We're going to be starting on the suspension on my TJ within the next couple weeks. I'd been planning on using something around 2.25" OD, 3/8" wall, or maybe even 2.5" OD, 1/2" wall for the lowers, mild DOM or CrMo tubing, but all the benders seem to only be able to handle 2" OD tube. Is 2" OD, 1/4" wall big enough for 3.5 foot suspension links (the lowers will also have the vehicle's springs mounted to them - i.e. more stress on the link). Rod ends will be 1.25". The rod end inserts I'm looking to use need 1.5" ID tubing, which is why I'm trying to stick to that figure. Thanks.
Chris

i used 1 5/8 ,250 wall cro-mo and threaded my 1.25 heim directly into the link

Anything bigger than 2" .25 wall DOM is ridiculous IMO.

TJ Axles? Id go 2in OD .25 wall

You mentioned bending, a poorly placed bend in a control arm could easily alow it fail, 2in OD .25 Wall is not beyond breakage with a poor deisgn but is derated well on a good design.

Can you draw some angles up describe your bends....? Id still go 2in but you may need added bracing on your arms.

What about using 1 1/4 ID sched 80 pipe? That puts the od @ 1 5/8.

ya but sch. 80 1 1/4" is only .191" wall. I thought about this for my links but think it is a bit weak. I am going to try some sch. 160 which is right at .250 wall.

(Before I get ragged on for using pipe, my buddy works at a plumbing wholesaler and get it CHEAP!!:flipoff2: )

Originally posted by ashmanjeepXJ
TJ Axles? Id go 2in OD .25 wall



Actually, it'll be Rockwells, not TJ axles.
Chris

Originally posted by GO 4LO


Actually, it'll be Rockwells, not TJ axles.
Chris

read this 350samurai's links (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79653&highlight=bent)

Here's the image you requested (sorry it's pretty rough - just whipped it up in MS Paint to give you an idea).
http://community.webshots.com/storage/1/v2/8/40/1/50484001WzSYjo_ph.jpg
Thanks for the link!
Chris

email me the pic Ill post it:
electricashman@hotmail.com

still not working

Mine are 2" .400 wall with a truss on top made from 11/4" sch 40 erw pipe and are 64" long. they're working great so far are have prooven to be very ridgid.
http://www.extreme4wheelin.com/tech/blazer_stretch/P7234551.JPG

ashmanjeepxj, you have mail!
Chris

Originally posted by GO 4LO
ashmanjeepxj, you have mail!
Chris

IIII do.

So only a three link, even worse! :eek:

Its good I asked...

That bend though not given dimensions, looks like it will work well, with some 1/4in plate at the bend trussing the arm.

What ends did you have in mine? I wouldent trust the 2in .25 dom, But I dont have rockwells:(

Actually, I'm wanting to do a four link with the uppers triangulated (if I can get it to work with that monster pinion up there). The lowers' axle mounts will be below the axle line, unlike shown in the pic (sorry 'bout the bad pic). Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
What do you think of trying 2" OD .25" wall CrMo tubing, with a bigger gusset that runs most of the length of it?
Chris

why not just make some like the other guys, double stacked tubes?

If you have space do it, it will look great too.

Originally posted by GO 4LO
Actually, I'm wanting to do a four link with the uppers triangulated (if I can get it to work with that monster pinion up there). The lowers' axle mounts will be below the axle line, unlike shown in the pic (sorry 'bout the bad pic). Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
What do you think of trying 2" OD .25" wall CrMo tubing, with a bigger gusset that runs most of the length of it?
Chris
Here's how I did mine. I know the outer arms are welded, but I just figured. how often am I going to need to be in there. If I do, I can cut it off with my porta-band and weld it back on easy.

The middle arm has a plate on it and bolts under two of the third member bolts.

It's made out of 2" sch 80 pipe.

350 Samurai That is a nice looking set up.

that suspension design seems like it will eat up alot of ground clearance, 40" arms are long and if mounted below the axle with a bend like that will really hurt breakover angle. If mounting the springs to the Arms I would go overkill, think of what would be acceptable and up it a bit , so either 2" .400 mild steel or .250 chromoly. Yellow blazers is the perfect example of total overkill, but I've seen his truck in person and it is HUGE

Wow, very nice looking setup, 350 Samurai. It looks like you kept the height down to a minimum on that! Whose pinion brake kit is that?
ashmanjeepxj, stacking the tubes sounds like a good idea, too. Do you think the 1.25" heims will be big enough? Also, does anyone sell 1.25" rubber bushings (like Avalanche's, but I think theirs only come in .75")? I'd like to do heim at the frame end and bushing at the axle end. Thanks, guys.
Chris

Originally posted by NE-RokToy
that suspension design seems like it will eat up alot of ground clearance, 40" arms are long and if mounted below the axle with a bend like that will really hurt breakover angle.

I think you're right on that count- the reason I'm doing it is to allow me to mount a couple extra inches of shock (versus a straight arm). I'm going to try to have the lower mounts hang down about 1" total (the mounts will be welded partially on the front face, partially on the bottom face) or just have the arms wrap all the way under and around to rear mounts, like Currie's. The uppers will be mounted so far above axle centerline that I think I can get away with a lower mount this close to axle centerline. What do you think?
Chris

currie jonny joint: CE-9111, 3/4in bolt, size 3in, $79
That might be a good choice for the axle end.

Aurora spherical bearings: PP-MB16T, PP-MM16T, rated: 43,541 lbs, non greasable, 1in bolt, 1.25 - 12 threads, vender: polyperformance.com, $49
Maby for the frame end.

I have no personal experience with either on a 2.5T but are good quality parts, if it would work on a monster turck it should last you atleast afew trail runs :D

have fun...

Thanks for the info, ashmanjeepxj. What do you guys think of having the frame mounts for the lowers outside the frame vs. under it? Outside the frame should give better clearance and leave the frame with fewer hang-ups when sliding your belly over rocks, as well as leaving more clearance on the inside to mount the uppers, but not sure on strength... I was thinking if I did it on the outside of the frame front and rear, I could use some tubing to brace them against each other?
Chris

Originally posted by GO 4LO
Wow, very nice looking setup, 350 Samurai. It looks like you kept the height down to a minimum on that! Whose pinion brake kit is that?

Pinion brake is a combination of '87 Mazda B-2000 rotor and '87 Toyota truck (IFS) 4 piston caliper.


The uppers will be mounted so far above axle centerline that I think I can get away with a lower mount this close to axle centerline. What do you think?

Mine are even with the axle centerline, no probs.

your uppers are going to be high like you mentioned, if you take your lower above your frame your links wont be parell and will cause binding to some degree. ITs a trade off, parell, link length, angle and clearance.

Id list the tradeoffs in this order of priority, please comment:
1. Clearance
2. Parell
3. length
4. angle

With no clearance you cant wheel.

If there not parell you cant flex and will bind, cant flex=cant wheel.

If there un equal length you will have squatting type effects

If you have a high angle arms your ride will suffer but will be functional

Do you guys agree?

I was under the impression you only wanted parallel links in the front, unless you're running full hydraulic steering. This being because parallel links will keep your tie-rod and draglink at the farthest forward point of the axle, instead of curling it under during lots of droop. In the rear, I thought you wanted the frame ends of all your arms at approximately the same point longitudinally (thus keeping your pinion always pointed at the tcase output)? I'd be interested in more opinions on this.
Chris

Originally posted by GO 4LO
I was under the impression you only wanted parallel links in the front, unless you're running full hydraulic steering. This being because parallel links will keep your tie-rod and draglink at the farthest forward point of the axle, instead of curling it under during lots of droop. In the rear, I thought you wanted the frame ends of all your arms at approximately the same point longitudinally (thus keeping your pinion always pointed at the tcase output)? I'd be interested in more opinions on this.
Chris


The full hydrolic steering on the front eliminates the need for the panard bar and drag link to be parell, no bump steer with no drag link. Alot of hydro steering guys run no panard bar (track bar) at all.

any ways let just keep it to the rear.

monster truck 101, com'on it a 2.5T (http://truckworld.com/Monster-Trucks/Monsters-Monthly/2000-august/monster-tech1.html)

Did you read this before, nice pics of different angles.

Originally posted by ashmanjeepXJ



The full hydrolic steering on the front eliminates the need for the panard bar and drag link to be parell, no bump steer with no drag link.

Yeah, that's true too. Good point. That's an interesting link - Thanks.
Chris

Originally posted by ashmanjeepXJ
Alot of hydro steering guys run no panard bar (track bar) at all.

I don't understand this.:confused:

How can you eliminate the panhard bar just because you have hydro steering? The panhard bar locates the axle side to side, if it was not there, it would just slide out the side of the truck somewhere.

Hydro steering is located on the axle itself, it does not come off of the frame. It serves absolutely no purpose as far as locating the axle.

I was under the impression you only wanted parallel links in the front, unless you're running full hydraulic steering. This being because parallel links will keep your tie-rod and draglink at the farthest forward point of the axle, instead of curling it under during lots of droop. In the rear, I thought you wanted the frame ends of all your arms at approximately the same point longitudinally (thus keeping your pinion always pointed at the tcase output)?

This is true. I went through the parking lot during tech inspection at the last ERoCC event specifically to look at everyones rear links that was running 4 links, because someone told me that mine would not work with the bars not parallel.

Every single competitor (the ones that mattered, like Shupe and Shaffer) were all running their back links coming from the same place on the frame, not parallel. All it does, like you said, is keep the pinion pointing at the transfer case.

Originally posted by 350 Samurai


All it does, like you said, is keep the pinion pointing at the transfer case.

It has some other beneficial properties if you link angle and lengths are correct also ;)

You don't have to make your links out of such thick stuff if you just build a trussed link. I made my front links out of schedule 40 but they are trussed using another piece of schedule 40. I've landed hard on the driver's side link and it hasn't bent. Before I was running schedule 80 straight piece and if I high centered on the belly the links would bend. It's all about trussed links! Oh and I run rockwells too.

Originally posted by 350 Samurai


Every single competitor (the ones that mattered, like Shupe and Shaffer) were all running their back links coming from the same place on the frame, not parallel. All it does, like you said, is keep the pinion pointing at the transfer case.

This really supprises me.

My understanding is that having links coming back from the same point on the chassis would have to be the worst setup possible. I rig setup like this would hop like a bastard when throttled driving up hill.

When you say they come from the same point you mean that when looking from the side the mounting points of the upper and lower links are all on the same line going across the vehicle.

The last pic of Shupe rear links that was posted on pirate (I think it was bacause he put in a d60 or something) the links didnt converge on the chassis. They were parallel if anything (if I remember correctly)

Sam

Originally posted by Strange Rover


This really supprises me.

My understanding is that having links coming back from the same point on the chassis would have to be the worst setup possible. I rig setup like this would hop like a bastard when throttled driving up hill.

When you say they come from the same point you mean that when looking from the side the mounting points of the upper and lower links are all on the same line going across the vehicle.

The last pic of Shupe rear links that was posted on pirate (I think it was bacause he put in a d60 or something) the links didnt converge on the chassis. They were parallel if anything (if I remember correctly)

Sam

Mine doesn't hop at all and it's that way.

Shupes rig:

another view of Shupe:

Shannon Campbell:

If you have long links it won't matter what ya do. But ya, short links that converge at the frame will give bad acceleration/torque lift.

More comes down to what d-shaft you want to run. no CV, parallel links are the way to go so you won't ever worry about pinion angle.

Ken

Originally posted by Slowzuki
If you have long links it won't matter what ya do. But ya, short links that converge at the frame will give bad acceleration/torque lift.

More comes down to what d-shaft you want to run. no CV, parallel links are the way to go so you won't ever worry about pinion angle.

Ken
If that is the case, then why do all the guys that are building the high dollar rigs for competition, where you want no inferior setup, running links together at the frame.

Mine are like these(sorta by accident, that's a story for another post) and I have no hopping or torque lift. I don't know where the line is drawn between long and short links, but mine are 36".

I had a guy tell me (who had actually been to a suspension school of some sort) that for my rear suspension to work correctly, I had to run a panhard bar. If I ran a panhard bar with a triangulated 4 link it would all be fighting each other.(panhard has to move side to side and triangle doesn't). He said " I don't care if it's a 9 link it needs a panhard bar. What a moron. :rolleyes: This same guy has a jeep that looks like Grannys poodle hunching Uncle Bobs leg, whenever it spins the tires in the rocks.:D

Bottom line is, I'm definitely no suspension guru, and I am leaving mine the way it is, but I am just curious what all the hype about parallel is, when nobody runs it that way.

350 Samurai,

I think that in the first pic that they converge too much (convergent point just if front of the links) and I would willing to bet money that this is why they are running such a tight centre limiting strap. There is no other reason to run a tight centre limiting strap other than to control rear hopping as it is throttled uphill and to control rear axle walk when crawling. This suspension running a tight limiting strap tells me it doesent work properly. (unless you can tell me another reason the strap is there)

Second pic I carnt tell.

Third pic looks good to me. Convergent point would be way out in front. Upper links are mounted higher than the lowers and everything is nice and long. I believe that this suspension setup is not an example of the links all converging at one point.

Sam

PS Sorry for the late reply.

Originally posted by Strange Rover
350 Samurai,

I think that in the first pic that they converge too much (convergent point just if front of the links) and I would willing to bet money that this is why they are running such a tight centre limiting strap. There is no other reason to run a tight centre limiting strap other than to control rear hopping as it is throttled uphill and to control rear axle walk when crawling. This suspension running a tight limiting strap tells me it doesent work properly. (unless you can tell me another reason the strap is there)

Second pic I carnt tell.

Third pic looks good to me. Convergent point would be way out in front. Upper links are mounted higher than the lowers and everything is nice and long. I believe that this suspension setup is not an example of the links all converging at one point.

Sam

PS Sorry for the late reply.

The first and second pics are of the same suspension, just two different angles. I will have to disagree that it doesn't work very well. That is Ken Shupes rig and he is currently first in points in the RCCA rockcrawling events. It not only works well, but borderlines on incredible. That truck does things that almost defy physics. At the ERoCC event there are two hills that only one competitor has been able to climb and he is that one competitor. That is what I don't understand, his suspension complies with what everyone says won't work and it seems to work better than anyone elses.

Third pic is Shannon Campbell. He builds a lot of competitive rigs, this one being his latest conception. It does not do as well as many expected, but I think it is because of the IFS, not the rear.