OK. I don't remember the exact dimensions of Rockwells, but if I am correct, they are 1.7x".

My question is this: If I had 14-bolt alloy shafts in the rear and d60 35-spline alloys in the front, would the Rockwells still be stronger?

J. J.

nope, the rockwells are 1&5/8" I think that 4340 1.5" shafts will be quite a bit stronger.

Now... If someone would just hurry up and make us some 4340 rockwell shafts... that would be schaweet!!

I think some BLING BLING rockwell stuff isn't too far off.

CJ

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
nope, the rockwells are 1&5/8" I think that 4340 1.5" shafts will be quite a bit stronger.

Now... If someone would just hurry up and make us some 4340 rockwell shafts... that would be schaweet!!

dude, arent you open front???

dude, arent you open front???

Yeah, for the time being. What's your point?

Originally posted by patooyee
OK. I don't remember the exact dimensions of Rockwells, but if I am correct, they are 1.7x".

My question is this: If I had 14-bolt alloy shafts in the rear and d60 35-spline alloys in the front, would the Rockwells still be stronger?

J. J.


I would think alloy 35 spline are probably stronger.However, please tell me your not thinking of those MOSER alloy fronts without any warranty..someone had post this weak about one that the ears stretched from a regular u-joint blowing up in one.. All I gotta say is if they are "virtually indestructible" :eek: as MOSER says then why don't they put up or shut up with a warranty...just my two cents...

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
I think some BLING BLING rockwell stuff isn't too far off.

CJ

I know someone working on 4340 shafts:eek: for the rockwell...can't wait...then we will need CTM"S for the rockwell...hell this will never stop til everything is 300m.. I think I am going to just go back to a amc 20 and dana 25:D

Upgraded shafts would be SWEET!.

At first I started thinking about chaning splines and all that jaz. I just want a shaft that is exactly like the stock one only stronger. Also, how about some sealed u-joints!

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
Upgraded shafts would be SWEET!.

At first I started thinking about chaning splines and all that jaz. I just want a shaft that is exactly like the stock one only stronger. Also, how about some sealed u-joints!

Before spending all of those $$ why not go to Mog axles?

Sean

Umm...what are you talking about?

I have a total of $1200 in my axles, plus $300 for a detroit...all I'd like is some upgraded shafts, where did mog's come from and how in the world can you recommend buying new mog axles instead of just getting upgraded shafts.

CJ

settle down guys...

we already had the "mogs vs. rockwells" thread, okay!!

If we wanna buy super bling-bling rockwell stuff, that's our perogative. let's not get into another pointless bickering match, K?

No need to settle down, I didn't mean it in an argument tone. Im just wondering why he would recommend switching to mog's instead of getting upgraded shafts for the BAD ASS SUPERIOR ROCKWELLS(:P), that are already in place under my jeep.

Just seems like a contradiction..."don't spend $1200 on buying new shafts, spend four times that on a set of mogs!:

CJ

CTMs are in the works too... muhahahaha <evil laugh>
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Hey CJ... hows your suspension links and geometry and everything working???? Anything you'd change or anything else???

Matt "Taz" Green

Matt, when will I see you on the trails again? Trailfest maybe?

Ed

Originally posted by elf_cruiser


Yeah, for the time being. What's your point?

point is, what is your point? why would you want sick rockwell axles with the open front ? weld it already!! my toyota n toy axles could go places your open front could only dream with rockwells. thats my point. lock those suckas, then maybe you can go on the trails your arizona hc brethren go. until then, alloys would be stupid for your overaxled wide ass cruza IMO--brad

point is, what is your point? why would you want sick rockwell axles with the open front ? weld it already!! my toyota n toy axles could go places your open front could only dream with rockwells. thats my point. lock those suckas, then maybe you can go on the trails your arizona hc brethren go. until then, alloys would be stupid for your overaxled wide ass cruza IMO--brad

dude, front lockers are :rainbow:

Originally posted by BRBx4


point is, what is your point? why would you want sick rockwell axles with the open front ? weld it already!! my toyota n toy axles could go places your open front could only dream with rockwells. thats my point. lock those suckas, then maybe you can go on the trails your arizona hc brethren go. until then, alloys would be stupid for your overaxled wide ass cruza IMO--brad

OMG WTF!!!

OK, nieve East Coast question here, but are you guys breaking Rockwell axles??:confused: I figured they would be pretty damn unbreakable. That is amazing if you guys are breaking them. Out here it is only the BIG mud guys running them and most of them have nasty big blocks with 44" Boggers spinning high RPMs with no breakage.

Originally posted by zachv
OK, nieve East Coast question here, but are you guys breaking Rockwell axles??:confused: I figured they would be pretty damn unbreakable. That is amazing if you guys are breaking them. Out here it is only the BIG mud guys running them and most of them have nasty big blocks with 44" Boggers spinning high RPMs with no breakage.

YUeah but RPMS typically tear up ring and pinions, not axles. What tears up axles is pinching and gassing. Your tires are usually able to spin in the mud and if they arent you just dont have enought power to break and axle:D (in the mud that is).

Originally posted by patooyee
OK. I don't remember the exact dimensions of Rockwells, but if I am correct, they are 1.7x".

My question is this: If I had 14-bolt alloy shafts in the rear and d60 35-spline alloys in the front, would the Rockwells still be stronger?

J. J.

DONT DO IT MAN! YOUR AXLES ARE BAD ASS ALREADY!:D

Originally posted by Rock Taxi
Matt, when will I see you on the trails again? Trailfest maybe?

Ed

Ed,
I've been bustin ass lately to try and get the Ducky done by TrailFest.... if I do its gonna be close.. if not it'll be a week or so after.... matter of fact I'm headin to the shop right now... Cya!

Matt

Originally posted by Daniel B Little
rocks make the difference!

How much extra clearence is need for a Rockwell over a D60. For example, if you had the sitting side by side, how much taller is the pinion/3rd member than the d60 pumpkin? And also sya the for a 14bolt..

Thanks! :)

Originally posted by Daniel B Little
total height difference @ 4 inches

height from center of axle to center of pinion 6 inches

total height off center 9 inches...
Thanks Daniel, YDM!!!

Originally posted by BRBx4


point is, what is your point? why would you want sick rockwell axles with the open front ? weld it already!! my toyota n toy axles could go places your open front could only dream with rockwells. thats my point. lock those suckas, then maybe you can go on the trails your arizona hc brethren go. until then, alloys would be stupid for your overaxled wide ass cruza IMO--brad

I gotta agree with this. Open front is bad news on the harder trails here, IMO. Sure, you may make it through, but only with someone dragging you behind them. It's a huge inconvenience to the group as well as wasting alot of time and effort. Weld it up and put a ram on it and you'll be golden.

I gotta agree with this. Open front is bad news on the harder trails here, IMO. Sure, you may make it through, but only with someone dragging you behind them. It's a huge inconvenience to the group as well as wasting alot of time and effort. Weld it up and put a ram on it and you'll be golden.

Look, I know these things, okay...

But just like evryone else, I am building it step by step, and i have to make choices. It is not just sooooo easy to "weld it up" It's a weekend project. SO - maybe IF i had a welder, OR i had a garage, OR i had the necessary tools, I MIGHT consider it. But I want a detroit up there, I just can't afford it yet. I felt that good tires were more important than a front locker, then i felt that a cage was more important thatn a front locker. Do you disagree? So, with that said - I refuse to sit at home and complain about how my truck is not perfect yet, instead i want to go wheel the fawk out of it for all it's worth - locked, open, broken, bent, i don't care!!!

Having Rockwells and an open diff.........I thought you we joking. Pretty useless combo for the trails here.:confused:

Exactly.

Originally posted by elf_cruiser


Look, I know these things, okay...

But just like evryone else, I am building it step by step, and i have to make choices. It is not just sooooo easy to "weld it up" It's a weekend project. SO - maybe IF i had a welder, OR i had a garage, OR i had the necessary tools, I MIGHT consider it. But I want a detroit up there, I just can't afford it yet. I felt that good tires were more important than a front locker, then i felt that a cage was more important thatn a front locker. Do you disagree? So, with that said - I refuse to sit at home and complain about how my truck is not perfect yet, instead i want to go wheel the fawk out of it for all it's worth - locked, open, broken, bent, i don't care!!!

Tell Them!!! :flipoff2:

They wish they were out wheeling. Do what you got to do!

Sounds to me you are doing better than most.

Yeah, someday Jack and maybe even I will get to go wheeling............................with front lockers.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
settle down guys...

we already had the "mogs vs. rockwells" thread, okay!!

If we wanna buy super bling-bling rockwell stuff, that's our perogative. let's not get into another pointless bickering match, K?

Yeah yeah, I know. I was just fooling around with the Rockwell folks. Sorry for the rucus that I started.

Of course every axle has it's place. Ecept for maybe when you are replacing big $$ to still end up with LAME INFERIOR JUNK ROCKWELL AXLES :D :D LMAO. That was just for CJ LAGOS , his post cracked me up.

hehehe, Time to go find that Mog's vs. Rockwells thread and start a war.

Sean(with 1.76" dia. axle shafts, and selectable lockers) :p

Originally posted by onetonwillysands10



I would think alloy 35 spline are probably stronger.However, please tell me your not thinking of those MOSER alloy fronts without any warranty..someone had post this weak about one that the ears stretched from a regular u-joint blowing up in one.. All I gotta say is if they are "virtually indestructible" :eek: as MOSER says then why don't they put up or shut up with a warranty...just my two cents...

OK ... see what happens when you leave a thread alone for just a day!?!?!?

Getting back to topic, who else, besides Moser, sells Alloy d60 fronts? I was thinking of getting alloy inners and stock 35-spline outers and alloy rears eventually. (Just got the 44's today.)

J. J.

patooyee, try dutchman at http://www.dutchmanaxles.com/

Their site says they can make anything... Go ahead and call em!

Tell us what they say!

why the hell would you want to spend all that money for a 60 and a 14 bolt. I am sure that the alloy shafts are stronger than the stock rockwell ones but the likelyhood of you breaking a rockwell shaft is miniscule. The only people I have heard of breaking them are people with mucho grande power and a stupid right foot. If you dont have a big block then dont even worry about it. Strait up there is no reason not to go with the rockwells and if you want brakes on the hub you can get them right now from daniel at USA6x6 or if you can use a pinion brake for a while then avalanche and boyce are coming out with eight lug outers for rockwells. As a matter of fact they have already made them because on the video of the cedar city rcaa comp this past year they had 5 ton outers on the front axle of the assassin to stop the breaking of joints problem they were having and these outers are eight lug. If they could just get use bearings in the portal housings instead of brass bushings they would be a great axle. They cant do this though because with three gears there is way too much rotational force for bearings to hold up to. Anyway like I was saying I think that rockwells are the only way to go and remember there is nothing rong with weight that is low. Its up top that you want to be light weight. As far as mog axles go, they have the strongest axleshafts more than likely but who cares when you portals and your pinions cant hold up. Case closed and who wants to get spare parts from germany for an axle that cant go over 55 anyway. All I can say is gay, gay, gay. If someone went about building some decent portals I would listen but so far I havn't seen it. JRs are the closest but they still use those weak 404 portals. The 406s would be nice but 18 inch rotors limit your tire selection a little too much for my taste. If someone would just go and build 8 lug outers for the 406 portals then you could come up with a pretty bad ass axle. No more weak pinion, no more weak portals with oiling problems above 55 and a nine inch with a terribly high pinion. Just a thought.

Originally posted by patooyee
OK. I don't remember the exact dimensions of Rockwells, but if I am correct, they are 1.7x".

My question is this: If I had 14-bolt alloy shafts in the rear and d60 35-spline alloys in the front, would the Rockwells still be stronger?

J. J.

That's a close one. If you add one more dimension, strength to weight ratio, the 14 bolt & d60 w/alloys has my vote.

Originally posted by jeeper111
why the hell would you want to spend all that money for a 60 and a 14 bolt.

Because they're already in the Jeep.

J. J.

Originally posted by patooyee


Because they're already in the Jeep.

J. J.
I agree with patooyee, why not run the 60/14. I don't understand why everyone with rockwells thinks everyone else has to run them or they are inferior in some way. It has already been determined that the 60/14 with alloys is a stronger combo and it's much lighter, which is the direction we are supposed to be going. So, it sounds to me that the rockwells are inferior to what he is already running.

I bet this gets some shit started.

I agree the 60 is lighter, and in STRAIGHT LINE torque is stronger.
BUT one of the reasons I went to the rockwell is the HUGE u-joint. In my big blocked 7000lb truck I broke many a u-joint, then destroyed the shafts. I need reliability at this point.
THE BIGGER JOINTS ARE WHERE IT IS AT!!!!!!!
Dan

SO, basically...

It's never fawkin strong enough... When 4340's come out for the rockwell, we will buy em. And when CTM's come out for the rockwell, we will buy em. And when AL 3rd members come out for the rockwell, we will buy em!!!

Don't forget the 4130 housings. Might as well build a rockwell from all aftermarket parts. It could be the new 9".

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
SO, basically...

It's never fawkin strong enough... When 4340's come out for the rockwell, we will buy em. And when CTM's come out for the rockwell, we will buy em. And when AL 3rd members come out for the rockwell, we will buy em!!!

But isn't that going against the main reason for having Rockwells? They are cheap, strong, heavy axles. After spending all the money an all those parts that you just said you will just be left with strong axles.

That is like these people who buy the SUPER!! everything for Dana 30 axles to only end up with a really expensive axle that just does ......OK. The person would have been well ahead to have spent the money on a better axle to begin with rather than SUPER parts for the dana 30.

So to parallel that to the Rockwell axles, you can spend all of that money on them to have an axle that is still only OK. You would have been far ahead to start off with another axle in the first place(I won't say which axle that would be, but I think you know;) )

Even with all those parts on a Rockwell, you still just have decent differential clearance, you still have a limited steering angle by the U-joints, you are still stuck with welded or full time locked differential, unless you spend more money on the selectable lockers being made available now, and they are still more likely to break than said other axles.

Sean

Even with all those parts on a Rockwell, you still just have decent differential clearance, you still have a limited steering angle by the U-joints, you are still stuck with welded or full time locked differential, unless you spend more money on the selectable lockers being made available now, and they are still more likely to break than said other axles.

OK, you got us on diff clearance, but we can just run bigger tires with our upraged housings, shafts, and joints. With rear steer, we are planty manueverable. I don't see how mog's can turn any further than Rockwells without bottoming out the CV joints. And with our new alloy shafts and CTM U-joints, we would have a literally unbreakable axle. You are just pissed cause you would then have to go and spend a buttload of money for the same shiat for your mog axle, to keep up with us - strengthwise.

:D

Originally posted by elf_cruiser


OK, you got us on diff clearance, but we can just run bigger tires with our upraged housings, shafts, and joints. With rear steer, we are planty manueverable. I don't see how mog's can turn any further than Rockwells without bottoming out the CV joints. And with our new alloy shafts and CTM U-joints, we would have a literally unbreakable axle. You are just pissed cause you would then have to go and spend a buttload of money for the same shiat for your mog axle, to keep up with us - strengthwise.

:D

I don't know how much bigger you could feasably(for a trail vehicle) go on the tires than me. I am going to be running 53" XL's. The CV joints do turn quite a bit farther than a U-joint will accept. When you have double Cardan steering joints , who needs steering stops? They were just put there from the factory to keep the tires off of the frame. Also there wont be much steering joint strength difference at all whether at full lock or straight ahead.

The thing is that I don't need all of that stuff for my Mog axle. Why would I need a shaft stronger than a 1 3/4" 21 spline shaft with 2.13:1 reduction sheilding them?

Sean

Damn dude, you're gonna run 53's on mog axles?!!??

You will find out what does break on them. I don't know what that will be, but you will find out.

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
Damn dude, you're gonna run 53's on mog axles?!!??



You know, if the diffs are shaved, I bet an even 2 feet of clearance under the pigs is possible. :goofball:

Well, I already have the 53's , and the Mog axles are supposed to be here in about 10 days. Once I get the wheels and tires on the axles, I will post pics and measurements.

My axles are U-1300 axles. I cant shave them, becuase they are already as close as you can get, and the bottom of the housing is round. The very bottom of the diff housing is higher than wheel centerline, so I expect to have about 26" of differential clearance when aired up.

I am going to report on their durablility once I get the machine running. I am definitely going to put a beating on them between the 53's and a 500ci Cadillac engine. I think the axles are going to handle it pretty good, but I am not sure. It's going to be interesting , and that is for sure.

Sean

Sorry, Station I was jost joking about the shaved part.
26" should be enough.:flipoff2: :D

Originally posted by Station
Well, I already have the 53's , and the Mog axles are supposed to be here in about 10 days. Once I get the wheels and tires on the axles, I will post pics and measurements.

My axles are U-1300 axles. I cant shave them, becuase they are already as close as you can get, and the bottom of the housing is round. The very bottom of the diff housing is higher than wheel centerline, so I expect to have about 26" of differential clearance when aired up.

I am going to report on their durablility once I get the machine running. I am definitely going to put a beating on them between the 53's and a 500ci Cadillac engine. I think the axles are going to handle it pretty good, but I am not sure. It's going to be interesting , and that is for sure.

Sean
This all sounds good in a straight line, but aren't you a little afraid of how high your rig is gonna be. I mean if the top of your axles are around 2 and 1/2 feet off the ground, your truck is gonna be, like, 8 feet tall. :eek:

I guess, with you being from MS, it will be used mainly for mud, so sidehills will probably never be a problem.

Originally posted by 350 Samurai

This all sounds good in a straight line, but aren't you a little afraid of how high your rig is gonna be. I mean if the top of your axles are around 2 and 1/2 feet off the ground, your truck is gonna be, like, 8 feet tall. :eek:

I guess, with you being from MS, it will be used mainly for mud, so sidehills will probably never be a problem.

Nope, how high this thing sits, and it's center of gravity were the FIRST thing in mind throughout it's design. The frame is being designed around the axles to allow everything to be as low as possible.

From the best that I can tell now.... The frame will have 30" of clearance under the flat belly. The actual seat height will be 42" off the ground. And total height to the top of the cage is 7'(top of the cage is 50" wide front to back).

It is a 4 seater with a 115" wheelbase. I am pushing the engine back as far as I can go and still have room for the passengers in the 52" interior width cab(overall width is 55").

I am not a big fan of mud, but I do like deep water crossings. Most of the terrain that I will see in Ms. is short steep hillclimbs.

I am not too far away from Alabama or Tennessee(I have lived in Tennessee all my life except for this last year) . I will be coming up there pretty often. I will probably put this thing through some of the competitions just for fun, but I have something else in mind just for the comps.

Sean

Originally posted by Station


Nope, how high this thing sits, and it's center of gravity were the FIRST thing in mind throughout it's design. The frame is being designed around the axles to allow everything to be as low as possible.

From the best that I can tell now.... The frame will have 30" of clearance under the flat belly. The actual seat height will be 42" off the ground. And total height to the top of the cage is 7'(top of the cage is 50" wide front to back).

It is a 4 seater with a 115" wheelbase. I am pushing the engine back as far as I can go and still have room for the passengers in the 52" interior width cab(overall width is 55").

I am not a big fan of mud, but I do like deep water crossings. Most of the terrain that I will see in Ms. is short steep hillclimbs.

I am not too far away from Alabama or Tennessee(I have lived in Tennessee all my life except for this last year) . I will be coming up there pretty often. I will probably put this thing through some of the competitions just for fun, but I have something else in mind just for the comps.

Sean
Sounds awesome, be sure and PM me when you come this way to ride.

I've got a buddy that is building a rig with mog axles right now, he just got his axles Thursday and went and picked up his 44 swampers Friday. He has a 2 seater tube buggy, designed after the Sniper.

Keep us posted on your progress.

Hes running 53s because with that axle you cant run regular sized wheels. You have to run 20s. I think you will be fine on those 53s because those axles are alot stronger than the 404s. But dont talk to me about weight when your running an axle that has a cast housing. Not center section but whole housing!! I think they are in the neiborhood of about 850 pounds. Which is good because I will say it again. LOW WEIGHT IS GOOD!!! All these people building 150 pound dana 60s and spending 10 grand on them while they are running a regular 350 in thier rigs. They should save the money and build a fully AL motor. this would make their center of gravity better not worse. I think people have lost their minds with this light weight shit. You only have to have more traction and power than you have weight and after that you are just wasting money. :flipoff2:

When it comes to the point that your running rockwells or mog's, i really don't think it matter, both are totally bad ass.

You can get rockwells for $450/used, spend about $40 on new axle seals and your good to go. I dont think your gonna be anywhere close to that price figure with mogs. Even if we buy the bling bling new axle shafts and ctms we'll be way under the mog cost.

Station,
Do you have a good auto-center rear steering setup. I'm thinking of maybe a light on the dash board that turns on when the rear axle is centered, seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do that, and with a valve that closes the lines to the rear cylinder you'd be set, seems like that would be a cheap/easy solution. What have you come up with?

CJ

Originally posted by Dan Dibble
I agree the 60 is lighter, and in STRAIGHT LINE torque is stronger.
BUT one of the reasons I went to the rockwell is the HUGE u-joint. In my big blocked 7000lb truck I broke many a u-joint, then destroyed the shafts. I need reliability at this point.
THE BIGGER JOINTS ARE WHERE IT IS AT!!!!!!!
Dan

CTM's are my solution to that. In retrospect, I should have bought Rockwells. Monetarily, I would have been WAY better off. But I'm so close to driving the creation now that there is NO WAY I am going to tear it apart again just to put Rockwells in. Especially now that I know that I can make my axles stronger than Rockwells. Sure, it will take a paycheck or two to do it, but once you've spent as much money on something as I have, you just don't care any more! :)

On another note, I have grown to HATE my beadlocks. 144 bolts is a lot of bolts! The good thing about such huge tires is that they aren't hard to set the backside bead on ... just pucs the wheel out while there's air going in! I had to use the starter fluid approach on the little 38's. :D I'll have some pics tomorrow or the next day.

J. J.

PS: Thanks to those who actually answered my question instead of turning the thread into a bitch-fest about Mogs vs. Rockwells. If I wanted to read about those I would have gone to one of the MANY Mog vs. Rockwell threads.

Originally posted by jeeper111
I think people have lost their minds with this light weight shit. You only have to have more traction and power than you have weight and after that you are just wasting money. :flipoff2:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Station


It is a 4 seater with a 115" wheelbase. I am pushing the engine back as far as I can go and still have room for the passengers in the 52" interior width cab(overall width is 55").

Sean

PICKS PICKS PICKS

I dont see how 115" wheelbase 4 seats and 52" tires is possible unless the back seats are between the tires?

Trust me we rolled the tires and the seats around for two days before realizing that 127" was the shortest we could make it with 44s. 52s will be harder. (I have four real seats with the trans in between)

I want to see some picks. Hell I dont live 3 hours from you can I come and see it. PLEASE !!!!!

Originally posted by Dan Dibble


PICKS PICKS PICKS

I dont see how 115" wheelbase 4 seats and 52" tires is possible unless the back seats are between the tires?

Trust me we rolled the tires and the seats around for two days before realizing that 127" was the shortest we could make it with 44s. 52s will be harder. (I have four real seats with the trans in between)

I want to see some picks. Hell I dont live 3 hours from you can I come and see it. PLEASE !!!!!

hehehe[EDIT ;during the middel of my typing up my post] I see you edited your post, while I was typing my reply. You made me have to erase everything and start over again. Thats OK.[EDIT]

Yes you hit it on your second try. The rear seats are between the tires. They will be a little bit in front of the rear axles, but still between the tires. The only room left in between these huge tires is the A-pillar to the B-pillar with only about a couple inches to spare on either side.
Why does everybody build 4 seat buggys with all of the seats in the middle? I see so much space wasted on buggys being built these days, that I do not understand what the builder was thinking sometimes. Some buggys I see take up as much exterior space as Jeep body would, but they only have room inside for two people, and a chicken sandwich for them to fight over. There is so much space that is wasted by small non-useable air space, and repetitive bracing that you end up with a vehicle that can't comfortably be used for any real trail rides anymore.

People often build stock Jeep bodied rigs, running at or near full width with big tires and there is still PLENTY of room inside(Espescially CJ-8's) for cargo/people. Now make the tires bigger, and extend the wheelbase about 12" , and that is about what I will have, something like a longer wheelbase CJ-8 with bigger than average tires. Still has plenty of room for people/cargo.

Why is that not possible just because I am making mine out of tube rather than a Jeep body?

I think it would be cool if you came and saw my project. It would be best for you to wait a month or two, as I don't make enough money to buy all the parts at once, and am forced to collect parts over time. I still need a transmission, and T-case as far as my MAIN vehicle items go.

My tubing will be coming from EMJ shortly(I highly reccomend anyone to check them out. They have the best prices BIG TIME!! I am getting a great deal). As of right now, I have a full scale model of the frame made from conduit(saved a whole lot of money on experimenting, and screw ups) in my shop. I am waiting for the axles to arrive so that I can make sure everything is going to fit as I am estimating that it will. If there are any changes to my current frame design that need to be made, I can incorporate them with nothing lost other than a couple peices of conduit, and the time, it took me to make them. I will be making my actual frame from 1.5"OD .188 wall chromoly, which will be welded by Henrob(a great tool that I reccomend for those who can't afford a TIG ,or plasma cutter, it serves my purposes as both).

Pictures of my axle and tire combo coming in the next couple of weeks. Pictures of my tube frame to follow shortly as it develops past its current conduit form.

On another note...

Hey Dan, what did you think of the double ended steering cylinder that I sent to Frankie? That thing is BEEF eh?


CJ Lagos, I will e-mail you about the rear steering tomorrow. I need to go to bed now.

Sean

Originally posted by Daniel B Little
WHO WHAT WHERE... I didnt see no ram??

Oh, sorry Daniel, I was talking about Dan Dibble - Dan .

You ,Daniel, will be seeing some BEEF rams pretty soon too. ;)

Sean

QUOTE "Hey Dan, what did you think of the double ended steering cylinder that I sent to Frankie? That thing is BEEF eh?"

Station, I wish I had gotten mine from you. I spent mucho $$ buying the Howe rams.
I will give you a month or so and Im going to round up a few guys from Memphis and come your way. Good luck.

Dan

Originally posted by elf_cruiser


dude, front lockers are :rainbow:


Care to rephrase that statement after last night? :flipoff2:

Originally posted by jeeper111
LOW WEIGHT IS GOOD!!! All these people building 150 pound dana 60s and spending 10 grand on them while they are running a regular 350 in thier rigs. I think people have lost their minds with this light weight shit. You only have to have more traction and power than you have weight and after that you are just wasting money. :flipoff2:

You whine about this in every thread concerning Rockwells like you're trying to convince yourself :rolleyes: I'll say this again and I'd like your opinion.


What do you do in a situation where you have limited traction????


OK so you run Rockwells and come in heavier. Well you then have a larger tire that will combat this because said tire has a larger contact patch. The larger ccontact patch provides more available traction for the higher weight rig. I agree with this theory when a flat plane is present for each tire to fully grip (like a parking lot). HOWEVER, what about situations where that larger tire cannot use it's larger contact patch. FOR EXAMPLE- If you're driving a tire over a 3" wide rock edge, you only have 3" of contact width no matter how large the tire is. What happens then???? The big heavy rig may not be able to get enough contact patch, thus enough traction, to conquer the spot. A lighter rig inherently needs less contact patch area than the heavy rig to move over the same obstacle. When sufficient area can not be found for the heavy rig, a lighter rig may have enough. We do not drive in areas where the whole tire contacts our driving surface (parking lot). We drive in areas where only partial contact is available for each tire (sometimes only a sidewall) and in this atmosphere light weight is advantageous because you need less traction to move the lighter vehicle. So, I don't think anyone building light has lost their mind.


I have seen countless times where a smaller, lighter vehicle is able to negotiate a "limited tire contact area" (like my rock edge example). All the time followed by a heavier rig that spins a tire and slides off the previously mentioned "limited tire contact area". Simply put, the heavier rig could not gain enough traction on the jagged terrain.

Care to rephrase that statement after last night?

Hey zags, that was sarcasm at it's finest. Of course i know i need a front locker, ask anyone who has wheeled with me. But I still wanted to try that damn chute!! Now I know what happened. Better than not trying at all, IMO. Thanks for everyone's help getting the rig back in order, espescially COYOTE.

BIGDUDE - I agree with you 100%, we have talked about this before. But that is why the heavy rigs just have to compensate a little with things like rear steer, and chossing good lines. You have to try harder to maximize your contact patch. None of this helps much in the east where you are used to wheeling, because of the slippery, muddy, dirty terrain. But out West, where the rock is dry, and traction is abundant, weight is not as much of an issue, if you know how to drive.

Ex. There was one climb that two rigs in the group could not do, myself, and a 4runner that was just slightly heavier than me. See, everyone else went up it first, and left a bunch of dirt and sand on the rock. This was just enough to keep my tires from climbing. Ohh yeah, a front locker would have helped there, as would 200:1 gearing. But hey, I'm not complaining!!

I’m sure this is not news to anyone on this thread, but it seems to need injecting here…

Not that I agree entirely with J111 (I don't, both sides are dramatically over simplified) but, friction is not just about contact area, but also about weight per unit (typically PSI) of contact area. If both vehicles had, the same amount of contact area, then the heavier vehicle will have more PSI in general (all else being equal) and therefore more traction. Higher weight leads to higher friction (traction) per unit of contact. Not that it would necessarily balance out, or that your scenario would not present more problems for a heavier vehicle, and not saying that there are not MANY other factors involved, but, it’s about more than just surface area…

Originally posted by BadDog
I’m sure this is not news to anyone on this thread, but it seems to need injecting here…

Not that I agree entirely with J111 (I don't, both sides are dramatically over simplified) but, friction is not just about contact area, but also about weight per unit (typically PSI) of contact area. If both vehicles had, the same amount of contact area, then the heavier vehicle will have more PSI in general (all else being equal) and therefore more traction. Higher weight leads to higher friction (traction) per unit of contact. Not that it would necessarily balance out, or that your scenario would not present more problems for a heavier vehicle, and not saying that there are not MANY other factors involved, but, it’s about more than just surface area…


Don't worry about me, I'm aware of the dynamics. Also aware that some surfaces can only provide a certain amount of frictional resistance before yielding to the force applied(sand, dirt, moss, all of which appear on rocks frequently). Therefore, a lighter rig may encounter traction from an area where a heavy rigs increased pressure will cause it to yield. I like to argue about this stuff, and every time I get started it seems like J111 disappears :D

One more thing. Sorry for the oversimplification, but I get enough of being an engineer while I'm at work ;)

I am with you bigdude, lighter is ALMOST always better-ALMOST-.

I definitely want to keep my rig as light as possible.

One thing that people keep on saying is that more weight equals more traction, but that isn't actually true. Yes, the tires will have more traction with more weight on them, but not enough traction to make up for the added weight. If you have ever seen a tire adhesion chart you will know what I mean.

A simple example to show this is a work truck. When empty you have enough traction to stop /accelerate very quickly. When loaded to the limit, you actually have allot more traction that when empty, but not enough traction to make up for the load. When you try to stop/accelerate with the fully loaded truck with the weight being the ONLY variable. You will not be able to stop/accelerate as quickly as when empty. Your tires have enought traction to push the brakes much harder without slipping, which shows that you have more traction, but not to the point that you are able to stop within the same distance as when empty.

But his just has to do with very consistent traction on a hard surface. There are many other variables to consider when going offroad, and it is impossible to figure all of the possible conditions. Some terrain is just going to be better for one vehicle than another.

The reason that I say that you can be too light is because of tire choices that are available to us, unles you have some kind of custom tires made. You will get to the point with an extremely light vehicle that you can not get ENOUGH contact pressure with the tires that are availabe to us.

But my opinion is that for consitent good traction, like you see at MOST rockcrawling competitions(espescially those on the west coast) that lighter is ALWAYS going to better, if the materials/design are able to handle the stress oin them without failing.

Sean

WOW! I don't think I've ever started a thread wit 70 replies before! The funny thing is, if you clicked on this thread based on the subject line, you'd be in for a surprise!

As far as the wieght thing goes, IMO, there is such a thing as too light. I had the oportunity to witness Campbell's rig first-hand 2 weekends ago at ERoCC. It was awesome! But I could tell by watching it that it could easily have a problem with finding the weight to gain traction in places. His V8 probably generates the RPM'S to make up for some of it though, which brings up a point that I haven't seen anone make yet:

A lack of traction due to weight at a slower wheel speed can be compensated for by a higher wheel speed. I may be off here, but if you consider this problem, you'll see what I mean: An obstacle takes x amount of traction (friction) to overcome. Heavy rig A has x traction due to weight on tires at same rpm as light rig B while B has x - 10 amount of traction. By increasing its wheel speed (assuming same amount of horsepower and torque), it gets in more rotations on the obstacle than A did, adding 10 to it's x, thereby achieving the x required to make it up the obstacle.

Now if we compare Shaffers's (sp?) rig to Campbells, I could see how they were both extremely light-weight. I didn't get to stay to watch, but I highly doubt Shaffer could have made it up some of our easterly loose-dirt-hill-climbs. (Like on Hardcore.) I would say that Campbell's rig probably could have though due to MUCH MORE power and rpms. But Shaffer, I am sure, is heavier, so he might have actually been able to make it up.

I don't know if what i've said helped, or not, or confused ya'll. It mainly just an observation.

I guess that what I believe is this: Light vs heavy matters very little. (Granted, we're not talking extremes. I wouldn't go crawling in my 17,000lbs Superduty.) But they both normally have things to compensate. Light: Normally has little engines, little axles, little everything, but holds up due to not enough power to break. Heavy: Big engines, big axles, big gear to hold up to the big power. I THINK that under the same terrain circumstances and the same general conditions, they will both do the same. What makes the difference is DRIVER. I'm not going to name names, but I saw several occasions in my spectating at ERoCC where people had awesome rigs but just couldn't do shit in them. I don't blame the rigs.

J. J.

I guess that what I believe is this: Light vs heavy matters very little. (Granted, we're not talking extremes. I wouldn't go crawling in my 17,000lbs Superduty.) But they both normally have things to compensate. Light: Normally has little engines, little axles, little everything, but holds up due to not enough power to break. Heavy: Big engines, big axles, big gear to hold up to the big power. I THINK that under the same terrain circumstances and the same general conditions, they will both do the same. What makes the difference is DRIVER. I'm not going to name names, but I saw several occasions in my spectating at ERoCC where people had awesome rigs but just couldn't do shit in them. I don't blame the rigs.

DITTO!!

ditto, ditto...

Originally posted by patooyee
I guess that what I believe is this: Light vs heavy matters very little.

I would like to know how many 4800lb+ rigs have won a championship in an established circuit???? Anybody know this????


I remember back when Ken used to run a heavy ass scrambler, nobody really knew his name, but he drove the same. Now he has a lighter (~33-3400lb) buggy and everybody see's him up top.

Some people you just can't reach. Right JJ?? Right Elf?? Right J111?? :flipoff2: ;) When you guys start winning in your heavy rigs I'll be convinced that light doesn't matter.


Another example for you... For this past ERoCC a competitor shaved about (this is my guess) 700 lbs from his vehicle. That's 20% of it's current weight (3400 lbs, I believe). He just happened to shave about 150 points from his total score (248 heavy vs. 99 light). That's running almost the same courses, definitely the same difficulty, and the same driver w/o much more experience (his rig was in the shop mostly from one event to the next). What made the difference in how well he performed??? No one can *really* say, however, do you think the lower weight wasn't a factor in it??? :p

Originally posted by bigdude


I would like to know how many 4800lb+ rigs have won a championship in an established circuit???? Anybody know this????

I don't know, but Tom Diviak was in first place during the third comp by a large margin until he broke his t-case.


Originally posted by bigdude
I remember back when Ken used to run a heavy ass scrambler, nobody really knew his name, but he drove the same. Now he has a lighter (~33-3400lb) buggy and everybody see's him up top.

I also remember when Chris durham had a heavy-ass CJ-10 and was tearing up the circuits out west.

Originally posted by bigdude
When you guys start winning in your heavy rigs I'll be convinced that light doesn't matter.

I wasn't really trying to make a case as far as mine being light or heavy. But since you bring it up, with the exception of my tires, my rig shouldn't be that heavy. No more so than any of those other competitors that run CJ's or YJ's with the rear chopped off. Granted, I haven't weighed it yet, but my guess is that it will be well below 4000 lbs.

J. J.

Originally posted by patooyee


I don't know, but Tom Diviak was in first place during the third comp by a large margin until he broke his t-case.




I also remember when Chris durham had a heavy-ass CJ-10 and was tearing up the circuits out west.



I wasn't really trying to make a case as far as mine being light or heavy. But since you bring it up, with the exception of my tires, my rig shouldn't be that heavy. No more so than any of those other competitors that run CJ's or YJ's with the rear chopped off. Granted, I haven't weighed it yet, but my guess is that it will be well below 4000 lbs.

J. J.

Might not have broken his t-case is he was lighter :flipoff2:

Forgot about Durham and the 10. But that was a few years ago, and he is building lighter now :p


What motor/tranny/t-case are you running in your rig?? If it comes in under 4K I'll be happy for you, I was more so directing my comments to J111 who I heard hasn't wheeled very much and seems to know quite a bit :D

Originally posted by bigdude

I was more so directing my comments to J111 who I heard hasn't wheeled very much and seems to know quite a bit :D

Yeah, it is pretty hard to measure traction at different weights when your tires are soaked in Armor-All or when the sprung weight is sitting on Jackstands. :D :D

Sean

Originally posted by Station


Yeah, it is pretty hard to measure traction at different weights when your tires are soaked in Armor-All or when the sprung weight is sitting on Jackstands. :D :D

Sean
Bwaahhhaaaahhhaaa... couldn't have said it better myself. :D

Originally posted by bigdude


Might not have broken his t-case is he was lighter :flipoff2:

Forgot about Durham and the 10. But that was a few years ago, and he is building lighter now :p


What motor/tranny/t-case are you running in your rig?? If it comes in under 4K I'll be happy for you, I was more so directing my comments to J111 who I heard hasn't wheeled very much and seems to know quite a bit :D

You and I both know that his t-case wasn't strong enough for his rig. D300's just weren't made to withstand a healthy 454, 4:1 Klune-V, and 42" tires. He's got an Atlas II now, so I think that'll hold up just fine.

As for Durham, he did well even in the first ERoCC when thre were lighter rigs out there and he was in his heavy CJ-10.

And as for me, I am running a 350sbc, TH350, NP203, d300 combo. The extra t-case doesn't help with weight at all, but the d300 is light for a t-case so that helps make up for it.

J. J.

I was more so directing my comments to J111 who I heard hasn't wheeled very much and seems to know quite a bit

SMACK!

Yeah, it is pretty hard to measure traction at different weights when your tires are soaked in Armor-All or when the sprung weight is sitting on Jackstands.

DOUBLE SMACK!!

Jeeper, I told you to finish your rig!! If we had gone to moab, you could show these guys video clips of yourself driving the last waterfall at Upper Helldorado or something...


OHh, and to add another statement to the weight argument...
Wheelbase is also an issue. That is probably why Durham did so well in his CJ-10, and continues to do well. It's also why all the guys from Wagoner Machine can climb sick shit with 6000lb. rigs. Thye all go over like 120" WB. I can tell that if added about 6-8" mine would be prrrfect for climbing the nice steep waterfalls we have out here...

sidenote - I am still trying to get used to calling the ledges - "waterfalls" - even though there's no water in them. Just a desert thing i guess?

Well, if you upgraded the shafts wouldnt the U-joint be next in line?
Originally posted by Daniel
there has been plenty of shaft failures though...

Originally posted by Daniel
rocks make the difference!


Tree roots make the difference.

Try hitting a root while you are spinning the sh*t out of the tires.....instant BOOM !!!

Originally posted by elf_cruiser


dude, front lockers are :rainbow:


Get thee hence, satan

Originally posted by reddwarf


Get thee hence, satan

huh?

lockers rule though :flipoff2:

rockwells are just to big in my opinion, but thats just me, and why is it that guys run Rockwells with tires smaller than 42's?:confused:

Originally posted by jeeper350
Well, if you upgraded the shafts wouldnt the U-joint be next in line?


The thread lives again! Upgrading to alloy axles would come hand-in-hand with CTM joints.

J. J.

JJ, so where can a guy get good alloy shafts for a 60 or 14?
Was probably in this thread somewhere but I missed it with all the other jargen goin on.
Moser is out, who's left? Dutchman, Randy's R&P?

Originally posted by doctor_G
JJ, so where can a guy get good alloy shafts for a 60 or 14?
Moser is out, who's left? Dutchman, Randy's R&P?

Randys R&P still doesn't have the 60F alloys yet. I was just there about a hour ago asking this.

Talking about weight...

What is the weight of a D60? And what is the weight of a Rockwell?

TIA

Scott

A single wheel front chevy 60 complete,cailipers, rotors, locker, locking hubs, lug nuts, with 35 spline outers weighs 518lbs on a digital race car scale. A rear 70u disc brakes locker lug nuts was 398lbs.
other notable weights
chevy 205 with adapter 145lbs

cut 39x15 boggers 102lbs

uncut 44 bogger 140lbs

steering rockwell with pinion brake and cut 44 boggers
wheels and double ended steering act is 1050lbs

Howe double ended steering act with joints 16lbs



I cant think of the of the other 200 things we weighed

I have some bad ass scales here in the memphis area if someone needs a weight. Or weigh their vehicle.
Dan

Robbed from other post:D

Cool thanks. Now how about a 14 Bolt?