anybody got some pics or links to rigs that run rockwells but a low center of gravity. I.E. most the rigs i see with rockwells are pretty tall even the tube buggys i've seen.
thanks
bob

This truck has 2" less lift than the one next to it, which is on 35s.
Total lift over a stock Samurai from top of axle to bottom of frame is only 8".

Originally posted by 350 Samurai
This truck has 2" less lift than the one next to it, which is on 35s.
Total lift over a stock Samurai from top of axle to bottom of frame is only 8".

Are the Rockwells under that narrowed? Hubs flipped in? What backspacing wheels? What size wheels/tires? Tell me more... we've got a lot of those parts hangin' out at the shop, and this just started a lot of bad ideas.... :)

This may answer some of your ?

http://www.rattlerock.com/samurai_on_rockwells.htm

Here it is with little tires:
http://members.cox.net/elfcruiser/cruisercreek4.JPG

And flexed up with bigger tries:
http://members.cox.net/weshanson/2deadcows/2dc0018.jpg

Stock SOA on a FJ40. About 6" suspension lift...

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper


Are the Rockwells under that narrowed? Hubs flipped in? What backspacing wheels? What size wheels/tires? Tell me more... we've got a lot of those parts hangin' out at the shop, and this just started a lot of bad ideas.... :)
Rockwells are standard width, with front hubs flipped in.
Wheels are 15x10 with the centers cut out and new Rockwell centers welded in with 2 1/2" backspacing. This leaves about about 1 1/2" of clearance to the tire, which allows for a little tire flex. I have a set of beadlocks, but I haven't changed the centers out in them yet. The tires are 44s.
The wheelbase is stretched as far as possible on the Sammy frame, to 115". This allowed me to lower the body down so far, because the front axle is in front of the motor, so no interference with the oil pan and the rear goes into the area previously occupied by the gas tank. I could actually lower it a few more inches if I needed, but that is where the springs settled into and I am real happy with it.

thanks for the pics. y'all got any of some other tube chassis running them? also if i moved the axle foward of the motor like sami should there be a limit to how far foward? i.e. don't want the front to be too light. makes it harder climbiing ledges and hills if front doesn't have enough pressure.
thanks
bob

My Custom Rockwell buggy weighs in at 5000lbs exactly. By my calculations about 2500lbs of this is unsprung. That should equate to a low cg. Anybody else weighed their rockwell rigs?

http://www.admotorsports.com/jeep.org/cjl-tj/04-22-02/p1010012s.jpg

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
My Custom Rockwell buggy weighs in at 5000lbs exactly. By my calculations about 2500lbs of this is unsprung. That should equate to a low cg. Anybody else weighed their rockwell rigs?


Mine came in at 4480 lbs

Originally posted by 350 Samurai


Mine came in at 4480 lbs


What proportion of this weight would you estimate is on the front and rear axles? 60/40? With your 115" wheelbase, how does it climb and does it feel squirrely on steep decents? :eek:

Since the axles make up almost half of the weight on your rig, I'm assuming she always feels pretty stable.

Originally posted by EUROTRUCK



What proportion of this weight would you estimate is on the front and rear axles? 60/40? With your 115" wheelbase, how does it climb and does it feel squirrely on steep decents? :eek:

Since the axles make up almost half of the weight on your rig, I'm assuming she always feels pretty stable.
When I weighed it, it weighed 1880 on the rear axle and 2600 on the front axle. At 4480 total weight that would make it 58/42. Pretty close to 60/40.

It is, by far, the most stable vehicle I have been in. I have had it leaned over to where I could hardly stay in the seat and it didn't even begin to feel like it was unstable. It feels like it has tons of traction.

Almost every rig out ther running rockwells will have great center of gravity because the weight of those axles are low and keep you planted. Thats why in my opinion, as long as you have enough power and contact patch to make up for the weigh then they are the best axles you can get for rock crawling. Others can argue mogs or volvos but in my world I would rather have the weight lower and just use the driving style that i am accustomed to. That is putting your tires on the high points. This of course doesn't have any thing to do with competition where you are forced to take one line. I am talking about pure rockcrawling. Mogs and any other portal just force the vehicle to be higher along with raising the actual weight of the axle itself. Just an opinion. The pinion angles with rockwells are amazing and I was able to cut mine with the same clearance as a nine inch which is nice with 42s or the 44s that I will be running down the road. It is very hard to build a vehicle that has a crappy center of gravity with rockwells but you can very easily build one that has horrible body roll and will feel like a crappy center of gravity even if you are not going to roll over. This all boils down to suspension design though. 60s are alright but if you are going to have the weight down low in a strait axle you might as well have more weight, be a hell of alot beefier, and have great drive shaft angles and driveshaft placement that almost ensures not hitting any rocks. Also the aftermarket for these axles is growing by the day and entry level axles are pretty cheap in comparason to the other axles mentioned.