Hey all, I've got a suspension idea and I haven't seen it before, what do you think?

Idea is for rear suspension, two opposing V or A links. Mounted above the axle in the DesertToy or Camo style, but with only two links, V shaped, two heims on one end, one on the point. This uses only 6 heim joints total. What do you guys think.

Two dissents I've heard are that spares are a pain to carry and that if the one heim on the point breaks you're screwed, and those are valid concerns, but I'm looking for feedback more on how the suspensipon will handle and perform.
I'm thinking that this would locate the axle well and provide for plenty of travel with very little bind. I've searched alot and asked around a bit but can't seem to get answers on this. Thanks.
Chris

http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/images2/w0039.jpg
http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/images2/w0015.jpg

http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/tech/projects/willys/sa-link.gif

I am convinced that there are no more original designs anymore....only original reconfigurations of existing ideas!!

What application are those round bushing from, Ford radius Arms?

I'm not sure, not my jeep. It is Sam's from Sierra Rock Crawlers. Maybed somebody else will know or maybe he will see this post.

Originally posted by spencurai
I am convinced that there are no more original designs anymore....only original reconfigurations of existing ideas!!

So am I. Every idea I think is originally is shot down by a simple search on this board. :mad:

TTURokToy Thank you very much for those pics. THat's exactly what I've been looking for. Now that I know it can be done I'm not so afraid to try it.
Do you have any more pics, I'd love to see some more, feel free to e-mail them to me if you don't want to post them.
I'm planning on using 2 BIG heims at the points though, I think that would be more precise and handle better. I hope Sam sees this and gives some more insight.
I read an old post by Sam said it handled good up to 40mph, never took it faster. I don't think increased speed should make any real difference.
How wide you guys htink I should make the bottom of the As, going on a 91 Samurai w/ Yota axles.


I searched Sam's site at http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com and found a few more pics of the setup (http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/tech/projects/willys/projectwillys.html)

Originally posted by spencurai
I am convinced that there are no more original designs anymore....only original reconfigurations of existing ideas!!

whats wrong with using a proven design?

what kind of adverse affects does that style of suspention have? such as squat or anti sqaut etc...?

That type of suspension seems to work great. Use Ford Radius arm bushings for really good flex. One benefit is that your driveline is protected (as long as you weld good and use thick tubing).

If you use this design look into using some sort of adjustable ends on the links. It is a pain in the @$$ to mount the axle EXACTLY centered and perpindicular to the chassis.

ok, now could you also use Jonny joints in place of the radius arm bushings and have it still work??

Originally posted by TR
ok, now could you also use Jonny joints in place of the radius arm bushings and have it still work??

I'm thinking that you could easily use a J-joint or a Heim in opace of the Ford radius arm style bushing.
These might not be able to deflect as much though and would then limit articulation a little bit.

Well, unfortunately I never updated my website for the tech on the Slinky. So people write me all the time about the front suspension and the bushings on the rear which are all gone now.

Originally I started out with bushings, but due to them failing anytime there was severe load on them (pulling a broken truck up Fordyce), I changed them to tractor heims. You know, the cheap $10 units that get really clunky. That gave me length adjustment and a stronger joint. The only problem is you have to make sure you put the axis of the eyelet facing down and not sideways. These heim joints do not take axial load very well so you have to limit it. Now the problem I ran into is that the heim joint doesn't have much misalignment capability, so you have to make sure you dial that in properly. You could always purchase a highmisalignment version, but I think you should be able to get away with just a regular one.

The articulation rotation of it all comes from the threads, so don't lock that down with a jam nut. To some this sounds bad, and it probably is, but that is what I did and it has worked....... so far. Just make sure you grease up the threads every once in a while. I have about an inch and a half to 2 inches of thread engagement on those threads.

As for the speed of only 40mph, that would be attributed to the 4 link front, super soft coil springs, and hydraulic steering. As the vehicle sways back and forth, the front axle walks a little bit making me compensate with the steering. As soon as I compensate and it rolls back the other direction, the axle moves once again and I have to compensate the steering to correct that and keep me going straight. So basically I have to chase the steering due to the design I chose. I had no clue when I made the vehicle. It was my first attempt and that is what it wound up being. Since I don't drive it on the highway, it isn't a problem. I feel no problems with the rear on the road.

The design seems to be holding up so far. Obviously any design can always be improved. What you see on mine was my first attempt a few years ago. It has held up well and the only change has been swapping out the bushings for heims. I have ran the heims now for 2 years (roughly) and they have that typical slop that I see on these things.

Now, I couldn't find a new picture of the suspension with heim joints. The closest I could find was this. Maybe it can be blown up to see how I did the heim attachment. Hope that helps some.
http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/images2/1408.jpg

Ok just to let every body know im going to be doing this style suspention with my 4 runner soon. Ive already got the stock radius arm bushings so im gonna try then first and if i start ripping them up i will try some jonny joints (trying to minimise the clanking) and i will be running 1/4 springs. I will keep every one updated. btw sam any thing else you would do?

Originally posted by spencurai
I am convinced that there are no more original designs anymore....only original reconfigurations of existing ideas!!


I honestly dont think alot of suspension ideas that are going over this board are very new, probabally about 50 years old. Its all about reinventing the wheel. IMHO web wheeling is dieing fast.. and its a very good itme to hit the trail.

Garrett

If your at tech in tomorrow for CalROCS in barstow you can check out my set up(I stole the Idea from Sam):D I use leaf spring bushings at the wide end of the V and a hiem with high mis allignment spacers at the point. Off to bed, long drive tomaarow:)

You ever notice that none of the successful top competitors run the opposing "V" setup?

has anyone actually run a johnny joint at the single end if the V? side load on a johny joint which is held together by a Cclip in a groove?:eek: i thought about it and bought the biggest heim i could find...

What size hiem did you get?

Just curious.

I just picked up a 1 1/4 inch one

Originally posted by VooDoo
If your at tech in tomorrow for CalROCS in barstow you can check out my set up(I stole the Idea from Sam):D I use leaf spring bushings at the wide end of the V and a hiem with high mis allignment spacers at the point. Off to bed, long drive tomaarow:)


what size heim do you run and whats your vehicle weight?

BAM! deja vu:D:D

i got a 1 1/4", did you get any misalignment spacers for yours??

Heres what I got.
http://thisdysfunctional.org/rocktoad/CJ7/Rodend1.jpg

Heat treated Chromoly everything you see for $65 bucks
It was a free upgrade because they were out of the one I could afford

Are you mounting yours horizontal or vertical?

im mounting mine horizontally(bolt thru heim is vertical), i thought that the side loads would be greater supported with the carrier portion of the heim supporting them--does that make sense? i need a set of those misalignments spacers, where did you get them? i have the same heim--no spacers...:(

I'm mounting mine with the bolt horizontal for now.
My housing was given to me setup like that.
I might as well try it.

My desert racing buddy picked it up from Camburg Engineering down south for me.
I guess he's buddies with the guys down their.

Originally posted by Lance
You ever notice that none of the successful top competitors run the opposing "V" setup?

lance didn't terry win calrocs:flipoff2:

Originally posted by Lance
You ever notice that none of the successful top competitors run the opposing "V" setup?
I'm guessing you saying more than just, "Because the top guys didn't run it, it's no good." (baring Mike's question) So, what exactly are you saying. Other than the obvious repair/disability limitations, is there an inherent problem? I'm leaning ever more toward linking my rear suspension, but all these options and the traid-offs still have my head spinning... I'm leaning toward the double split wishbone (opposed 4 link) or maybe even 3 link wristed or 5 link parallel, or... ;) , but I don't see a functional problem with this...

Eh, that's not an opposing "V", that's a wishbone upper with parallel lowers.

Originally posted by Lance
You ever notice that none of the successful top competitors run the opposing "V" setup?

Actually, I have noticed that....most run triangulated uppers/parallel lowers, and have some great success. I'm sure there are exceptions.

Would be interesting to have a DRIVER skill test....line up 10 different rigs and one good driver on a couple tough obstacles, and see how that driver works those different rigs successfully (or not) Might prove/disprove the suspension design discussions and lay it on driver skill/experience instead.

Originally posted by woody

Would be interesting to have a DRIVER skill test....line up 10 different rigs and one good driver on a couple tough obstacles, and see how that driver works those different rigs successfully (or not) Might prove/disprove the suspension design discussions and lay it on driver skill/experience instead.
I don't think that would work very well, too many variables; weight (total, proportional, sprung/unsprung), tires, CG, AS/S ratios, etc. Also, part of a "good driver" is being familiar with their setup and tweaking their setup for their preference/style...

I built a double V set up last year. The main difference was I built the upper V with common leaf spring bushings at the frame (inside) and a horizontal leaf spring bushing at the diff, about 4 inches above the pot. The lower V went from the axle tubes and mounted to the upper V about half way to the frame with another horizontal bushing. As long as the two mounting points line up (consentric) everything hanging from the top swingarm can pivot with NO binding. The swing arm also has free up and down movement with NO binding. It is some thing like a ujoint. The reason for this setup was to get the max wheel articulation with regular leafspring bushings (I'm a cheap bastard). It works the same as the green Willies but sould never wear out the bushings beacause there is no place for it to bind. There are some pics somewhere on the sierrarockcrawlers site that someone posted last summer. Oh ya TONS of anti-squat but very good for climbing.

The double wishbone has no advantage over the James Link. Your geometry is controlled by trying to keep it from binding instead of anti squat and or pinion angle.

Ok, this is my experience i run 3 link suspension with upper wishbone and parallel lowers, i`m tested 3 times in rocks and at the time i can`t figure out problemas with antisquat,

time to time i remember my sping`s with revolver`s

After reading a lot, lot lot of argue i realase tahat if you gonna work a link suspension first you gonna see a lot of junk setup selling you the idea if the best and second listen a lot of crap,

just get it "the best for me isn`t for you or someone else"


her`s a picture of one of the setup failures
http://www.twistedandes.com/imagenes/pirata4x4/barradoblada.JPG[/IMG]

What is a "James Link"? I've never heard that, and search didn't show much except for references to "James Duff" on bronco stuff. But nothing specifically called a "James link" that I could find. Wristed radius arms with track bar?

Originally posted by Lance
You ever notice that none of the successful top competitors run the opposing "V" setup?

Yes, the roll center is too low. It makes the rig "floppy"

http://www.sierrarockcrawlers.com/images2/w0039.jpg

Notice how the body has rotated way off the axle centerline.
You could flop that thing on a flat dirt road. The roll axis is at the center of the diff. regular 3 links have the same problem.

Originally posted by BadDog
What is a "James Link"? I've never heard that, and search didn't show much except for references to "James Duff" on bronco stuff. But nothing specifically called a "James link" that I could find. Wristed radius arms with track bar?

As in John "Desert Toy" James

Originally posted by zags

Yes, the roll center is too low. It makes the rig "floppy"
<snip>
Notice how the body has rotated way off the axle centerline.
You could flop that thing on a flat dirt road. The roll axis is at the center of the diff. regular 3 links have the same problem.
Yes, I noticed that. But, isn't that just an artifact of the implementation rather than a basic flaw with the double wishbone? Hmmm, I guess since you can't make them arbitrarily long (and higher), and you can't separate the ends to extend the intersection point, maybe it is a limitation/flaw that can not be corrected without "splitting the wishbone". Wish I had more time to study and think about this. That’s, why I usually just lurk on these link threads trying to learn, right now I'm only beginning to get a glimmer of a clue... Luckily I’m not planning on linking the rear of my POS any time soon…

Originally posted by Air Bag
As in John "Desert Toy" James Which makes *THIS* the James link, since its a pic I saved of desrtoys ass... er... rear suspension.
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/por_pics/desertoy%20link.jpg

Originally posted by BadDog

Yes, I noticed that. But, isn't that just an artifact of the implementation rather than a basic flaw with the double wishbone

Yes and no. When a three link is used in a car or stock Land Rover, the the height of the body in relation to the attachment point (the tip of the "A" or"V") on the diff. makes for a pretty decent roll center. On a lifted rig, that roll center stays the same, but the C/G of the vehicle is much higher causing the body to pitch to the side instead of just rotating in place. because of the
single point of roataion, it always forces the body to roll around that point.

After building several suspension models while planning my buggy, I found the "James Link" to have the best combination of decent roll center (roughly a point at the chassis between the upper and lower link attachment points) and reduced rear steer during articulation.

just for clarification, what are you refering to as a 3 link zags ... two trailing arms and a panhard rod ? much like the front end of an early bronco, especially one with a wristed arm.

- jack

Originally posted by morpheus
just for clarification, what are you refering to as a 3 link zags ... two trailing arms and a panhard rod ? much like the front end of an early bronco, especially one with a wristed arm.

- jack

No. What I am refering to is two lower links with a single upper upper "A" shaped link at the top of the diff.

OK change of plans already, im gonna be running jonny joints mounted with the bolt hole vertical instead of radius arm bushings.

Originally posted by zags
No. What I am refering to is two lower links with a single upper upper "A" shaped link at the top of the diff.
The standard 3 link looks pretty much like this, Jack:
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/dan/DCP02311.JPG

Originally posted by TNToy
Which makes *THIS* the James link, since its a pic I saved of desrtoys ass... er... rear suspension.
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/por_pics/desertoy%20link.jpg

What would happen if the direction of the V's were reveresed? .....Bottom links converged at the bottom of the pumpkin and the top links converged at the transfer case?

Would this lessen the tendency to flop? ...cause the axle to swing towards the low side?

Well, flipper, the picture you used of Desrtoys rig doesn't have a tendency to flop, so there's not much point in "fixing" it. ;)

Zags remarks were about the first picture in this thread. That's the one he mentioned the roll-center problem for.

Originally posted by Flipper


What would happen if the direction of the V's were reveresed? .....Bottom links converged at the bottom of the pumpkin and the top links converged at the transfer case?

Would this lessen the tendency to flop? ...cause the axle to swing towards the low side?

I used to think that too, but no. That would put the roll axis way too low, and the rig would flop like no other. All the weight of the rig would be wanting to make the rig tip over. Only the springs would being holding it up. You want the roll axis as high as possible, tha way you have some of the rigs weight below the roll axis. That weight will help keep the rig leal, just a little bit. Make any sense.

Originally posted by Air Bag


As in John "Desert Toy" James

Wow! This guy has his own suspension design named after him?:confused:

(Which seems odd since it was that Calpoly guy in the "God of Suspension" post who told him how to design it)






...and yes, I do remember everything!:flipoff2:

what benefits do you achieve with the lowers converging under the Tcase output besides cancelling rear steer in this arrangement? do they necesarily need to end up that close to the Tcase(for and aft)? or could they be closer to the axle (shorter)but now quite as inboarded and have the same affect?

i have mine setup very similar to desertoys, except the uppers are replaced with a wishbone and is ~32", the lowers are ~37" and dont end up so close to the Tcase, but follow the angle of the driveshaft(nearly parallel)(my driveshaft is like 47")...they currently dont inboard nearly as much as deserrtoys, but would nearly if they were as long....

its all mocked up right now about half done.....

That´s a nice picture of my rig TNToy. Mine and John´s rear ends are very similar. It works great. Bryan.

what about putting some tack welds on the snap ring to keep it in place?

Originally posted by TNToy
Which makes *THIS* the James link, since its a pic I saved of desrtoys ass... er... rear suspension.
http://home.off-road.com/~mithrandir/por_pics/desertoy%20link.jpg


but that's not d-toy's rig ;) he don't run boggers :flipoff2:

sorry dsi but your a few hours late and a dollar short, look a few posts up

Originally posted by Scout Dude


Wow! This guy has his own suspension design named after him?:confused:

(Which seems odd since it was that Calpoly guy in the "God of Suspension" post who told him how to design it)






...and yes, I do remember everything!:flipoff2:


Its not the idea but the implementation that counts.

Wishbone upper, triangulated lowers

http://www.sn-fab.com/projects/Brett/roundy045.JPG

http://www.sn-fab.com/projects/Brett/roundy009.JPG

Originally posted by Monkeyboy
What size hiem did you get?

Just curious.

I just picked up a 1 1/4 inch one
I just got back from Cougar buttes the rear susp worked perfect. I was very impressed. I'm only using 3/4" hiem joints on the ends of my double wish bone set up. Iwaws concerned about strength too so I brought spares, but I flogged it and no breakage. my rig weighed 2700# last time I weighed it, but it is probably about 2900# now. 5 broken front D44 axles and a broken sector shaft were my problems. I guess it's time for warns and CTM's:D

:eek: HOLY SEVERE ANTI-SQAT BATMAN!:eek:

Better weld those limiter strap tabs on now while you are under there.

http://www.sn-fab.com/projects/Brett/roundy045.JPG

:laughing: Larry, think he should take a trip over to Paytoee's thread while he's logged in?

Main reason I posted: Is there *anything* to be gained by triangulating the lowers in a 3-link like beast40 has done? I suppose it's to take some of the load off of the upper winshbone... but... why?

It seems (stumbling in the dark here) like that would create more rear-steer than having the links long and straight. :confused:

Originally posted by Scout Dude


Wow! This guy has his own suspension design named after him?:confused:

(Which seems odd since it was that Calpoly guy in the "God of Suspension" post who told him how to design it)


...and yes, I do remember everything!:flipoff2:

oh CHIT.......... I was reading this thread and thinking to myself............ the James link???????? Excellent call Scout. I guess you can go ahead and call it the Cal Poly Pud Link...... or Pud Link...or whatever.

Originally posted by zags
:eek: HOLY SEVERE ANTI-SQAT BATMAN!:eek:

Better weld those limiter strap tabs on now while you are under there.

http://www.sn-fab.com/projects/Brett/roundy045.JPG

it seems the links mount together at the frame toooo close together...

ive worked mine down to a 45" lowers angled in from 32" spread at the poly bushing axle mount to 5-6" at the 7/8" heim frame mount. the upper is a wishbone 32" long and verticle seperation is 5" at the poly bushing frame mount(when compared to the mounting point of the lowers which is a foot farther forward on the frame) and mounted slightly inboard of the top of the frame which is 37" wide(i would suspect this to make the wishbone spread ~32"). my lowers are mounted just below axle centerline and the upper is sitting on a 1 1/4" heim, 10" above...


can i get some feedback before i burn this in permanently from others, ive studied this until my head aches and spent hours in the search archives.....

Originally posted by TNToy
:laughing: Larry, think he should take a trip over to Paytoee's thread while he's logged in?

Main reason I posted: Is there *anything* to be gained by triangulating the lowers in a 3-link like beast40 has done? I suppose it's to take some of the load off of the upper winshbone... but... why?

It seems (stumbling in the dark here) like that would create more rear-steer than having the links long and straight. :confused:

It would reduce rear steer and add to the side load on the three link some. Three links just suck all the way around for lifted rigs. Besides what has been discussed, Imagine what happens when that single, highly stressed joint on the top of the diff breaks. I have seen someone drive into camp with a 4 link arm dragging along behind him. He didn't even know it was broken.

OK, I am looking at this pic that has been posted a few times and can say from the view shown I can not see this huge amount of anti-squat you fruits are are talking about. Anyone care to post a side view pic of this rig and explain futher.........................

seems that these same fools post continuously about anti squat but do not have a clue WTF it means.
pot brownie voodoo engineering

Originally posted by mj
seems that these same fools post continuously about anti squat but do not have a clue WTF it means.
pot brownie voodoo engineering
you fall into my genereic sig category, welcome jackass....

Originally posted by Booger Weldz

you fall into my genereic sig category, welcome jackass....

Look at the dudes member#...................... Who's the newbie now?

Originally posted by PIG


Look at the dudes member#...................... Who's the newbie now?

sorry, was drinkin, i guess it did sound kinda rude...but what the fawk does a member number have to do with anything?? im number 117 on the crossdressing board:flipoff2:, but i dont rattle off about "the same fools" with no tech in the silk crotchless panties forum....:D

besides, im more interested in the pot brownies he referred to...

back to techtalk.

Notice how the body has rotated way off the axle centerline.
You could flop that thing on a flat dirt road. The roll axis is at the center of the diff. regular 3 links have the same problem.

Leaf sprung rigs have a roll axis in a similar location depending on springover or under.

The general formula for steady state roll angle includes spring rate/spacing, center of mass/mass, roll center and forces acting on the center of mass so more things are going on than just the roll center location.

Having a low roll center in the rear can cause some really funky roll moments in cornering, and in this case (and all with the roll axis fixed at the housing) the roll moment increases and decreases thoughout suspension travel.

Ken

I think I see big anti squat in the pics with the tera 60R. It *appears* (what a fawking pussy word to use!) that the upper links are in the same planes fore / aft and up / down. And the arms don't *appear* to be very long.

There's my AS BS.
Ken

I keep reading about these hypothetical 3 link failures but as of yet haven't seen a pic or first hand testimony about such a problem. So if you guys gave any facts lets hear about it and if you got specs on the failures lets hear that too:eek:

There's a pic of my rig on pg.3 of the CalRocs photos thread(it's the yellow one). kinda hard to really see the links well, but the rear susp caused no problems all weekend. We broke the front end on each coarse we didn't finish. I'm not a susp engineer, but I did learn alot about it from this board, especially PIG and elf cruiser. thanks

elf cruiser. thanks

You're welcome man! Good to know I helped someone a little. I just started my 4 link, look for pics in another thread. It's going good so far. We'll see if what I've learned here can be applied well in the real world...

Originally posted by VooDoo
I'm not a susp engineer, but I did learn alot about it from this board, especially PIG and elf cruiser. thanks

I am also happy to see someone learning from this jumble here on the PBB. Oh yeah Elfy................... suck'em:flipoff2:

Originally posted by zags
I have seen someone drive into camp with a 4 link arm dragging along behind him. He didn't even know it was broken. That settles it. I'm going triangulated 4-link. :D

Slightly off topic but not really so here goes. What about those of us using off centered diffs or t-cases? How much triangulation is needed to have an effect on decreasing rear steer? Personally I like the wishbone 3 link cause it centers the axle more solidly for lateral movement. However I am not really able to triangulate the lowers more than just a litte due to the fact that I am running an off centered t-case. Any other ideas I haven't heard about?

Slightly off topic but not really so here goes. What about those of us using off centered diffs or t-cases? How much triangulation is needed to have an effect on decreasing rear steer? Personally I like the wishbone 3 link cause it centers the axle more solidly for lateral movement. However I am not really able to triangulate the lowers more than just a litte due to the fact that I am running an off-centered t-case. Any other ideas I haven't heard about? I also like the parallel or nearly parallel lowers because it takes the front to back movement of the axle ends better than would a triangulated lowers set up. Less stress on everything, mounts, bushings etc.. Why is it that people are setting up the lowers and uppers to converge on the same plane at the chassi? Seems to me that the lowers would thus be at a steeper angle and cause the pinion to roll downward upon compression. Anyone experience this effect? Also seems to be this craze to get the links flat but I've never had my links flat and never experienced crazy anti squat or way off roll center effects. I guess my .02 is that you have a really fawked up design to have it behave badly on the trail or street.