Okay, so I need to be talked out of this. Here is where I am at. I have wheeled the piss out of this truck the last two years. There is two things that I don't like, the belly clearance, and front link clearance (related). It is taller than some buggies, but is so amazingly stable, I don't care. But every trip I have been hammering the frame.

This last trip I drove out of a roll and finally completely destroyed the rear link and took the frame with it. Pics don't do justice but here they are, the bottom of this link used to be even with the bottom of the frame:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2670.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2675.jpg

It is hard to tell, but the frame is bowed in at least an inch or more. Then add that to the other side bowing out:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2672.jpg

Then add that to the other side, thank you KOH:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2674.jpg

Well, you get the idea. Now the other problem, the front link brackets. They have only been on the truck for 3 trips, but are bent to crap. Take a look at the backdoor video, after the climb, when I am on top, I high center on the link(look at second 32). I just drove off of it, but it happens like a 100 times a trip.

YouTube - TDI Land Rover Defender 90 Land Cruiser FJ 40 at Backdoor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJHx435KTw)

So here is what has been banging through my mind. I have 8.75 in of vert separation up front, and 5in at the frame, IE perfect. But, I need to get this fixed. So what I can do is raise the lower links an inch using a Ballistic fab link mount. It would make the bottom of the bracket flat to the bottom of the frame. Should keep the geometry OK. Not perfect, but ok. I was seriously thinking about replaceing the whole mid section of the frame with 3x5 3/16 box but the lower link mounting is what is stopping me. I can't go to 3in or less of separation at the frame end. That would scare me.

Okay, so that probably solves the link issue in the front. I add UHMW as a skid across and although the frame is still low, 19in, it should be smooth. From there, the back end of the frame is destroyed. I can't fix it. What I am thinking of doing from there is welding in the 3x5 3/16 square tube and run it back as far as it goes untill it becomes tube. Then move the rear links (the ones that are destroyed) up. They are so long that the anti-squat won't really be affected. If it is not to my likeing, I can raise the axle end mounts a little to compensate. I have 10in of separation at the axle end. The numbers are good, but I have room to play.

Sooo, the frame will have a step it in, low, then higher. It will all be done right, braceing where necessary, ect. The bottom will be flat and fully skidded. So, what say the PBB? Am I nuts? The rig is down all summer anyway so I might as well fix this all right for next season.

School me! :flipoff2:

Okay, so that probably solves the link issue in the front. I add UHMW as a skid across and although the frame is still low, 19in, it should be smooth. From there, the back end of the frame is destroyed. I can't fix it. What I am thinking of doing from there is welding in the 3x5 3/16 square tube and run it back as far as it goes untill it becomes tube. Then move the rear links (the ones that are destroyed) up. They are so long that the anti-squat won't really be affected. If it is not to my likeing, I can raise the axle end mounts a little to compensate. I have 10in of separation at the axle end. The numbers are good, but I have room to play.

Sooo, the frame will have a step it in, low, then higher. It will all be done right, braceing where necessary, ect. The bottom will be flat and fully skidded. So, what say the PBB? Am I nuts? The rig is down all summer anyway so I might as well fix this all right for next season.


This sounds like the better way to go about it...

This sounds like the better way to go about it...

There is another option that I am considering. I could replace the entire center section all the way back with 3x5 and use these mounts for the front links. http://www.ballisticfabrication.com/Heavy-Duty-Frame-Link-Mount_p_1511.html Even the rear. They would be rock anchors but would still be higher. This would make for some kick but ground clearance but would require me raising the t-case mount and exaust. A LOT of work, but worth it?

I was trying to use an old frame for my next project and it is just too rusty for what I need, so I was considering using two 2X3 tubes parallel - one for the top of the frame and one for the bottom connected by flat sheet metal or tubes vertically. Sort of a cheap Bowler tube chassis. I only need it from the front steering mount to the rear seatbox mount (trayback design with coilover shocks - so no need for rear spring mounts). At the front, the two rectangular box sections could actually be welded together (that section of a 90 frame is about 3X4). At the main part of the frame, the rectangular box sections would be separated about 2" to 2.5" to duplicate the original frame which is 3"X6.5". Let me know how you proceed.

I realize your frame is toast, but on my Tomcat (90 frame with relocated rear trailing arm location), I ended up welding 1/4" thick strap to the top, outside(where the mount is attached) and bottom of the frame where the bracket is located (39" trailing arms). The strap was at least 2 feet long. I ripped the 0.1" frame wall with a bracket once and I learned my lesson - LR didn't build it for what we do to it :)

I was trying to use an old frame for my next project and it is just too rusty for what I need, so I was considering using two 2X3 tubes parallel

A bit like an Ibex?

I should say that I'm sad thats happened. Representing this marque at KOH with a diesel was brave and brilliant, been looking for vids of you going through, so thanks for the vid.

I'm not qualified to comment on chassis design But I have always liked this guys approach on a RAV4 build (http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=514048&highlight=woodtick&page=8)

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f43/leyanh/woodtick/DSCN1738.jpg

Just a pic to put fridges comment into perspective

Ibex chassis

http://www.ibexvehicles.com/ (http://www.ibexvehicles.com/)

http://www.ibexvehicles.com/gallery/ibex_009.jpg

Nice tube bending. And yes I was thinking about something like that except using straight sections of 2X3 cut and welded together. I guess I'll get a stick of rectangular tubing and play a little - do one side and see what it looks like. Other option would be to use 3X5" or 3X6" and skip the cute stuff.

Dude, I was thinking about this all day! i think i have a solution!


Get a LR3 frame, then you can get 13 MPG:grinpimp::flipoff2:

I really can't comment on link suspension and I sure as hell don't know enough to school anyone, but I built a LR chassis out of 3X5 3/16 wall tube that followed the rough routing of a standard chassis a few years ago, kinda like a Matkins Jeep frame. Although it's a heck of a lot harder to deform the thicker smaller tubing, unless you have a way to tuck the LT230 up into the seatbox you're going to have this huge rock magnet thing sticking out of the bottom. If you could alter the positioning of the drivetrain you might gain some major belly clearance, but from all the vids I have seen that thing does amazing without having to reduce the frame size, but you would probably need to plate it and strengthen the main rails.

Those mounts would fare better if they were anchored to something less flexible than the tinfoil thickness chassis, but I agree that moving them up an inch or two would do do wonders.

What about getting the lower profile of the frame cut out on a CNC table, and getting an additional 1/8 inch of plating to cover the bottom 5 inches of the chassis welded on each side (following the contour of the lower edge of the chassis), and a thicker strip welded to the bottom, something like 1/4? You could have the two side pieces welded continuously at the top, and have 2" holes punched in the reinforcement all the way along, to allow you to weld the reinforcement to the original frame, like this

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/shaffersoffroad/IMG_4063.jpg

(Pic lifted from Shaffer's desert Jeepspeed buildup thread)

And welded through all the holes? Perhaps to stiffen up those link mounts you could send some DOM through the frame to tie in with the stiffening pieces on the inside, kinda like the desert racing guys build when they are building links, etc use DOM to tie in both sides of a link by welding a piece through the middle?

The fabrication on your rig does look great and it looks very desert racing inspired, but those link mounts are hanging off the outside of a very thin frame. I figure you could get a shop with some experience to reinforce that whole damage prone area, make it look freaking awesome, and keep the lightness of the original chassis, plus introduce some reinforcements that would go through the chassis, spread the loads into both sides of the main chassis rail, and raise the link mounts at the same time. You get the link mount clearance, you won't dent the main rails, and you can keep most of the truck as-is without having to hack into the main rails too much.

The reason why your rear link mounts are failing at the frame, is that from what it looks like you have the upper trailing link mounts welded directly to the factory frame. The thin frame walls just cannot handle those forces and will fatigue over time as you have found. On all of my link and shock hoop mounts I do on frames I always plate the factory frame first with 3/16 or 1/4 plate to distribute the loading of a much greater surface area and then weld the mounts to the plate.

From what I can see of your front links, it looks like they have no gusseting at all to handle the tensile forces from the upper front links as they are transferred to the frame. This would explain the deformation your experiencing up front.

Waste of time.

I have your new chassis design here in solidworks.:flipoff2:

http://users.actrix.co.nz/dougal.ellen/forums/buck%20def%20chassis.jpg

The reason why your rear link mounts are failing at the frame, is that from what it looks like you have the upper trailing link mounts welded directly to the factory frame. The thin frame walls just cannot handle those forces and will fatigue over time as you have found.

The factory frame has internal bracing to spread the loads from the stock mounts. Maybe something similar would stop the deformation. It would be tricky to do though and wouldn't prevent the impact damage from underneath.

Waste of time.

I have your new chassis design here in solidworks.:flipoff2:

http://users.actrix.co.nz/dougal.ellen/forums/buck%20def%20chassis.jpg

Actually I like that. If the weight is sensible for a vehicle, which I suspect it isnt, I frame girders are very strong per weight. Ask a skyscraper!

Hi, for what its worth, i agree to what madcow.... said, over here we get the same carnage as most trails are rocks, we usually plate the bottom section between the arms (belly bit) with 6mm angle iron and plate the sides where any arms, cage, side pipes, outriggers, will tie into the frame.

We usually also plate the inner part of the frame where the bulkhead sits as rover frames tend to bend between the engine and gearbox mounts. I know all this will add some weight but it pays off later.

I know all the above is to late in your case, Since you are very reluctant to change the chassis rails as you have found the ideal setup, my suggestion would be to cut off the arm mount, repair the sides of the frame (some major surgery is required) and than replace the damaged areas, plus replate over them with a suitable thickness (5-6mm)

Good luck

G

Maybe it is because I look at LR frames like a series rover owner from 2miles from the canadian border, but what I would do is take the middle section of the frame and get it back to square and I would stick a piece of 1 1/2in or 2in pipe though where the mount is and weld both sides and then I would plate both sides and the bottom of the frame with 3/16th thoughout the vunerable area. Probably would add 50lbs, but it would be bomb proof.

Actually I like that. If the weight is sensible for a vehicle, which I suspect it isnt, I frame girders are very strong per weight. Ask a skyscraper!

Those ones pictured are 150UB14, so 14kg/metre. Great resistance to bending, but in torsion they're very soft. Probably not an issue when you've got a cage holding it together.

Those ones pictured are 150UB14, so 14kg/metre. Great resistance to bending, but in torsion they're very soft. Probably not an issue when you've got a cage holding it together.

You are joking, right? :eek:

You are joking, right? :eek:

Yeah I am, that's way too light for Buck.:laughing:

Looks like you are running into problems inherent in working around a factory frame, and the design strategy of a LR frame in particular.

A few thoughts having puzzled over some of the same issues...
1) your idea of link mounting below the chassis seems to have two issues. First it is unclear from the pictures I have seen of your rig if the front lower control arm ever angles above the longitudinal plane of the bottom of the frame. With the factory mounting this isn't an issue because the control arm is outside of the frame. When you mount the arm under the frame there is still a fairly long section of straight frame forward of that mounting point that may be occupying space needed for the link on compression. You may be lifted enough to get away with this. Second if you go to a 5" tall frame section and mount the link below it, you are gaining next to no clearance from the front link mount forward. You would gain ~3" of clearance under the center ~12" of the frame rail between front and rear link mounts. Seems like a lot to redesign with potential complications for little gain. Also, as Handbuilt mentioned You may still have part of the lt230 hanging below the frame rails and looking for ground to snag. Looks like you've ditched the parking brake drum which should net you a little--tossup?

2)Issues with the frame rails denting. LR frames are big thin wall boxes as we all know. Basically a recipe for a rigid structure with really poor denting properties. By dropping tubing dimension (width/height, not thickness) you will actually improve dent resistance. Ideas for doing that differently would be to add whatever internal ribbing possible to tie the two frame sides together. If you were reducing frame section to 3x5 you could leave the upper 2" of the stock frame rails intact and then scab a 3x3 section below it, ,maybe with 3/16. That would net you the 5" height you want but would effectively have three lateral connections, the top plate from the original frame, a middle plate formed by the top of the the new tube and the bottom of the new tube. If the original frame weren't so tweaked I would have suggested cutting large holes in both frame rails and running tube between the two tubing walls--effectively creating a frame rail that would look similar to the one is the torchmate buggy (absent dimple dies of course) http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=624969&highlight=torchmate+buggy&page=4.

3) Link mounting also seems to be problematic. MCDBeetle's suggestion of plating before adding a mount makes a lot of sense. Creating a laminated area that ties into the wall, top and bottom would certainly reduce the likelyhood of pulling the link mounts around.

4) Trying to gain a bunch of clearance seems like a total pain. I guess it seems to me that patching it back together and back on the trail would be the best option. It seems like a good all-around wheeling solution. A pure comp buggy might be slightly more capable but you'd be driving in a position that probably isn't as comfortable with both feet squashed together, your ass sitting on the floorboards and trouble seeing over the hood.

But, a LR3 is probably even more comfortable :shaking:

--S

Wow guys. Thanks a lot for all the replies. I really appreciate it and it's a big help.

I should say that I'm sad thats happened. Representing this marque at KOH with a diesel was brave and brilliant, been looking for vids of you going through, so thanks for the vid.

I'm not qualified to comment on chassis design But I have always liked this guys approach on a RAV4 build (http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=514048&highlight=woodtick&page=8)

Just a pic to put fridges comment into perspective

Ibex chassis

http://www.ibexvehicles.com/ (http://www.ibexvehicles.com/)

Thats one of the nicest things that anyone has ever said to me. I really appreciate that! :beer:

The rig was good enough to get top 15 for sure. Maybe even a 10 spot. I truely believe that. I would kill to get a do over and fix the battery mount. My plan with a very simple drivetrain was perfect, execution, not so much. :laughing:

Dude, I was thinking about this all day! i think i have a solution!


Get a LR3 frame, then you can get 13 MPG:grinpimp::flipoff2:

You kill me.

The reason why your rear link mounts are failing at the frame, is that from what it looks like you have the upper trailing link mounts welded directly to the factory frame. The thin frame walls just cannot handle those forces and will fatigue over time as you have found. On all of my link and shock hoop mounts I do on frames I always plate the factory frame first with 3/16 or 1/4 plate to distribute the loading of a much greater surface area and then weld the mounts to the plate.

From what I can see of your front links, it looks like they have no gusseting at all to handle the tensile forces from the upper front links as they are transferred to the frame. This would explain the deformation your experiencing up front.

Your dead on about the rear links. They were made wrong. That said, they lasted for 5 years like that. I had to bend them back a few times, but overall I can't complain.

Here is a pic of the fronts. I did what you said. I am not worried about these going anywhere at all. But, the bottom of the mount bends constantly so I can't get the heim out anymore. I want something cleaner.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2701.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/buckon35s/IMG_2702.jpg

Waste of time.

I have your new chassis design here in solidworks.:flipoff2:

http://users.actrix.co.nz/dougal.ellen/forums/buck%20def%20chassis.jpg

Thats badass. Thats actually what I am thinking of doing, but with box.

Looks like you are running into problems inherent in working around a factory frame, and the design strategy of a LR frame in particular.

A few thoughts having puzzled over some of the same issues...
1) your idea of link mounting below the chassis seems to have two issues. First it is unclear from the pictures I have seen of your rig if the front lower control arm ever angles above the longitudinal plane of the bottom of the frame. With the factory mounting this isn't an issue because the control arm is outside of the frame. When you mount the arm under the frame there is still a fairly long section of straight frame forward of that mounting point that may be occupying space needed for the link on compression. You may be lifted enough to get away with this. Second if you go to a 5" tall frame section and mount the link below it, you are gaining next to no clearance from the front link mount forward. You would gain ~3" of clearance under the center ~12" of the frame rail between front and rear link mounts. Seems like a lot to redesign with potential complications for little gain. Also, as Handbuilt mentioned You may still have part of the lt230 hanging below the frame rails and looking for ground to snag. Looks like you've ditched the parking brake drum which should net you a little--tossup?

2)Issues with the frame rails denting. LR frames are big thin wall boxes as we all know. Basically a recipe for a rigid structure with really poor denting properties. By dropping tubing dimension (width/height, not thickness) you will actually improve dent resistance. Ideas for doing that differently would be to add whatever internal ribbing possible to tie the two frame sides together. If you were reducing frame section to 3x5 you could leave the upper 2" of the stock frame rails intact and then scab a 3x3 section below it, ,maybe with 3/16. That would net you the 5" height you want but would effectively have three lateral connections, the top plate from the original frame, a middle plate formed by the top of the the new tube and the bottom of the new tube. If the original frame weren't so tweaked I would have suggested cutting large holes in both frame rails and running tube between the two tubing walls--effectively creating a frame rail that would look similar to the one is the torchmate buggy (absent dimple dies of course) http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=624969&highlight=torchmate+buggy&page=4.

3) Link mounting also seems to be problematic. MCDBeetle's suggestion of plating before adding a mount makes a lot of sense. Creating a laminated area that ties into the wall, top and bottom would certainly reduce the likelyhood of pulling the link mounts around.

4) Trying to gain a bunch of clearance seems like a total pain. I guess it seems to me that patching it back together and back on the trail would be the best option. It seems like a good all-around wheeling solution. A pure comp buggy might be slightly more capable but you'd be driving in a position that probably isn't as comfortable with both feet squashed together, your ass sitting on the floorboards and trouble seeing over the hood.

But, a LR3 is probably even more comfortable :shaking:

--S


Good ideas. I have abandoned the under the frame mount idea as it will interfere. But, 2in of extra skid clearance is epic. It's like going from 40's to 44's!


So here is where my mind has taken me so far. Please smack me for this if it is stupid. I replace the frame from right after the bulkhead mount to right before the rear upper link mount. Or, perhaps replace all the way back to the tubing. I havn't decided yet. If I go all the way back, it will look much nicer and I can get rid of some annoying stuff, but it is a lot more work, and probably no gain. I plan to keep the rover rear suspension. Either way I would blend the front and rear frame in and create the right line and plate all connections.

I use 3x6 3/16 square tube. This will allow me enough room to raise the t-case up an inch and not have to cut up the floor in the cab area. It will also allow me to run a perfectly flat belly all the way from front to back. The ground clearance will net me a gain of almost 1.5in. That would give me a belly clearance of 20 5/8in. Add 1/2 plate of plastic to the bottom all the way back and I am still at just over 20in with 4psi in the tires. That is actually pretty darn good by most standards.

For the front mounts, I am thinking about using these:

http://www.polyperformance.com/shop/Chassis-Mount-Link-Bracket-p-374.html

I would mod them a but with some extra support and then mount them high up the outside of the frame. If I notch the frame for the not of the bolt I can raise the links 0 to 1in. Right now I have 5in of vertical separation on the frame side. This is why the front is so stable. If I go up an inch the difference will be pretty much nothing. If I went up two inches, my front would start to lift a lot more. I have a suckdown winch, but thats annoying using it. Right now I barely have to. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. So to speak.

On the rear, I am thinking of using these:

http://www.ballisticfabrication.com/Inner-frame-mount-40one-bracket41_p_1174.html

And raising my lower links at the same time. I kept them low to hit before the driveshaft, but with the t-case moved up, and the DC shaft, I will be able to rotate the pinion up more and bring everything higher. I am also going to try angling the lowers out wide to the axle. It should prevent or lessen rearsteer. I have no idea how it will react with the ball upper, but I can't think of a negative, only positives.

So, thats the plan. What am I about to destroy? :flipoff2:

The reason why your fronts are bending is the lack of reinforcement to the back side of the rod end. There is nothing there to distribute any bending forces from rocks across the mounting ears. Instead each ear is being loaded individually with little transfer to the bracket itself or frame. Keeping a similar mount design with this added provision would rectify this issue, and negate the need for a complete redesign. That way you could maintain your current stability with the front suspension setup.

Sounds like next year that biyatch is getting entered in HOH again, and its gonna place!

save me a seat!:flipoff2:

The reason why your fronts are bending is the lack of reinforcement to the back side of the rod end. There is nothing there to distribute any bending forces from rocks across the mounting ears. Instead each ear is being loaded individually with little transfer to the bracket itself or frame. Keeping a similar mount design with this added provision would rectify this issue, and negate the need for a complete redesign. That way you could maintain your current stability with the front suspension setup.

They are 1 1/4 hiems. I can't box the bottom without lowering it all down another 1/2 for the steel to clear the hiem. I am not upset about the mounts bending, I am upset about them hitting everything.

I am upset about them hitting everything.

Then learn how to drive... :flipoff2:

Then learn how to drive... :flipoff2:

You ever wondered why my driver’s side is nearly scratch free and my passenger side looks like it was sexually assaulted by a gorilla with a jackhammer for a penis? Yeah, that right, co-driver.

Its your damn fault.





:flipoff2:

1. I take it you did not like my idea :flipoff2:

2. Just so you know, you CAN get dimensional square tubing in the size of a land rover frame.

1. I take it you did not like my idea :flipoff2:

2. Just so you know, you CAN get dimensional square tubing in the size of a land rover frame.

I make it ~150x75mm for the centre section of my RRC chassis.
Over here the only metric RHS available in that size is 9mm wall thickness and weighs 28 kg/metre.
We have some imperial sized stuff in 152x76 with 5 or 6mm wall, 16.4 and 19.4 kg/m respectively.

I'm sure some of you guys can work out what mm, metres and kg's are.:D

I'd be planning on putting stiffeners through the RHS if that was your intention.

my framerails are dented all to hell on my Ex-MoD. I am going to build a belly pan out of 3/16 with boatside rocker guards out of the same. I plan on welding a strip of 1/4 along the bottom edge of the frame rails to bolt the belly pan and rocker guards to. if that gets bashed in there is a problem

1. I take it you did not like my idea :flipoff2:

2. Just so you know, you CAN get dimensional square tubing in the size of a land rover frame.

I always like your ideas. I am just really looking foreword to having another inch of ground clearance. Killing two birds with one stone.

BTW, I apologise for the drum brake taking so long. It was a tough week. I will have it out to you tomorrow.

I always like your ideas. I am just really looking foreword to having another inch of ground clearance. Killing two birds with one stone.

BTW, I apologise for the drum brake taking so long. It was a tough week. I will have it out to you tomorrow.

Well I was planning on completely assembling the vehicle that has been in process for eight years tomorrow and driving it across country on sunday, but I guess I can live without an e-brake. :smokin:

I always like your ideas. I am just really looking foreword to having another inch of ground clearance. Killing two birds with one stone.

BTW, I apologise for the drum brake taking so long. It was a tough week. I will have it out to you tomorrow.

if you want more ground clearance, just keep hammering on those framerails.

if you want more ground clearance, just keep hammering on those framerails.

While your idea has merit, it falls short when you apply the same theory to the t-case. :flipoff2: