog thread.

So, you're running 35s with a Dana 60 and the rockers are 2' off the ground at-rest, and you have 6" of up-travel, and 15" of ground clearance under the diff (hell yes, I'm making this up)..

Is that better or worse than 35s, Mog axle, rockers 2' off the ground, 3" of up-travel, but 18" of ground clearance under the diff/axle.

Right?

Would that compare similarly to running 31s and getting 8" of up-travel, or 36s and some lowered bump stops and sticking you with only 3" of up-travel? That DOES change the ride height thanks to the tires, but also changed ground clearance..

In answer to THAT question, for what we wheel in up here, I'm MUCH happier with my 36" TSLs and some lowered bump stops (and a lot of sawzalling) than I was with my 31s or 33s with the same suspension and more travel.

I'll still get back to more travel again, just have to plain more down time to cut out more metal and then add some back in.

ok heres my chassis

some of the tube supports are obviously not there

with the front clip, the tubes are very narrow at the front of the rig (just wide enough to protect the motor) and they stay that length for about 20" than start to flare back to the full width of the chassis (4seater)

in my mind anyways this chassis would have an auto trans with a small shifter so the seats could be very close together (side by side) no center console type of thing

radiator in the back (right behind the second row of seats)

small block V8 engine

full width axles (not rockwells)

overall OST width of around 85-88"

chassis width of around 55"

coilovers or 1/4 elliptic

Seems to me that if you are gunna run mog axles then you better build your frame around them. Lots of up travel not so good. Case in point I went out with a couple of other buggies that have lots of up travel as well as down travel. Came to some off camber side hilling and they sucked it up and nearly rolled. Buggies looked out of control. They were of course pretty tall and looked heavy as hella for sprung weight to unsprung weight ratio. I have about 4-5 inches of up travel and severly limited down travel 15-20 inches and I can side hill past 45 degrees and not worry about rolling. Body hits bump stops and keep you from going over. Course I'm also wide and have very little sprung weight. I think mog axles are hella trick but you gotta build the frame around them like JR did on his bronco.

I sacrificed uptravel on my Cruiser when I went from 38's to 42's due to the fact that I added very little lift. I had to add longer bumpstops to keep the 42's out of my front fenders.

I can say that my trail performance has definitly gone up with more clearance and less uptravel....

The tire still stuffs hard, but if I were to remove the fenders it would be more balanced up and down.

I have no complaints....

speaking of JRs bronco, i noticed on the front of his he had a limiting strap that was only like 3" long. I'm guessing this simply limits the up-down travel, but allows it to articulate a ton. tho with that strap it looked like he only had 2" up travel and maybe 1-2" down travel at the center of the axle.

Dallas

offroadr35, Pick the axles first, then design the suspension. You will definitely be able to get uptravel with MOG axles, because you have a bare chassis. The rear looked fine, as long as you push the rear axle back far enuff, and in the front you may have to cut and section it, just in front of the motor. Make a little upside down "U" shape in the frame rails, for the axle to travel up into.

So again,

MOG axles=$$$, more fab time, more clearance, same uptravel capability as Rockwells...

Rockwells=less $$$, less fab time, same downtravel ability as MOGS, ohh and they are much cooler than MOG axles(sorry, i'm biased...)

Personally, when I set up my rig I was shooting for 50/50 f&r. Turns out I could only get 50/50 in the rear and 40/60 in the front (up/down). This is because I'm running full hydro behind my axle, w/upper links over my mini tie-rods. Any more up travel and I contact the frame rail(s). I have yet to drive the rig (still some odd's and ends to finish, but the travel is very close to what I had before I gutted the drive-train). My previous set up I had 40/60 front and rear. I always felt very stable with limited up-travel. Of course I always wonder what I can do to maximize both stability and traction. I'm a firm believer that what is optimal is 50/50 for crawling. This also assumes a link set-up that minimizes axle steer, maximizes RC, CG and AS! :flipoff2:

I disagree somewhat with what ECF said...Minimizing up travel on a soft suspension with a high roll center could prevent some excess body-roll, but IMO, that would be a last resort/fix to a problem which should have been designed out of a link suspension in the first place. Of course one must also look at the effects of the unloading side (uphill side) of a coil suspension and a high roll center. The uphill side will continue to unload even if the downhill side is sitting on the bumpstops (just not as much, or better said, not as quickly). Limiting straps and sway/torsion bars would be the fix here too. But why buy a high zoot 16" coil-over only to limit its travel?

-D