Anybody got some good picks of shackle inside the frame of a Scout?

Other vehicles?

Heeps?

I was going to do this but it was just easier to use buggy leafs instead.

Just get some 1.5 x .120 wall dom and cut it to frame width. Then holesaw the holes for them. Weld them in. Put wrangler spring bushings inside...WTF do you need pics for?:flipoff2:

I ain't talkin' about putting the tubes inside the frame.:flipoff2:

I'm talkin' about putting the shackle inside the frame.:flipoff2:

Pics would be nice.:D

Originally posted by scoutver5.7
I ain't talkin' about putting the tubes inside the frame.

I'm talkin' about putting the shackle insed the frame.

Pics would be nice.

Then I'll bet that everyone else is just as :confused: as I am about WTF you are talking about....

You need a tube man!

Are you talking about the top bolt of the shackle through the frame, or are you planning on boxing the frame rail and having the shackle "swing" in the box?

Originally posted by jdjanda
Are you talking about the top bolt of the shackle through the frame, or are you planning on boxing the frame rail and having the shackle "swing" in the box?

Hmm.. shackle INSIDE the frame sounds interesting, but a real PITA, too.

I'd start by plating both sides of the frame for more strength, then cut the bottom out.

Make sure the shackle swinging won't smack the spring into the frame..

Another couple ideas.

What about putting a "normal" shackle mount ON TOP of the frame, and run the shackles down on the outside of the frame?

How's THIS for a trick idea...

Plate both sides of the frame for strength (heck, if you could put a "C" over the top of the frame that would come down both sides, so much the better).

Slot the underside of the frame rail.

Now put a shackle/spring bushing/whatever inside the frame, AT THE BOTTOM and rear of the slot you just cut.

Now run a tension shackle UP from this mount to the spring, which is inside the frame.

Take out some lift from using an arched spring.

Set it up so at full elongation the shackle would swing straight up and/or behind the mount.

At full droop, it might drop down out of the frame slot and be visible.

I think this would be easier to set up with 2" wide springs, since the frame is 4x3, with 1/8" wall, so there's on only 2.75" available inside the frame for a spring and shackle.

A "dog-leg-ish" shackle could be used to make the mounting easier n' such on the shackle mount, but you'd still have a problem with the shackle sides + spring fitting.

Easiest solution? Take those 2.5" wide 44044s and just grind the spring eye down until it all fits.

You get a reverse shackle with nothing hanging below the frame.

You get a tension shackle letting you run arched springs that go just "flat" at full stuff.

I did not realize until today I have no pictures on-line of the rear shackle set up. We did a tube thru the frame and have the springs directly below the frame. The full size Bronco springs sit there very nice at 3" wide. BUT the rig is TALL. I just have to wait until it's on the road to see how it handles.

Ritch

Originally posted by tsm1mt


Hmm.. shackle INSIDE the frame sounds interesting, but a real PITA, too.

I'd start by plating both sides of the frame for more strength, then cut the bottom out.

Make sure the shackle swinging won't smack the spring into the frame..


Well Tom, You win the purple turkey. Seems you're the only one that got what I'm lookin' for.:D

I did my RS about twenty years ago with "fangs" and 2" extended shackles. With Rancho 4" springs the axle swings back about as much as it swings up. My 33"s hit the firewall at full stuff. Don't hurt anything, just polishes my firewall and prevents further stuff.

I'm now going SOA with much longer Furd PU rear and Waggy springs for more flex. I want to keep the "fangs" as short as possible. No "fangs" is my goal, but with the longer springs, the shackle mount will be further down the frame, causing even more of the swing back instead of up I have now.

If I mounted the shackle inside the frame, with the pivot near the top, it would make the mount a little over 4"s higher.

Of course, as Tom said, the frame would need to be boxed/reinforced in that area and the cutout would need to extend far enough to the rear to prevent the shackle from hitting it. The shackle SHOULD hit in the front, preventing inversion.

Don't sound like all that much PITA to me.

DO I get a purple turkey too!! I understood, and have concidered the same thing.... one problem I see (well, maybe, depending on how you did it), as the spring goes negative, will it arch up into the remaing bit of the frame?? Unless you cut a whole bunch of the frame out... but then you start to loose the benifit of the original boxed frame, and have added a bunch of weight in plating to get the strength back..

Again, depends on how you do it, and how far back from the "bends" in the frame your shackle is....

not really sure if it worth it... but would be a fun experiment.


If you split the difference, still had the spring eye a couple inches bellow the frame, and maybe sank the shackle up into the frame, it might work OK.

Actually, My rear shackles got through the frame (like "normal"), but the eye is only an inch or so from the frame at rest and stuff.... now on extention the pull away quite a bit, but they are moderatly long and angle way back at rest.... Haven't had a problem with them hitting obsticals, and I just compensated for the "spring angle" caused my the short front towers when I built the front axle....

Okay, Rusty, You get a purple turkey too!

Actually, and Hooper is gonna love this, I'm considering reversing my shackle reversal. It would definately make it MUCH easier to fit 38" or larger tires, end pinion angle and driveshaft problems and MAYBE even help get more traction.

Since it's not a daily driver anymore, so what if it rides like shit!

Well, I kinda understood what you meant after your second post..but the idea is so dumb that I figured that you must have meant something else...

And here I thought this design was stupid enough:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/rrca_farmington02/thursday/Image101.jpg
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Scout Dude
Well, I kinda understood what you meant after your second post..but the idea is so dumb that I figured that you must have meant something else...

And here I thought this design was stupid enough:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/rrca_farmington02/thursday/Image101.jpg
:rolleyes:

NOW WAIT A MINUTE - this is about what I did without the chunk of frame missing. My springs are directly under the frame like this. We welded a tube thru the frame for the shackles to attach at.

SO what your saying is - this is a bad idea :confused: I don't understand.

I thought moving the springs under the frame would allow for better aticulation. Of course my shackles are a bit longer and made of 1/2" x 3" material with 8" center to center. I don't expect my springs will ever hit the frame.

The big difference I see here is the frame being chopped up and patched back together. and the truck will sit lower than mine like this. But is the way I did it wrong?

Ritch
BTW I did mine in the back like this not up front.

Originally posted by scoutver5.7
Okay, Rusty, You get a purple turkey too!

Actually, and Hooper is gonna love this, I'm considering reversing my shackle reversal. It would definately make it MUCH easier to fit 38" or larger tires, end pinion angle and driveshaft problems and MAYBE even help get more traction.

Since it's not a daily driver anymore, so what if it rides like shit!


(psst, don't tell hoop, but I have been concidering the same thing..... primaraly for eliminating the super long travel d-shaft... and u-joint angle when flexed. Haven't been conviced either way yet though...)

Originally posted by nwmud


NOW WAIT A MINUTE - this is about what I did without the chunk of frame missing. My springs are directly under the frame like this. We welded a tube thru the frame for the shackles to attach at.

SO what your saying is - this is a bad idea :confused: I don't understand.


No thats pretty normal on many other rigs, especially when doing a shackle reversal. the chopped open frame and this cobbled frame would concern me. Putting a tube trough the frame, welding it in place and putting a bushing in there wouldnt.

Yeah, what Mike said is fine..tubing it and running the shackles on the outside of the frame is normal and works great. However, Ver5.7 was talking about cutting the bottom out of the frame and putting the shackles on the inside. I think that the frame is already crappy enough on it's own to be subjected to even more stress in this area..why reinvent the wheel if the wheel it what's best for this situation?

I have the Ford rear 3" wide spring on the front of my scout 800. I did it the way many have said by drilling the top bolt through the frame. Works great but makes things a bit higher. Not because of the shackle but from the length of those springs. The shackle is under the flat/ lower part of the frame. I did a shackle reversal just for this reason. I didn't like the idea of the shackles being much longer in the front than they would need to be under the rear of the spring.
I'll try to find a picture.:)

OK I couldn't find a good picture of just the front but here you can see the sihlouette of the basic setup. First you must get past the bling bling picture of the guy trying to make belive he's wheelin.:D

Does anyone have a pic of just the regualr tube in the frame shackle below setup with regular 2" wide Scout springs. I am not visualizing how to over come the wider frame...

http://www.scoutmadness.com/rskit.jpg

http://tigger.tmcom.com/~marka/PhotoAlbums/album02/SO10_Old_RS.sized.jpg

you can kind of see it here.... same idea as TORC's post... but I made my own instead of buying.... also made it all shorter....

Thats how my shackles are under my Terra, Just cut a hole through the frame and installed a sleave, welded it up, put a set of bushings in it, the out side shackle is flat with the frame and the inside has a bend in it to make up for the 3" wide frame and 2" wide springs , When i did mine i put the bend right in the middle and wish i would have moved it down some more, it doesn't make any contact with the frame rail but looks like it could if i hit something hard.

Originally posted by Scout Dude
And here I thought this design was stupid enough:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/rrca_farmington02/thursday/Image101.jpg
:rolleyes:

Okay, Okay,

I don't think what I had in mind would be NEAR as ugly as that.
I really want to keep my shackle reversal and think I'll do the tube through the frame thing. I'm gonna be using 2.5" Cherokee Chief and Ford PU rears which are way long, where they'll be mounted quite a ways back. I'll just have to make the "fangs" as long as they need to be to keep the axle from swinging back too far.

Sorry Pat, I'm staying RS!!:D

WHAT WAS I THINKING!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by scoutver5.7


Okay, Okay,

I don't think what I had in mind would be NEAR as ugly as that.
I really want to keep my shackle reversal and think I'll do the tube through the frame thing. I'm gonna be using 2.5" Cherokee Chief and Ford PU rears which are way long, where they'll be mounted quite a ways back. I'll just have to make the "fangs" as long as they need to be to keep the axle from swinging back too far.

Sorry Pat, I'm staying RS!!:D

WHAT WAS I THINKING!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, now that we got your thinking back on track;) ...lets talk about your "rock fangs" that you love so much...IF you angle them forward, then they don't look so bad. Here is how I did mine. IIRC the bolt hole is 5" away from the bottom of the frame.

That is a nice shot of you working the rocks OS. Your fangs are not bad at all. Not sure how angling them forward helps prevent catching them on rocks? I can see the asthetics of it are much better that way though.

http://ftp.vandermeerfp.com.xohost.com/Wheeling/PinkOS.jpg

Originally posted by Hooper
That is a nice shot of you working the rocks OS .

:confused:


Anyways, it doesn't matter if your shackle is there or your spring hanger...if it's gunna hit, it gunna hit...at least when you hit something solid, you will either stop or slide up and over with a SR.

I built mine without the fangs ;) course then you'd have to cut/turn the knuckles

Originally posted by Scout Dude


:confused:


Anyways, it doesn't matter if your shackle is there or your spring hanger...if it's gunna hit, it gunna hit...at least when you hit something solid, you will either stop or slide up and over with a SR.

Dang. I meant SD and typed OS. Sorry.

You are right on about that. If the shackle is the same spot as the tower, it will still hit and hit just as hard. However, in theory, if you hit a shackle, and push against that shackle, it will force the spring to bow downward, thereby lowering the tire and allowing the shackle to get out of the way. There is a little bit of *give* built into the system. Of course, if your springs are in negative arch (not common when the shackle is hitting somehting), it can bend the spring...

On RS, there is no *spring* or *give* built in.

Towers that are about the same length as stock shackles work great. It is when folks try to build lift into RS that the towers get ridiculous.

SR or SF, You will still slide up and over, don't see that it makes much difference?

Back to the angle, is it asthetics, or do you see an advantage to the angle for your towers, rather than vertical type?

Originally posted by Hooper
You are right on about that. If the shackle is the same spot as the tower, it will still hit and hit just as hard. However, in theory, if you hit a shackle, and push against that shackle, it will force the spring to bow downward, thereby lowering the tire and allowing the shackle to get out of the way. There is a little bit of *give* built into the system. Of course, if your springs are in negative arch (not common when the shackle is hitting somehting), it can bend the spring...



I've seen them bend without being negative arched too...


Towers that are about the same length as stock shackles work great. It is when folks try to build lift into RS that the towers get ridiculous.


Yep, very true.



Back to the angle, is it asthetics, or do you see an advantage to the angle for your towers, rather than vertical type?

Only looks..if nothing else, it was more of a bitch to design and the driver side had to be re-engineered to fit the steering box.




And Mike: You haven't seen an 80/800 frame up close have you?

Originally posted by Scout Dude
And Mike: You haven't seen an 80/800 frame up close have you?

Who said anything about keeping the frame stock? :D

Originally posted by Hooper
...However, in theory, if you hit a shackle, and push against that shackle, it will force the spring to bow downward, thereby lowering the tire and allowing the shackle to get out of the way. There is a little bit of *give* built into the system....


gawd pat, you keep trying to find ANY way to justify the stock shackle position... hmm, I think I remeber simular conversations about SOA as well (hooper would NEVER need that, no reason, works fine as it is :D)


bottem line: they both work about the same, neither has a major advantage over the other, both have their own little quirks/side benifits/disadvantages. I all boiles down to personal preferance... just like every thing else. Nuf said, end of topic.



gawd I hate this conversation..

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite

gawd I hate this conversation..

It's relatively civilized here. Get Bob/CA involved and it gets ugly quick

Originally posted by mike

Get Bob/CA involved


who?!?!


can you summerise his veiw points?? I've been listening to hoop for over 4 years now..... and its getting tirring..


:D

HAHAHAHA at least I havent seen a "you're a fawking idiot!" "You'll tear your frame apart" etc etc etc ;)

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite

gawd pat, you keep trying to find ANY way to justify the stock shackle position... hmm, I think I remeber simular conversations about SOA as well (hooper would NEVER need that, no reason, works fine as it is :D)


I can argue for and against it. :D Like you said, +s and -s on both sides.

I think an RS doesn't break springs as often as a front-shackle.

RS can make the front driveshaft a real b*tch to get right, and the tire wants to hit the firewall.

Shackle-front makes the driveshat easy, but I'm catching tires on the back of the front bumper and core support instead. :D

I haven't broken any springs since going RS, though the pile of transfer cases has grown.

Dunno that either offers any better traction. I mean, the REAR AXLE already has the shackle at the back.. I don't see Hooper changing that around to get more climbing traction..

When an RS fang hits a rock, it can slid. Build it with some big washers on the spring bolt to help roll over it, or grind it smooth with a slope to it.. whatever. You can push on your mount (if it's strong enough) and slide the spring up.

DO NOT try this with a shackle forward setup.. you WILL break the spring, unless the rear fixed spring mount breaks first.. if you're lucky, you'll take both out like I did.

Originally posted by mike
HAHAHAHA at least I havent seen a "you're a fawking idiot!" "You'll tear your frame apart" etc etc etc ;)


BBWWAAAAHAHHAA


I remeber those areguments.... haven't heard them in a long time.... maybe becasue I haven't heard of anyone tearing their frames apart because of a RS for...... oh say..... ever.



I just eat bushing is mine :rolleyes:

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite



gawd pat, you keep trying to find ANY way to justify the stock shackle position... hmm, I think I remeber simular conversations about SOA as well (hooper would NEVER need that, no reason, works fine as it is :D)


bottem line: they both work about the same, neither has a major advantage over the other, both have their own little quirks/side benifits/disadvantages. I all boiles down to personal preferance... just like every thing else. Nuf said, end of topic.



gawd I hate this conversation..

Hey now, I didn't start this thread, and haven't really had much to say about it either way. I was agreeing with SD on most points.... My shackle point has merit though.

Dang, getting cranky now that the big day is approaching, aren't we? ;)

Originally posted by RustoleumWhite



who?!?!


can you summerise his veiw points?? I've been listening to hoop for over 4 years now..... and its getting tirring..


:D

Your bride keeping you up late again? Tell her you need your beauty sleep. You are not as young as you used to be... ;)

And, the last few RS threads, all I have asked is

*Why are you doing a RS conversion?* A simple, innocent question meant to get people to think about what setup is best for them, before they jump...

Pat,

I am still with you. I did not do a RS and look how well my truck performs. Oh wait mine don't run yet - But we'll show them when it does.
:flipoff2:

Ritch

Originally posted by nwmud
Pat,

I am still with you. I did not do a RS and look how well my truck performs. Oh wait mine don't run yet - But we'll show them when it does.
:flipoff2:

Ritch

LOL. Yeah, you haven't gotten stuck yet, pushing it back and forth in your driveway...!!

;) ;)

Originally posted by Hooper


LOL. Yeah, you haven't gotten stuck yet, pushing it back and forth in your driveway...!!

;) ;)

Nope not yet. - of course with out any steering I have not tried to move it. :D

Originally posted by tsm1mt


I can argue for and against it. :D Like you said, +s and -s on both sides.

I think an RS doesn't break springs as often as a front-shackle.

RS can make the front driveshaft a real b*tch to get right, and the tire wants to hit the firewall.

Shackle-front makes the driveshat easy, but I'm catching tires on the back of the front bumper and core support instead. :D

I haven't broken any springs since going RS, though the pile of transfer cases has grown.

Dunno that either offers any better traction. I mean, the REAR AXLE already has the shackle at the back.. I don't see Hooper changing that around to get more climbing traction..

When an RS fang hits a rock, it can slid. Build it with some big washers on the spring bolt to help roll over it, or grind it smooth with a slope to it.. whatever. You can push on your mount (if it's strong enough) and slide the spring up.

DO NOT try this with a shackle forward setup.. you WILL break the spring, unless the rear fixed spring mount breaks first.. if you're lucky, you'll take both out like I did.

Rusty and I have talked about doing exactly that, placing a large washer, just larger than the end of the tower, on both sides of the tower, so when it hits something, the washer acts as a wheel and rolls,...

Same principle would work with a shackle. I have contemplated doing exactly that, but I don't hit my shackles often enough to worry about it.

My front tow hooks are my hangup, by just a hair. If they were not there, it would be my brush guard/winch mount.

Best thing for me is to get bigger tires.... ;)

Originally posted by Hooper


Best thing for me is to get bigger tires.... ;)

Get some like mine. Then you can worry about the tires rubbing on the core support and the back of the front bumper.

Just a little bigger and I think the tires will push forward of the shackle mounts at stuff. :D

Originally posted by tsm1mt


Get some like mine. Then you can worry about the tires rubbing on the core support and the back of the front bumper.

Just a little bigger and I think the tires will push forward of the shackle mounts at stuff. :D

Tom are you running 36" tires like me?

Originally posted by nwmud


Tom are you running 36" tires like me?

Yep. 36x12.50 Super Swamper TSL Bias Ply.. currently on some mix-mached 15x8.5 slotted mags.

http://www.m4x4a.org/ImageGallery/album49/DCP_0025.sized.jpg


But I'm running a bolt-on 4" Skyjacker lift in the front.

I've been trimming and trimming..

Lower the front bump stops 3/8" and trimmed the rocker back a bit and got rid of most of the rubbing.

Problem at the moment is the lower/outer part of the core support - not the sheetmetal mud-shield bit, but the formed sheetmetal "box" type section.

Also rubs on the backside of the lower valance, since the stock bumper's tweaked and pushed it back a bit.

Tires work a lot better than my 33x12.50 Sears Trailhandlers did. :D

Originally posted by tsm1mt


Get some like mine. Then you can worry about the tires rubbing on the core support and the back of the front bumper.

Just a little bigger and I think the tires will push forward of the shackle mounts at stuff. :D


Remember the cost of setting up the gears in that axle you just did?

Double that.

Add $1000 for tires.

There's the rub... ;)

Originally posted by Hooper



Remember the cost of setting up the gears in that axle you just did?

Double that.

Add $1000 for tires.

There's the rub... ;)

Find new axles with the gears already and save yourself the trouble, Pat.

4.56 Dana 60 rear should be easy to find. Or a 14-bolt.

That's what I've done - found a rear 60 with 4.56s in 'em already ('course, I'm thinking lower now..)

Worst case you only have to setup gears on one end then.

Shoot, I have this set of 4.09 axles under Tigger right now, Pat.. want 'em?

I can put 3.73s under Michelle's Scout.. have a couple sets of those lyin' around, too.

Even a set of full width 3.73 axles.. one 44/60 and one 44/44 combo.

Then again, isn't Rusty going lower? Won't he have an SOA Scout-width front end with 4.09s to do something with?

Or will the ever elusive MIT Racer make a resurgence?

Originally posted by tsm1mt


Find new axles with the gears already and save yourself the trouble, Pat.

4.56 Dana 60 rear should be easy to find. Or a 14-bolt.

That's what I've done - found a rear 60 with 4.56s in 'em already ('course, I'm thinking lower now..)

Worse case you only have to setup gears on one end then.

Shoot, I have this set of 4.09 axles under Tigger right now, Pat.. want 'em?

I can put 3.73s under Michelle's Scout.. have a couple sets of those lyin' around, too.

Even a set of full width 3.73 axles.. one 44/60 and one 44/44 combo.

Hmmm, maybe. Still waiting to see if I clear enough money from the house for the crawler box..

The results of the "stock" shackle location and hitting it hard...
You can clearly see that the weak link quickly became the frame mount. This is why I see the RS as a viable option...

http://pics.montypics.com/chrispucci72/2002-10-04/bustedmount1.jpg

Yeah it is being held in place by a big clevis and some tie down straps, I had to use a high-lift to reposition it and then just pull the straps tight - got me off the trail...

Originally posted by uglyscout
The results of the "stock" shackle location and hitting it hard...
You can clearly see that the weak link quickly became the frame mount. This is why I see the RS as a viable option...

Yeah it is being held in place by a big clevis and some tie down straps, I had to use a high-lift to reposition it and then just pull the straps tight - got me off the trail...

RS is viable. Never said otherwise. But, I think we decided to let the dead horse be. No sense pummelling it again on the pros and cons of RS and SF.

Hooper -
OK, OK, OK - Nobody ever said I was good at getting the hint when the horse was dead.
I guess I just jumped on board a little late.

hell.. i know of a couple pairs of 4.27's for 44's siting around dirt cheep.. i didnjump on them 'cause i want lower, and i got that dam pos 60 in the back..

missed ya at the meating last night pat.. i had looked fwd to meating ya face to face..

Dang,

Lookee what I stirred up!:D :D :D