Overall, I am very happy with the way it is working. It climbs awesome, and the suspension is working great.

Problem list:
It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">
In the past 10 days, we rolled it 6 times. <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0"> The two times it rolled with Bob and I, I don't feel that it should have. So what to do?

Well first and foremost, Jason and Trevor built the rig for bigger tires (42+). I've pretty much decided on the 37" MTR as the tire I want to run. They work great. So I need to lower my rig. I don't want to loose too much belly clearance, so I will lower the suspension only a couple of inches. I think we will lower the hood a few inches for better visibility. We are tossing around putting in some air bags on the rear springs, and some sway away shocks @ 175psi front and rear. Some bump stops front and rear (possibly the trick air stops) and I think she will be a serious sidehilling mo-fo. Any suggestions?

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

what is that sayin? Wider IS better?? what axles are you running? ever thought of some 2.5 ton rockwells? detroit avalible, low gears, can be made with more clearance than a dana 60, WIDER, almost unbreakable (we need a camo test for that one) and arnt much more than 60s. just one idea.

maybe add a few inches to your wheel base and lower it a couple - at the same time maybe take your- t case and eng- up an 1" or so for better clearence on the bottom side- might want to do a 2 piece front line to get more there too- has the front line ever dragged? maybe even think of going to a larger heavier t-case for center of gravity - Jess -let me know if your in the mood for the d-300 brake - long tail?

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: onetoncv ]

no wheel stands are not a problem. I fixed that problem. The vehicle climbs AWESOME. It simply turtles on it's side too easy. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Wider is not better in a competition rig. You'll run over every flag on the course. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

With the MTR's my rig is 79" wide from outside to outside. That's just about where I want it.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

oh thats right its an arca rig. humm how about keep your current suspention and use a hydraulic cylinder on each wheel to help you stay level. you can get them so that while you are not touching the lever they will float but you can also get rid of yor shocks and use flow controls instead. you would be surprised of the possibilitys with hydraulics.

i have always wonderd about hydrolicly controlled shocks ? a proportioning valve or something similar - or even a totally hydrolic shock set up that is controlable up and down ? would that even be legal in arca? or workable - would you have to have 5 hands to still drive and adjust? it could be done-

Originally posted by TR:
<STRONG>oh thats right its an arca rig. humm how about keep your current suspention and use a hydraulic cylinder on each wheel to help you stay level. you can get them so that while you are not touching the lever they will float but you can also get rid of yor shocks and use flow controls instead. you would be surprised of the possibilitys with hydraulics.</STRONG>

Forced articulation is illegal in ARCA. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

that's what i thought cheeting is illegal Damnit - how bout the front line lance ? does it drag on rocks?

Sounds like you have the right plan too me.

is the belly a flat bottom? if not you could always keep the motor/trans/t-case the same altitude by tucking it up as you lower the suspension, get all the weight of the cage and passengers lower. maybe some kind of home brew "antirock" for sidehills. <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0">

Maybe your problem is operator error?! <IMG SRC="smilies/thefinger.gif" border="0">

I dig your cruise. Run as little lift as you can to fit the biggest meats you can. Beyond that, driver makes up for any differences.

Cody

Put a Cruiser hood back on it when you cut that down.

If you stay leafs in the front, put some like Gearman has, that will lower you.

I noticed the coil over guys had a better time when they hammered their rigs on bumpy hills. They seemed to stay stable and not bounce.

The worst were the TJ based rigs, they bounced like hell under power and rolled a lot. (great pics)

The most stable rig I saw there was Chris Durham's. Rock solid, but too wide for you it sounds like.

Heavier tires? <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>Problem list:
It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">
In the past 10 days, we rolled it 6 times. <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0"> [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]</STRONG>
Have you thought about training wheels <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Wider is not better in a competition rig. You'll run over every flag on the course.



I can testify to that! We hit ass loads of flags in Cedar City. The rig was super stable off camber, but we had a hell of a time getting it through the gates. The two things we need to work on are our width, and our turning radius.

Definitely narrow or at least change the
hood on the rig.

I knew the first time I saw the front-hood
framework going up that you never be able to
see anywhere near the right front tire.

Throw a couple of gallons of water in each tire. Is that illegal? <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> My dad does that in his tractor tires for just that reason. It's much more stable off camber and it get's better traction too.

Probably kinda hic-rigg'n for ya, but what the hell, I threw it out there. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Loppy ]

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>Forced articulation is illegal in ARCA. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

Well, that means you can't run airbags then??? What about the scorpion, that AES is forced articulation???

I would put a D60 up front, that would put more weight down low. I would also put some kinda of anti-rock swaybar in back, in the pics it looks as if to much rear flex is part of the problem.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Ant ]

the water in the tires thing really helps for traction---at least in 2wd tractors. With the tires full, the old tractor would flip over backwards if you tried to tow something real heavy and weren't careful! It also has 5' tall nobbys. I say give it a try, and don't tell too many people your secret! <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0">

Lance, can you give us some close up pic of your suspension? Maybe a few of the underside and also some of the areas you feel need improving. I've never seen your rig up close but i've hear mention of it. Would like to see if it is not a design flaw. Don't want to push any buttons on that comment but ya never know. Congrats on ARCA.

I have to agree with ANT. Too much flex in the back can flop it over easy. I think that something to slow the flex in the back can help. I also think that lower CG can't hurt.
<IMG SRC="smilies/jeep1.gif" border="0">

Water in the tires with beadlocks would probably work, but I think if you put water in a conventional wheel/tire combo with them aired down, you would compress the water thus adding additional force inside the wheel, busting your bead.
I have never seen anyone running with water in their tires, kinda unconventional, but worthy of a thought.

lower the cg.

i would lower the front hood.

lower the front suspension so that the tires rub at max articulation.

same in the rear.

10-4 on the shocks and bumb stops.

butting water in your tires is stupid. heavier tires equal more broken axles.

We did limit the wheel travel with limiting straps. This made a HUGE difference in climbing. The vehicle used to want to walk under itself before.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/arca_farmington2001/saturday/Image084.jpg

Like I said, the only problem I have now is extreme side angles, where both tires on one side are elevated. I wouldn't say it sidehills worse than the average rig, but it needs to sidehill much better than the average rig. <IMG SRC="smilies/glasses.gif" border="0">

Brawler, I will see what I can do about pics. My rear suspension is fairly unconventional in that all the links are on top of the axle. Here are a couple of crude sketches:
<IMG width=427 height=283 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/geo_lc1.gif">

<IMG width=291 height=171 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/geo_lc2.gif">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

the tire is only heavier in the suspension categorie since you are not spinning the water too, but yes it does get you more traction and therefore broken parts. Tell all the old time farmers that they are stupid. <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Aggro:
<STRONG>the tire is only heavier in the suspension categorie since you are not spinning the water too, but yes it does get you more traction and therefore broken parts. Tell all the old time farmers that they are stupid. <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

ever see a tractor rock crawl? well when i do i will tell them they are stupid.

did it roll because of suspension or because it was too tall? second raise your motor and tranny to be flat with the bottom of the rig than drop the suspension down. there was plenty of room to do that. I think you'd like the coilovers Vs conventional leafs.

...you would compress the water thus adding additional force inside the wheel, busting your bead.
Uh, no. Water is not compressable. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Water in the tires wouldn't behave like traditional wheel-weights.... the water is free to move around, there's very little resistance inside there. That might be kinda interesting, but I think getting more control of the suspension would help more, and I'm not sure you really wanna add more weight...

Randii

Originally posted by randii:
<STRONG>...you would compress the water thus adding additional force inside the wheel, busting your bead.
Uh, no. Water is not compressable. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">


Randii</STRONG>

I think he kind of ment it like that, the water does not compress so when it does try the water needs to go somewhere (could blow the bead right off) but would be most likely to flow to the top of the tire, i guess it all depends on how much water you put in there

but i will stik by camo, Seems kind of hoaky to me, i would stay away, all i could see is when you rust through your rims from the inside out

As far as the water in tires goes, it was usually a liquid calcium solution that is put in there, very dense, lots more weight than the ordinary water trick.

Originally posted by camo:
<STRONG>ever see a tractor rock crawl? well when i do i will tell them they are stupid.</STRONG>

LMAO!

One thing though. If you would just so happen to slice a sidewall, just how would you explain the river of water spewing from the slice? That would be <IMG SRC="smilies/emb.gif" border="0">. <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

I dont know if anyone mentioned this, sounds like you just need to lower the cg, like was stated previously and maybe add some unsprung weight. Unsprung weight really helps on sidehills <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

before you comit to those tires see how you like them in the snow, I bet they will suck compared to a 39.5 bogger. Of course maybe you will decide to do the winter wheeling in something with a top like a sane person then it doesn't matter if bigger tires fit the cruiser. I say lower it as much as you can to keep the 44 out of the engine. If that means you got to notch out the little piece of frame that is left then do it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lance:
[QB]We did limit the wheel travel with limiting straps. This made a HUGE difference in climbing. The vehicle used to want to walk under itself before.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/arca_farmington2001/saturday/Image084.jpg

Funny how your front doesn't flex. Your rear flex's like a bad dog though!

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Ant ]

Originally posted by Ant:
<STRONG>

Funny how your front doesn't flex when your climbing but your rear flex's like a bad dog..
<IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> I guarantee more balanced flex would help.</STRONG>

Yeah, cuz we all saw how great your rig climbed at COC. <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0">
And one more time.... The rig CLIMBS AWESOME. ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA problems climbing! No hop, no funny characteristics, nothing!!!! It is SIDEHILLING that is a problem! <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

ok wh then can the scorpion run air bags???

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>Yeah, cuz we all saw how great your rig climbed at COC. <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0">
And one more time.... The rig CLIMBS AWESOME. ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA problems climbing! No hop, no funny characteristics, nothing!!!! It is SIDEHILLING that is a problem! <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]</STRONG>

So you ask for people's opinion on your rig, then when you get it you turn around tell them how crappy their rig is!?!? What ever...

<IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Scott Freas:
<STRONG>As far as the water in tires goes, it was usually a liquid calcium solution that is put in there, very dense, lots more weight than the ordinary water trick.</STRONG>

It is mainly run to keep it frum freezing. Here in Arizona we just run water.

Originally posted by SNORTclown:
<STRONG>did it roll because of suspension or because it was too tall? second raise your motor and tranny to be flat with the bottom of the rig than drop the suspension down. there was plenty of room to do that. I think you'd like the coilovers Vs conventional leafs.</STRONG>

Jason, it seems to me that raising up 800lbs worth of motor/tranny/tcase would kinda defeat the purpose of trying to lower CG, dontcha think? I have just about a flat belly. If I were to clock my tcase an inch or two it would be totally flat. Problem is that will require me to run a two piece driveshaft up front to clear the hump on my SM420 (ohhhhhhh Jesssssssseeeeeeeee <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> ).

So here's my plan so far:
Lower rear end 3-4"
lower front 1-2"
clock tcase
Sway away (coil over type) shocks with about 175-200psi nitro
bumpstops on all corners (dont have any now <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> )

Hey Gordon, Im interested as well to see how the MTR's do in the snow. I suspect they will do well since they are a tall radial they should have a nice long contact patch when aired down, like a Dick Cepek. But you're right, flat 39.5's FULLY get it in the snow. And yes, Im dumb, and will be wheelin my open air rig in blizzards this winter. <IMG SRC="smilies/glasses.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/bender.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by TR:
<STRONG>ok wh then can the scorpion run air bags???</STRONG>

Is the "wh" in your question supposed to be "why? <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

you know, this is really a grey area. I believe arca's definition of "forced articulation" is when the driver is able to push a lever and compress/extend a wheel at a given corner. ARCA does allow "forced articulation" front to back, meaning you can raise/lower the entire front end, or rear end. Just not side to side, or one wheel. I don't know exactly how the scorp's suspension works to know if it truly is illegal, or not. I do know that John does raise and lower his rig all the time during the comp.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

Originally posted by Ant:
<STRONG>So you ask for people's opinion on your rig, then when you get it you turn around tell them how crappy their rig is!?!? What ever...

<IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

My point being is you are rolling your eyes at the way my rig works and guranteeing me success if my rig was Im guessing more like yours, when your rig can't seem to climb a molehill.

well wouldnt that work then??? when you are on a side hill you can lower your truck? btw if i understand right about those scorpions they have 25% of the vechile weight on every tire at any time.

So does this mean the 37" MT/R's are no longer FS??

right there!! the proof is in the puddin' He wouldn't be popin' a wheelie if his tires were empty! And as far as winter wheelin' goes, water in the tires DOES suck. big ice cubes in the tires do nothing to increase performance. <IMG SRC="smilies/fj.gif" border="0">

Hey lance thanks for the sketches. Pics would be cool if you can get some. I do however have one question. Shouldn't the designer/builder have taken all of these things into consideration when rebuilding your rig? Seems to me that pros are pros because they know how things work (or don't). I again am not trying to step on anyones toes but it would stand to reason that whoever built your rig should have known the potential problems and made you aware of them or taken the steps to prevent those problems.

Damn i just realized how much pointing the finger i do. Anyway if you find any pics let me know. Thanks.

I think light weight is key for an arca rig don't add weight to lower the cg. It looks to me like if the rig is light enough and the spotter big and strong enough it can really be manhandled. Lowering the CG should be done by lowering the heavy stuff. The easiest way to do that is to lower the suspension, because that lowers everything except the axles and tires. after you do that if you start hitting a transfer case or a driveshaft or rocker panels or spring hangers or whatever, then raise those items up. then there are obvious heavy items to lower like batteries and fuel tanks and motors, but Lance already has a battery under a seat and a propane tank mounted pretty low. Maybe he can lower his motor a little if he still has clearance after lowering the suspension, but moving 700 lbs an inch or two is not the same as moving 2500 lbs 4 or 5 inches.

Originally posted by onetoncv:
<STRONG>i have always wonderd about hydrolicly controlled shocks ? a proportioning valve or something similar - or even a totally hydrolic shock set up that is controlable up and down ? would that even be legal in arca? or workable - would you have to have 5 hands to still drive and adjust? it could be done-</STRONG>

This would be the ticked for crawling. Your going slow enough to have the rig self adjust or even use a joystick to control each corner. I had a system like this worked out once but it could get a little pricey if you go automatic leveling, not bad if you use a manual joystick. It would be pretty easy.

Lance - I will give you my honest opinion on this, the point is to help you.

The problem is your suspension design, not the height. Your front has NO flex, and your rear has wayy too much. This is why the body refuses to stay level when you are flexed out. What you need to do is soften the front springs, or order new ones that are around 100lbs/inch. Pulling leaves out of yours may make it squat too low. Because your fronts are outboarded, you lost a lot of articulation.

You tried to compensate for that by going 1/4 elliptic rear, this was not a good idea. The rear suspension is too soft and the control arms don't CONTROL the axle very well. You need to stiffen the rear packs, and either re-design the upper arms with more angle, so that the axle cannot move sideways, or convert to a upper A-arm(this would be my preferance). An a-arm with poly bushings at the frame and a heim with mmisalignment spacers at the top of the dif. would be very good to contol the axle without limiting side to side movement.

I believe the real problem is that the chassis moves over the axle when you sidehill, and your center of gravity moves toward the tire, this is what causes the rollover. Also, since the front can't flex at all, the body follows the sidehill instead of staying level during articulation.

I noticed these things when you did the 1/4 elliptic this summer, but didn't want to say anything. Now that you know it's a problem, i hope you will fix it right.

Good Luck!!!

Originally posted by camo:
<STRONG>ever see a tractor rock crawl? well when i do i will tell them they are stupid.</STRONG>i have actually seen a tractor rock crawl... then again, i'm a redneck. i'm tellin' you, some tractors can get it awn.

Well said sounds like good logic to me. I am not an engineer or anything but it makes sense give it a try. You got nothing to loose now but the competition <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>We are tossing around putting in some air bags on the rear springs, and some sway away shocks @ 175psi front and rear. Some bump stops front and rear (possibly the trick air stops) and I think she will be a serious sidehilling mo-fo. Any suggestions?

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]</STRONG>From what I understand about the pressure is that as the shock goes up the fluid works against the bladder so the more pressure you run the harder the shock will get and the sooner. So you might have to play around with the pressure in the bladder and I do know they are rated to go to 250psi.

just trade me rigs you can almost drive totally sideways in mine before it flops

Thanks for the comments. Elf - fyi, the front springs are not outboarded. They are in the stock Toyota/Jeep location. Keep in mind that pics you may have seen of the rig in the past where the rear axle is doing some funky stuff, doesn't happen anymore. Some more tweaking/testing is definitely in order, and I appreciate all the comments!

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>With the MTR's my rig is 79" wide from outside to outside.</STRONG>

hey lance, how wide are your axles wms to wms and what backspacing do your rims have ?

- jack

there are some situations where unbalanced flex can cause a roll over, if you roll when your rear is on relatively level ground and the front is off camber then a more balanced suspension would make you less likely to roll. On the other hand if you rolled when the rear was up on an obstical and the front was on relatively level ground then the extreme rear articulation and relatively stiff front would help. The arca course in Farmington looked like it was just plain off camber changing the balance of the vehicle isn't going to help there.

I have the opposit unbalance articulation as Lance my front is super soft coils and the rear is a fliped shackle cheap lift springs with an extra leaf added. unbalance this way is worse, especially going down hill where all the weight is on the front. The problem is once you are passed the obstical there is less you can do about how high your rear tires climb on it, so to avoid rolling you either have to throttle out or get way off the line you want to take.

If forced articulation isn't allowed then how does this rig get to compete?

http://www.outdoorwire.com/gallery/trailshots//4x4_Trailshots//Competitions/Skyjacker_Womans_Rock_Crawling_Championship_2001/tracy1.jpg

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: 85MudYoTa ]

Originally posted by Gordon:
[QB]there are some situations where unbalanced flex can cause a roll over, if you roll when your rear is on relatively level ground and the front is off camber then a more balanced suspension would make you less likely to roll. On the other hand if you rolled when the rear was up on an obstical and the front was on relatively level ground then the extreme rear articulation and relatively stiff front would help. The arca course in Farmington looked like it was just plain off camber changing the balance of the vehicle isn't going to help there....

QB]

http://www.monsterslayer.com/jeep/Pics/Amy2.jpg

I think you are on the right track, Lance …
This pic illustrates why limiting articulation of the rear actually can make the uphill rear tire a heavy counter balance against body roll (and weight shift) down hill.
On this same gate I suspect your left rear was articulated all the way down and your body rolled to the right by several more degrees, drastically shifting a heck of a lot more top heavy weight much closer to the brink of unbalance with no such assisting counter weight.
The use of this rigs Anti-Rock torsion (sway) bar in the front also helps in this situation by keeping the frame and body more level and centered over the tires instead of the right front nosing down and under.
Super articulation has its place, I’m sure … but not usually on a way off camber slick rock ARCA coarse.

A more balanced suspension might even help you over the top on B7 …

http://www.monsterslayer.com/jeep/Pics/AmyOnB7.jpg

<IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Jaffer ]

Instead of "Forced Articulation", would it be allowed to have adjustable bumpstops? Say, hydro controlled to limit compression. It could be controlling both bumpstops at the same time to be within the rules but in your case you'd probable only need to lower them to limit compression on one side. If the spring didn't compress as deep, the CG would not lean as far. Does this make any sense? <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: PYRO ]

Originally posted by 85MudYoTa:
<STRONG>If forced articulation isn't allowed then how does this rig get to compete?

http://www.outdoorwire.com/gallery/trailshots//4x4_Trailshots//Competitions/Skyjacker_Womans_Rock_Crawling_Championship_2001/tracy1.jpg

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: 85MudYoTa ]</STRONG>
Whats up with that??????????????????????

Just an idea- how about some counterweights that can be shifted from side to side when needed?

ok here is another sugestion, you fixed the truck so it can climb like a gay billy goat, what shocks if any are you running?? here is another idea, and before you say its forced articulation listen to me. get 4 hydraulic cylinders of nessicary travel, then get 4 flow control valves and some hoses, next mount all four flow control valves in teh cab, nex run hydraulic lines to all 4 wheel wells, then start to purge all the air from the lines and cylinders. next hook up all the lines to the cylinders and mon them like you would a shock. you can know control how much body lean your truck has. say you are on flat ground and are commin up to a side hill, all you would have to do it close off the down hill side and almost close off the up hill side so the truck will not lean as far. i will draw a sycematic of it if that will help.also if you wanted to lift a tire and keep it up all you would have to do is ramp the truck and lock all 4 of the valves and it would keep that tire in the air. it not forced just held articulation. also if there is a high speed section you can adjust the valves like you can a rancho 9000. PM me if you have any more questions. btw i estimate about $500 bucks for every thing.

Lance..... 'bags acting on the top of the 1/4 ellip rear springs won/t help with the "unloading" that is likely the culprit causing the instability ... what you probably need to do is create a way to force compression of the uphill side of the rear spring packs ( perhaps an airbag actuating a limiting cable/pulley...) this would allow you to control the body roll as much as you would like, and keep the CG within the " stability triangle" ( think of the track width as the base of the triangle and the CG as a point suspended like a pendulum from the top, the taller and narrower the triangle is , the less the CG has to swing to cause the vehicle to change which side it uses as the base)........ 6 rolls in 10 days even beats my record of 4 in one day <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

I think that is Don Robbins' rig (although the ass looks different). He can force any tire down with his hydraulics and I am pretty sure I've seen him do it in competition. That is illegal but what the judges dont' see or understand doesn't count.

Scorpions have a similar problem as Lance, because they flex so damn much, they don't have as much contact pressure on their tires which causes them to lose traction. Also, ith that much flex, the body leans down hill easily causing it to become unstable and prone to rollover. That's why scorpions flop so much. That picture of the She-J is the oppopsite--her lack of flex keeps the body from becoming unstable.

Cody

moer and more im starting to think some type of torsion/sway bar at both ends is the ticket for side hill shit.... now, do you still need that or want that if you ran coil overs? how many people on here running coil over? are you using a torsion/sway bar?
and how many are not?

dont get me wrong a low cog is also important.

lance, i would definately lower your rig to the point where your tires are hittin at full flex, which you allready seem to be ready to do... did you goin to a narrower tire cause your tipsyness.... i noticed the stability when i went from 12.5 to 15 inch wide definately got better..


Lance, did you have any major problems or are there any concerns of running the control arms all above the axle? im gettin ready to do my own links... running the top 2 the way you did and the lowers the same angle, but was gonna go below... seeing yours made me wonder... any tricks to that... i was under the impression that shouldnt be done.

ok, ive rambled enough, guess that what happens when they put me on the desk at work... daaaamn is this boreing!

I guess you can't use airbags for ARCA but there is no reason you can't use them all the rest of the time. Just make them easily removable. I'd think that coilovers would help since you'd probably be able to fine tune the spring rate a little better. Another thing that just popped into my head while looking at the pic you posted is if you were to modify a shock to use a sort of electromechanical brake to hold onto the shaft on the high side. Basically it would be a device that would stop the movement of the shock. It would not be able to force any articulation but it could be used to hold a certain position in the suspension travel. I'll see if I can draw what I am talking about so it makes sense.

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Paul Gagnon ]

Okay here is a drawing of my little idea.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/shockbrake2.jpg

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Paul Gagnon ]

Originally posted by badassjeepguy:
[QB]moer and more im starting to think some type of torsion/sway bar at both ends is the ticket for side hill shit.... now, do you still need that or want that if you ran coil overs? how many people on here running coil over? are you using a torsion/sway bar?
and how many are not? ...
QB]

That's a good case in point...
When Dirty Dan Brown drove this brand new red "CJ-9" out of Jim Peterson's shop this spring and headed for Johnson Valley the first thing Dan did to it was to unhook the front torsion bar and do other mods to "loosen it up" thinking, I'm sure, "Oh boy, I'll get more articulation!".
He subsequently proceeded to roll the hell out of it ... 15 times and counting ...

i know that this isnt the answer but every little bit helps right, turn your propane tank 90 degrees so the liquid isnt going from side to side as far. and lower it if at all possible. it likely that the tank has no baffles and just adds to the problem.

Lance, as you know we changed over from traditional leafs in the front to coil-overs right before leaving for Farmington. There were so many times that under old circumstances we would have been on our side. You saw our rig on the lift - 54" in the front and 54.5" in the back. This balance between front versus rear in combination with the trick bumpstops like the ones from Bilstein will stabilize your rig tremendously and take a huge portion of your problem away. (If they come valved properly, that is...) <IMG SRC="smilies/blush2.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Rock Wizard:
<STRONG>Lance, as you know we changed over from traditional leafs in the front to coil-overs right before leaving for Farmington. There were so many times that under old circumstances we would have been on our side. You saw our rig on the lift - 54" in the front and 54.5" in the back. This balance between front versus rear in combination with the trick bumpstops like the ones from Bilstein will stabilize your rig tremendously and take a huge portion of your problem away. (If they come valved properly, that is...) <IMG SRC="smilies/blush2.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

so does the coil overs help with body roll? or was it just that you are balanced?

Originally posted by TR:
<STRONG>oh thats right its an arca rig. humm how about keep your current suspention and use a hydraulic cylinder on each wheel to help you stay level. you can get them so that while you are not touching the lever they will float but you can also get rid of yor shocks and use flow controls instead. you would be surprised of the possibilitys with hydraulics.</STRONG>
tell me more about this please, it sounds very interesting

Well, I'm probably the least experienced person to respond but I guess I could give a case in point. I was running aerostar coils on the rear of my toy. They flexed like mad and were softer than anything, subsequently the front did little if anything when it came to articulation (sound familiar?). Here in Walla Walla we have a lot of hills and traversing across them was down right scary! I switched over to the James Duff coils, and you wouldn't believe the difference! Side hills are much better than stock vehicles, and I'm running a lot more lift due to the new coils than with the aerostars. I changed nothing with the suspension except the rear coils, which were a much higher spring rate and lifted my toy about 3-4 inche in the ass end,so that is the only factor to contend with. I see you are running the 1/4 elliptic, great for travel, but unbalanced when combined with the front. Might want to try coil overs front or rear to try to balance out the suspension. That is my best opinion coming only from personal experience. I now have little body sway and side hills are no longer a nightmare waiting to happen. The other opinions of lower cg and such that you talked about are good too, but might want to take into serious consideration balancing your suspension. Are other vehicle flopping over that are as tall as yours. Is height really the issue or is it suspension.

Originally posted by GroceryZJ:
<STRONG>Scorpions have a similar problem as Lance, because they flex so damn much, they don't have as much contact pressure on their tires which causes them to lose traction. Also, ith that much flex, the body leans down hill easily causing it to become unstable and prone to rollover. That's why scorpions flop so much
Cody</STRONG>

Sorry, but wrong on both counts. No matter how twisted up (assuming equal weight on front and rear axles, twisted but level ground) a Scorpions is, it will have equal weight on each tire for the most traction possible. Also, the suspension design doesn't allow the body to roll a bit when the vehicle is on a sidehill, which is why a Scorp corners on the road better than a Corvette but has a really rough ride.

The reason Scorpions roll when climbing or descending is that there the body always splits the difference between front and rear axle flex. On a steep climb or descent, nearly all the weight is on one axle, and if the body wants to roll to one side (there's no spring tension to "center" each axle) the uphill axle simply pushes away from the hill and the rig rolls over sideways.

I have a few ideas for you....

-I would try to lower everything you can. The fuel tank, the battery, the winch, anything that you can lower down, even a few inches is going to help lower your Center of Gravity.

-Make everything lighter! If there is anything you don't need get rid of it. Remake bodypanels lighter. I don't think that I have seen a rig be too light?

-Since in ARCA you cannot adjust the suspension itself, can you adjust the suspensions limiting factors. What about an adjustable limiting strap. You limit the uphill side from leaning easy enough with a shorter strap? So why not just have the upper mount of the limiting strap be a electric ram like the old satalite dishes used? It would be easy to control and tough enough I would suspect.

-Another easy trick, air up the downhill tires just a few psi? I know this is a big help for me when I run roads that are a little outsloped in the snow. It allows the tire to bite a little more and not roll over.
What are you running your tires at, I know the curries are running 6psi if that helps. They air up the outer turning tire sometimes also in the tight corners.

later <IMG SRC="smilies/jeep1.gif" border="0">

Definitely need coil overs in the front...No question about that.

Not only is it tall it is a heavy mutha too. So having something so tall and heavy, given articulation with sprung over in the front is a major disaadvantage to running in competitions. But it still worked for me <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

its been said by a few people and even one good real life example, but stiffen the rear and it will lean less. Or try something like the currie "secret weapon" a hydralic ram actuated limiting strap that kept the rear end low

Ok. I have the answer for you, but first I am going to need to borrow it so I can go out and test it........hehe <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Worth a shot.....

Well I will put my .02 in to this. First thing you should do is get good set of shocks like Sway-A-Way, King Shocks,or Bilsteins. I was told by a desert racers that a good shock is what will make a leaf spring vehicle work correctly. Do you think the coilover coils really makes the vehicle? I don't think so, I believe it is the good valving in the shock that makes them work right. So get good shocks if you can afford them.
Next how about mounting a 1/4 eliptical spring pack upside down right next to the standard 1/4 eliptical springs. Then you could preload the suspension so it will not allow the rearend to have a free fall drop like it does know. It will have a neutral setting like a standard leaf spring does. It will limit your articulation but I think that you could stand to limit it some what.

The idea of in-cab adjustable limiting straps seems like it might work as well as being economically feasable. Now this, of course, assumes that limiting your flex will actually keep you on your wheels more often.

Lance,
Your quarter eliptical spring/shock arangement works great for articulation but is too far inboard for vehicle stability. Move them out as far as possible. Maybe increase the spring rate (more leaves).
Just my 2 cents worth.

Here's an idea that I've kicking around. An anti-sway system where rather than linking the front suspension together or the rear together, the left front could be linked to the right rear and the right front to the left rear. This way when a corner of the rig is compressed the opposite corner would unload. This would help control body roll from side to side and front to rear and still allow the suspension to flex freely. The usual torsion bar could not be used without some sort of system of cables and levers. I was thinking maybe hydraulic cylinders mounted like shocks with the top side of one piston connected to the bottom side of the piston on the opposite corner and vise versa. This way when one corner is compressed, the fluid would flow from the bottom of the compressed cylinder to the top of the opposite cylinder and cause it to retract or unload. This would have to be attached to some sort of spring or you would have a very stiff ride. Possibly using compressed air or nitrogen rather than hydraulics. I wish I had the time and resources to do some experimenting. Does anyone think it's feasable or am I just full of shit?

Dan <IMG SRC="smilies/usa.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by 85MudYoTa:
<STRONG>If forced articulation isn't allowed then how does this rig get to compete?

http://www.outdoorwire.com/gallery/trailshots//4x4_Trailshots//Competitions/Skyjacker_Womans_Rock_Crawling_Championship_2001/tracy1.jpg

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: 85MudYoTa ]</STRONG>

He's not allowed to use it during the event. FYI that picture was taken @ the women's comp, where anything and everything was allowed.

How is the front-to-back weight distribution? Could you move the drivetrain REARWARD to keep the front axle out of the oil pan (as you drop the front suspension) and balance it out a little better in the process?

Or you could just dry sump it and drop things down. Yeah, cubic dollars..

SBC 400.. is it time to open it back up yet? Have you thought of aluminum heads and intake to lighten the (up-high) load?
(more cubic dollars)
The more I modify my comp-rig (go-fast 4x4) the more I see the same modifications applying to my (go-slow) trail rig...

Originally posted by tsm1mt:
<STRONG>

Have you thought of aluminum heads and intake to lighten the (up-high) load?
(more cubic dollars)
</STRONG>

Ditto that. Edelbrock makes some aluminum heads for mild mouses that might work for ya.


One idea I had that probably won't work now that I've seen the pics (gonna throw it out since we're on the subject though) is something the old-timers did with their hot-rods. Instead of lowering the suspension - or, in addition to it - they would chop & channel the body. Chopping the top mainly gave it a low "look", but channeling the body around the frame dropped all of the body's weight lower. Would probably be too much work on your rig, but if starting from scratch, it looks to me like the driver's position could be lowered several inches. Every other part of the body would be lowered along with it. Again, the bracing you have would appear to make this a no-go for retrofitting, but if you had it to do over.....might help.

For a LITTLE more stability, you might consider narrower rims, but with less backspacing. In other words, if you had 8" rims with 4" BS, going to 6" rims with 2" BS should net close to the same overall width, but with the weight of the tires & rims pushed farther outboard. 'Course, the narrower rims would be lighter, so not sure how much stability you'd gain, and then the stress on bearings & such increases with the reduced BS. Don't know about that one.

TEX

Originally posted by Brawler:
<STRONG>Hey lance thanks for the sketches. Pics would be cool if you can get some. I do however have one question. Shouldn't the designer/builder have taken all of these things into consideration when rebuilding your rig? Seems to me that pros are pros because they know how things work (or don't). I again am not trying to step on anyones toes but it would stand to reason that whoever built your rig should have known the potential problems and made you aware of them or taken the steps to prevent those problems.

Damn i just realized how much pointing the finger i do. Anyway if you find any pics let me know. Thanks.</STRONG>

I was curious how Well the rigs and suspension systems did in your rigs the last 3 weeks at ARCA, Sports in the rough, and NWRCA? since you seem to want to point the finger in my direction.... GENIUS... For your info it does not have a body roll problem.... None of the rigs we are using it on do. the cruiser is as tall as it is because that is the ride height Lance wanted for his 40's he did not want to do suspension changes in the front. so WE made the rear ride height match the front. in ride height. he was told his front suspension would not move as much. SO with that in mind you build a vehicle for a certain app that the customer wants. than you decide to put smaller tires on it that are alot narrower rims as well and you have lost a ton of stability that was counted on on the origional design. No the springs do not need to be out boarded. there is nothing wrong with his rear suspension. hey I have an idea... why dont one of you who seem to know so much build him a rig..... Knowing how he drives for the same price I did for him and we will see how well he does with it or how long it lasts if you all have such big fucking balls and know so much.. I stepped up... why don't you? 6 tumbels in a week.... A few of them being pretty hard..... because of EXTREME terraine not vehicle FLAW. I'd say it held up pretty good! and did pretty well too. there is a hand ful of ppl on this board who know there shit and could build Lance a rig and have it hild up with few failures in a season.... Brawler you not one of them....

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: SNORTclown ]

Lance On the rear couldn't you strap the leaves toghether a bit more so they don't just fall apart. I changed my rear coil setup so that it was strapped down tight at both ends and didn't lose much for flex (still ramped over a 1000 not that it means anything) but I noticed it sidehilled a lot better. I also changed to a progressive rate coil Its soft for the most part but when compressed it stiffens right up. So maybe add a couple of leafs that are thicker at the top of the packs so on compression it has to work harder but you'll still get the droop.

Originally posted by SNORTclown:
<STRONG>I was curious how Well the rigs and suspension systems did in your rigs the last 3 weeks at ARCA, Sports in the rough, and NWRCA? since you seem to want to point the finger in my direction.... GENIUS... For your info it does not have a body roll problem.... None of the rigs we are using it on do. the cruiser is as tall as it is because that is the ride height Lance wanted for his 40's he did not want to do suspension changes in the front. so WE made the rear ride height match the front. in ride height. he was told his front suspension would not move as much. SO with that in mind you build a vehicle for a certain app that the customer wants. than you decide to put smaller tires on it that are alot narrower rims as well and you have lost a ton of stability that was counted on on the origional design. No the springs do not need to be out boarded. there is nothing wrong with his rear suspension. hey I have an idea... why dont one of you who seem to know so much build him a rig..... Knowing how he drives for the same price I did for him and we will see how well he does with it or how long it lasts if you all have such big fucking balls and know so much.. I stepped up... why don't you? 6 tumbels in a week.... A few of them being pretty hard..... because of EXTREME terraine not vehicle FLAW. I'd say it held up pretty good! and did pretty well too. there is a hand ful of ppl on this board who know there shit and could build Lance a rig and have it hild up with few failures in a season.... Brawler you not one of them....

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: SNORTclown ]</STRONG>

Damn dude, you're acting like someone just drove a lawn dart through your sack <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0">

You did good work on the cruiser, I don't think anybody is bashing that, but there are about 100 different ways to talk about stuff without getting defensive.

That being said, Tex maid a good point about pulling the body down over the chassis. Kind the anti-body lift. May not be practicle, but it also might gain an inch or two to help with the CG, also, how much travel do you have in the back and is it all really neccessary? Maybe try a shorter limiting strap and see if taking out an inch or two or rear travel might help.

Just some ideas

lawn dart through the sack! <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0">
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! <IMG SRC="smilies/jeep1.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by SNORTclown:
<STRONG>I was curious how Well the rigs and suspension systems did in your rigs the last 3 weeks at ARCA, Sports in the rough, and NWRCA? since you seem to want to point the finger in my direction.... GENIUS... For your info it does not have a body roll problem.... None of the rigs we are using it on do. the cruiser is as tall as it is because that is the ride height Lance wanted for his 40's he did not want to do suspension changes in the front. so WE made the rear ride height match the front. in ride height. he was told his front suspension would not move as much. SO with that in mind you build a vehicle for a certain app that the customer wants. than you decide to put smaller tires on it that are alot narrower rims as well and you have lost a ton of stability that was counted on on the origional design. No the springs do not need to be out boarded. there is nothing wrong with his rear suspension. hey I have an idea... why dont one of you who seem to know so much build him a rig..... Knowing how he drives for the same price I did for him and we will see how well he does with it or how long it lasts if you all have such big fucking balls and know so much.. I stepped up... why don't you? 6 tumbels in a week.... A few of them being pretty hard..... because of EXTREME terraine not vehicle FLAW. I'd say it held up pretty good! and did pretty well too. there is a hand ful of ppl on this board who know there shit and could build Lance a rig and have it hild up with few failures in a season.... Brawler you not one of them....

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: SNORTclown ]</STRONG>

WOW! First of all if you read back i never offered any knowledge on the subject at all. All i asked for was pictures so i could run Lances concerns by some friends. Chill out! I don't know the quality of your work but i can certainly offer an opinion,especially sice someone asked. I didn't know you built it nor do i care, but my statement still stands. Did lances rig have any of the problems he mentioned before he went to smaller tires? What tires did he and his wife run in the championships? If they were the tire size you built the rig for originaly then it is absolutly designer error. If not , then not. But don't have an ALMIGHTY MOMMENT with me!

Originally posted by Brawler:
<STRONG>WOW! First of all if you read back i never offered any knowledge on the subject at all. All i asked for was pictures so i could run Lances concerns by some friends. Chill out! I don't know the quality of your work but i can certainly offer an opinion,especially sice someone asked. I didn't know you built it nor do i care, but my statement still stands. Did lances rig have any of the problems he mentioned before he went to smaller tires? What tires did he and his wife run in the championships? If they were the tire size you built the rig for originaly then it is absolutly designer error. If not , then not. But don't have an ALMIGHTY MOMMENT with me!</STRONG>


Maybe you need readin glasses before you reply then... YOU directly attacket my work. Pointing a finger at what you ASSUME is the problem when the details where already given. this is lances post

"Overall, I am very happy with the way it is working. It climbs awesome, and the suspension is working great.
Problem list:
It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy.
In the past 10 days, we rolled it 6 times. The two times it rolled with Bob and I, I don't feel that it should have. So what to do? "

about 1/2 way through you can see the area where he mentions the problem here I'll quote for you " It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy." than notice this part of what he says " the suspension is working great. " a couple post later you reply asking fo suspension pictures when the problem has already been pointed out... than you later reply with this statement "I do however have one question. Shouldn't the designer/builder have taken all of these things into consideration when rebuilding your rig? Seems to me that pros are pros because they know how things work (or don't). I again am not trying to step on anyones toes but it would stand to reason that whoever built your rig should have known the potential problems and made you aware of them or taken the steps to prevent those problems."

there you go, as you can see you pointed right at me and stepped right on my toes. when I built the rig height to the ride height Lance wanted at the time. Like I said before.... Put you money where your mouth is.... Buid him a rig for the same price I did and make it work better... the fact is you can't. Everyone on this board seems to jump on a band wagon on bashing those that build or make product yet if they know so much why are they not doing it. Well got news for you... I'm not the typical builder and if you think you can out do what I have done than step up to the plate to show me.... because until you have proof you are just a web wheeler flapping your YAP on a BBS trying to bash those on topics you know nothing about..... here is the real question for you Brawler.... If you know enough about suspensions to assume it's a design flaw than why do you have to run the design by your friends to see what they think it might be? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..... thought so.....

<IMG SRC="smilies/clown.gif" border="0">

ok im not a moderator but every one SHUT UP!!! lance put smaller tires on his truck and now it likes to go rubber side up. people said he should go wider, people said he should limit his flex while others said lower his entire truck. well i say screw with limiting straps that could break and just go with this design<IMG width=508 height=454 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/drawing.GIF">

After looking at the size of the driver, I'd suggest lowering the seat as far as possible. : )

also the battery and other necessary but heavy items.

Yeah what about that fix..........get some of that jelly roll off Fat Bastard! <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by SNORTclown:
<STRONG>
Maybe you need readin glasses before you reply then... YOU directly attacket my work. Pointing a finger at what you ASSUME is the problem when the details where already given. this is lances post

"Overall, I am very happy with the way it is working. It climbs awesome, and the suspension is working great.
Problem list:
It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy.
In the past 10 days, we rolled it 6 times. The two times it rolled with Bob and I, I don't feel that it should have. So what to do? "

about 1/2 way through you can see the area where he mentions the problem here I'll quote for you " It's too tall
Therefore it tips over too easy." than notice this part of what he says " the suspension is working great. " a couple post later you reply asking fo suspension pictures when the problem has already been pointed out... than you later reply with this statement "I do however have one question. Shouldn't the designer/builder have taken all of these things into consideration when rebuilding your rig? Seems to me that pros are pros because they know how things work (or don't). I again am not trying to step on anyones toes but it would stand to reason that whoever built your rig should have known the potential problems and made you aware of them or taken the steps to prevent those problems."

there you go, as you can see you pointed right at me and stepped right on my toes. when I built the rig height to the ride height Lance wanted at the time. Like I said before.... Put you money where your mouth is.... Buid him a rig for the same price I did and make it work better... the fact is you can't. Everyone on this board seems to jump on a band wagon on bashing those that build or make product yet if they know so much why are they not doing it. Well got news for you... I'm not the typical builder and if you think you can out do what I have done than step up to the plate to show me.... because until you have proof you are just a web wheeler flapping your YAP on a BBS trying to bash those on topics you know nothing about..... here is the real question for you Brawler.... If you know enough about suspensions to assume it's a design flaw than why do you have to run the design by your friends to see what they think it might be? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..... thought so.....

<IMG SRC="smilies/clown.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

OK ding dong, let me spell it out for you. I NEVER SAID I KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT SUSPENSIONS! There got it? The reason i asked about pics was because he wanted to lower the rig and i was going to ask my friends what they thought and how they would fix the problem. Why do you feel the need to be such a prick to me when everyone here had suggestions on the matter. And if you are such a pro then you figure out the problem your customer is having and fix it. I don't build i have it built for the simple fact that i can't build it,however; i do know a little about what works and what doesn't. Did i offer any fix it solutions NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Would i NOOOOOOO! but damn with an attitude like that i wouldn't give you my business at all. Take it with a grain of salt and stop worrying about what other people think. If Lance is happy then that should be enough for you.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Brawler ]

Originally posted by TEX:
<STRONG>

One idea I had that probably won't work now that I've seen the pics (gonna throw it out since we're on the subject though) is something the old-timers did with their hot-rods. Instead of lowering the suspension - or, in addition to it - they would chop & channel the body. Chopping the top mainly gave it a low "look", but channeling the body around the frame dropped all of the body's weight lower. TEX</STRONG>

That's pretty much what I did to get mine as low as I could while still having the clearance under the skid plate. Look at the air cleaner in this picture, It used to be about 5" under the hood, now it sticks out about 4". I had to rake the grill to get the radiator to fit. look at those 1" tall rocker panels... what a pita.

<IMG width=463 height=347 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/P4240012sm.jpg">

Originally posted by Brawler:
<STRONG>OK ding dong, let me spell it out for you. I NEVER SAID I KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT SUSPENSIONS! There got it? The reason i asked about pics was because he wanted to lower the rig and i was going to see if the suspension had anything to do with the problem. Why do you feel the need to be such a prick to me when everyone here had suggestions on the matter. And if you are such a pro then you figure out the problem your customer is having and fix it. I don't build i have it built for the simple fact that i can't build it,however; i do know a little about what works and what doesn't. Did i offer any fix it solutions NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Would i NOOOOOOO! but damn with an attitude like that i wouldn't give you my business at all. Take it with a grain of salt and stop worrying about what other people think. If Lance is happy then that should be enough for you.</STRONG>

I am going to quote to parts of your last paragraph.. Please bear with me...

1. "I NEVER SAID I KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT SUSPENSIONS! "

2. "i was going to see if the suspension had anything to do with the problem."

<IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">
I REST MY CASE YOUR HONOR!

Small edit to my post.

<IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> no hard feelings here... you ment well I guess. Too bad I lost your business in the process. <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by SNORTclown:
<STRONG> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> no hard feelings here... you ment well I guess. Too bad I lost your business in the process. <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

I appreciate your appology and i too offer mine to you. No business lost. If i ever need something done and in your area i'll definitly give you a call. Thanks.

Back to the orignal question????

Dam, I would love to have a smart ass reason why it flops BUT I never got to see it move at all during the clean up!! WHAT UP with dat??


But was that the way to fix the problem?? just park it <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Seems to work real good is certain applications if you ask me...
<IMG width=482 height=361 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/LC's Rig twisted.jpg">

Originally posted by KeithF:
<STRONG>Seems to work real good is certain applications if you ask me...
<IMG width=482 height=361 SRC="http://www.pirate4x4.com/ubb/uploads/LC's Rig twisted.jpg"></STRONG>

I didn't think anyone got a pic of that. That's my best ramp champ impersonation. Eat your heart out, FearMe! <IMG SRC="smilies/thefinger.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Sway bar with long arms so you can play with the resitance. Get it soft enough that you gan get your flex but help control rapid flops to the side.
There is a company in Austraila that has a sytem that they have a pattent on. They are working with Chrysler and it may end up on some Jeep products before it's all over. NO SPRINGS all hydrolic, controls body roll.
Way the system works is is 4 rams. It's plumbed top of one ram to the bottom of the ram on the opposite corner. Then the top of that ram is to the bottom of the opposite. So what happens is as say the right front compresses the top forces fluid to the left rear bottom of the ram forcing the ram to lift the rear wheel and counter balance the vehicle. It has a Resivior with a piston with compressed air behind it simular to a motorcycle fork shock. More air forces more fluid into the sytem and controls the ride hight.

After looking at the pictures and reading the inflamatory replies, Hey, I think the Cruzah is TITS UP...for the money! <IMG SRC="smilies/beer.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>I didn't think anyone got a pic of that. That's my best ramp champ impersonation. Eat your heart out, FearMe! <IMG SRC="smilies/thefinger.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

The simple things to me I guess, is in the morning, how it got started in gear (reverse) with no driver, so it back off Dave's tire. And then promptly put into first gear and drove back up the tire and then down on the ground and into camp (still no driver). So if it was a cartoon the caption would have said " It's to dame early to climb into that thing, I'll just turn the key, he he" <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by badfish:
<STRONG>The simple things to me I guess, is in the morning, how it got started in gear (reverse) with no driver, so it back off Dave's tire. And then promptly put into first gear and drove back up the tire and then down on the ground and into camp (still no driver). So if it was a cartoon the caption would have said " It's to dame early to climb into that thing, I'll just turn the key, he he" <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

<IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

why not just get another pair of 39.5 boggers? Thats what the SNORT crew set up your buggy to run, right? Did it not work well with the large meats?