Well I taught myself AutoCAD the past 3 days and have done a bit of designing on my 4 link setup, not sure if I will run coilovers or regular coil springs yet but here is what my link design looks like so far. The upper links RED are 27.5" long and the lowers are 38.81" long. Triangulation above the diff is 50*

Thanks

another

last

Thats going to take some serious exhaust work.

I personally like the satchell link better myself(The one I recommended in your other thread), as it makes for a higher roll center, and lessens axle torque induced body lean.

Sean

Hmmmm, lots of squat and rear steer, is that what you were shooting for?

Originally posted by TPIJeep
NO! Please enlighten me why! :D

As it articulates, the one of the straight links will go up, getting "longer" and the other goes down getting "shorter" - walla bing, rear steer.

When torque is applied to the axle, the pinion will want to rise (rotate back), pulling back on the top links, and pushing forward on the bottom ones. The resulting leverage action is squating.

why not also triangulate the lowers to a crossmember like you made to mount your traction bar to? The bars would obviously converge at the crossmember

Originally posted by Toyman
As it articulates, the one of the straight links will go up, getting "longer" and the other goes down getting "shorter" - walla bing, rear steer.
When torque is applied to the axle, the pinion will want to rise (rotate back), pulling back on the top links, and pushing forward on the bottom ones. The resulting leverage action is squating.

all this crap I have read about link placement and rear steer, squat, anti squat...blah blah blah......And in two paragraphs you explain it all and I actually get it?? :eek: what is this world coming to.

Thanks man!

Milliken's Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560915269/qid=1036628049/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8798121-5702534?v=glance&s=books)

... the bible. It will answer all of your questions about live axle suspension design and then some.

Rather than forking over the $100 for your own copy, have your local library pull a copy in for you and photocopy the pages pertaining to the issue at hand.

Milliken's book is THE definitive answer when it comes to answering questions such as "what is anti-squat, why do I want it, and how much."

While there are some dudes on this board that know what they're talking about when it comes to suspension design, there are far more that don't know jack about the engineering behind a good suspension. Those that don't know jack do little more than try to baffle the idiotic masses with their bullshit ... for the sake of gaining recognition.

cm "wreck-og-nize beatch" k

Originally posted by Toyman

When torque is applied to the axle, the pinion will want to rise (rotate back), pulling back on the top links, and pushing forward on the bottom ones. The resulting leverage action is squating.

Can I get an example of a 4-link that doesn't do this?:confused:

Okay, I understand what squat, anti-squat and rear steer is, but the solutions to minimize it or get it where you want it puzzles me, just did some editing what will this do for me..

Thanks

Originally posted by mudtruck44
Can I get an example of a 4-link that doesn't do this?:confused:

http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060441.JPG
http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060443.JPG
http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060445.JPG

by moving the lower links above the housing, you'll get less anti-squat, which is good, but it'll put more stress on the links cause the uppers and lowers are closer together on the axle. Move the uppers up the same distance you moved the lowers, and it should be good. If you can make the lowers any longer, i would do that too. Also, a hefty limiting strap over the diff is a good idea for hill climbs. And because of the difference in length your pinion will rotate quite a bit if the axle droops straight out.

I think you'll be reasonably happy with that setup. There's no way to get it perfect without going full tube chassis. Just not enough room.

I'd say leave the axle attatching point for the upper links alone... move the lower link down to the center of the axle- also move them closer together(the bottom ones). I'd also lengthen the top links to as close to the same length as the bottom ones as possible maybe attatch them above the bottom links, but higher up... or on top of the frame if possible. I dont know if you can pucture what I'm saying.. sorta like this l/\l......

Originally posted by Toyman


As it articulates, the one of the straight links will go up, getting "longer" and the other goes down getting "shorter" - walla bing, rear steer.

When torque is applied to the axle, the pinion will want to rise (rotate back), pulling back on the top links, and pushing forward on the bottom ones. The resulting leverage action is squating.

Will that set up rear steer? YES, but not exactly for that reason. Draw out the roll axis for this set up. Roll axis is a function of link placement, not so much link length. Also, read up on squat.

Originally posted by GloNDark


all this crap I have read about link placement and rear steer, squat, anti squat...blah blah blah......And in two paragraphs you explain it all and I actually get it?? :eek: what is this world coming to.

Thanks man!

Its NOT that simple.

Originally posted by cmk
Milliken's Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560915269/qid=1036628049/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8798121-5702534?v=glance&s=books)

... the bible. It will answer all of your questions about live axle suspension design and then some.

Rather than forking over the $100 for your own copy, have your local library pull a copy in for you and photocopy the pages pertaining to the issue at hand.

Milliken's book is THE definitive answer when it comes to answering questions such as "what is anti-squat, why do I want it, and how much."

While there are some dudes on this board that know what they're talking about when it comes to suspension design, there are far more that don't know jack about the engineering behind a good suspension. Those that don't know jack do little more than try to baffle the idiotic masses with their bullshit ... for the sake of gaining recognition.

cm "wreck-og-nize beatch" k

EXACTLY. Ha..............dude you crack me up CM"jigga what?"K

Originally posted by Toyman


http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060441.JPG
http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060443.JPG
http://www.offroadsearch.com/gecko/PB060445.JPG


damn that suspension looks familiar :D and damn does it kick ass :D

Originally posted by PIG
Its NOT that simple. Well then, PIGster - can you tell us what you think of the way that ToyMan (and methinks I saw something similar on DSI's forthcoming bathtub-buggy) four-link will perform? I'd not seen mention of mounting all four links to the frame on the same plane before reading DSI's thread in the sammy section, and I'm kinda curious as to how it works. DSI was convinced it will work well, and he seemed to be talking from experience, so I shut up :D. I would like to hear more on this particular design - from pig, toyman, or dsi. (These are from DSI's zuk thread):
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=965893
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=965893

I searched away and couldn't find the older thread where he had a pic of the rear link mounts at the frame-end - but they were all in the same poisition as viewed from the side. (i.e. you could have run a long bolt between the two frame rails, and through the eye of all four link's heim joints)

I'm just asking this because:
1. If it works well, it seems like a very simple way to take the guesswork out of where to mount the links. Jus put 'em all on the same cross member.
2. I have no clue how to start calculating the anti-squat and such for this style, and
3. I'm a curious fawker. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by TNToy
Well then, PIGster - can you tell us what you think of the way that ToyMan (and methinks I saw something similar on DSI's forthcoming bathtub-buggy) four-link will perform? I'd not seen mention of mounting all four links to the frame on the same plane before reading DSI's thread in the sammy section, and I'm kinda curious as to how it works. DSI was convinced it will work well, and he seemed to be talking from experience, so I shut up :D. I would like to hear more on this particular design - from pig, toyman, or dsi. (These are from DSI's zuk thread):
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=965893
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=965893

I searched away and couldn't find the older thread where he had a pic of the rear link mounts at the frame-end - but they were all in the same poisition as viewed from the side. (i.e. you could have run a long bolt between the two frame rails, and through the eye of all four link's heim joints)

I'm just asking this because:
1. If it works well, it seems like a very simple way to take the guesswork out of where to mount the links. Jus put 'em all on the same cross member.
2. I have no clue how to start calculating the anti-squat and such for this style, and
3. I'm a curious fawker. :flipoff2:

Ok FAWKers. If it works for you and you are happy with it, by all means run it. With that said, I was just responding to the inaccurate statements posted on this thread concerning geometry etc... As far as commenting on other suspensions show me some pics. I would also like to add one thing here. If you guys want to take a look at one of the most correct suspension 4 link set ups I have seen on this site do a search for MetalMenders rig. This dude DID his homework. Here is the LINK (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55102&highlight=project)

Its funny to see this same argument over and over again. The parallel verses converging links with all the expert opinions that go along with it.

In my mind I see the pics above with the converging links and think what an absolutely POS setup to be running and I imagine what that sort of setup would do on a climb when you use a bit of throttle (and maybe get a bit of wheelspin).

Heres a list (all just my opinion) of what these convergent link designs (like in the pics above) will do for you (compared to one that has parallel links).

-You will drag race better on flat ground (better launch)

-You will drive up easy loose hills easier (lots of anti squat drives the rear wheel into the ground when it finds a bit of traction and thus gives more traction)

-Your rear suspension will oscillate more on loose climbs (you know, it will seemingly cycle up and down smoothly for no apparent reason at all)

-It will hop like a bastard in the rocks when you are fighting for traction - you know, the bounce, bounce, bounce and you back off cause you know are going to break some shiat (instead of just spinning the wheels and smoking them up as you keep the throttle planted)

-You will lift a front wheel easily when climbing more vertical stuff and one rear wheel drops into a hole

-A rear wheel will walk under the chassis when it drops into that same hole

-You will tip over backwards more easily when trying to drive really vertical ledges and stuff.

-You will tip over sideways more easily on the uphill off camber stuff cause the uphill extended rear wheel tries to push the rig over (cause it leavers up on the chassis)

This is just a quick list of stuff that I reckon will happen with convergent links and im sure i could go on.

Now I can explain everyone of these points in terms of the effects of torque being applied to the rear axle and its lift on the chassis (this is what I believe anti-squat does).

Now can anybody explain to me that convergent links wont cause any of these things cause I would love to here it. No hand waving, no BS, no "I got this setup and it works great", no nothing. Just explain to me why Im wrong.

C'mon I want to hear it :flipoff2:

Sam

EDIT: I have never read any book on suspension or vehicle dynamics so I could be totally wrong on this stuff. But i dont think so.

Ok Rovy, You didn't feel the need to post any actual facts so why should we, but based on your spewing of opinions this setup should work pretty poorly especially on hill climbs:
http://www.superford.org/registry/users/146/103/shupe_rear.jpg
That happens to be Ken Shupe's ass end and that thing climbs like a monkey. I'll let some of these smart guys rebuttal a little better than I would:flipoff2:




Originally posted by Strange Rover
Its funny to see this same argument over and over again. The parallel verses converging links with all the expert opinions that go along with it.

In my mind I see the pics above with the converging links and think what an absolutely POS setup to be running and I imagine what that sort of setup would do on a climb when you use a bit of throttle (and maybe get a bit of wheelspin).

Heres a list (all just my opinion) of what these convergent link designs (like in the pics above) will do for you (compared to one that has parallel links).

-You will drag race better on flat ground (better launch)

-You will drive up easy loose hills easier (lots of anti squat drives the rear wheel into the ground when it finds a bit of traction and thus gives more traction)

-Your rear suspension will oscillate more on loose climbs (you know, it will seemingly cycle up and down smoothly for no apparent reason at all)

-It will hop like a bastard in the rocks when you are fighting for traction - you know, the bounce, bounce, bounce and you back off cause you know are going to break some shiat (instead of just spinning the wheels and smoking them up as you keep the throttle planted)

-You will lift a front wheel easily when climbing more vertical stuff and one rear wheel drops into a hole

-A rear wheel will walk under the chassis when it drops into that same hole

-You will tip over backwards more easily when trying to drive really vertical ledges and stuff.

-You will tip over sideways more easily on the uphill off camber stuff cause the uphill extended rear wheel tries to push the rig over (cause it leavers up on the chassis)

This is just a quick list of stuff that I reckon will happen with convergent links and im sure i could go on.

Now I can explain everyone of these points in terms of the effects of torque being applied to the rear axle and its lift on the chassis (this is what I believe anti-squat does).

Now can anybody explain to me that convergent links wont cause any of these things cause I would love to here it. No hand waving, no BS, no "I got this setup and it works great", no nothing. Just explain to me why Im wrong.

C'mon I want to hear it

Sam

EDIT: I have never read any book on suspension or vehicle dynamics so I could be totally wrong on this stuff. But i dont think so. :flipoff2:

OK- so it's been a few yrs since racking my brain on some of these engineering principles.

My comp Jeep works pretty well, the geometry, off the cuff, is a lot like Shupee's, similar length arms, angles, mounts on axles and frame. I'm really happy with the overall performance, despite any perceived compromises in the design. Theories may dictate some weaknesses, experience has not shown them, at least not enough to notice as a hindrance.

So I'm going to mess with it, even though it's working well...

Volvo Portals are going in, which have roughly a 4.5" drop from the axle shaft to the wheel shaft. If I mount the axle very similar to my 60 in geometry, ignoring the drop in my portal reduction boxes, what affect does this have on handling? I've got some thoughts on it but i don't want to lead anyone.

In reality, the housing will be mounted higher in the chassis by about the same 4.5" as i don't want to alter ride height- I may even lower ride height an inch or two in the process. As a result, my lower arms will be approaching horizontal and my upper splayed arms will run at a down angle towards the chassis mounts- again, what can I expect in handling changes? I realize this will improve on rear steer which has been quite manageable anyway, what else...?

Team Purple?? you've got direct experience here.

http://www.superford.org/registry/users/146/103/shupe_rear.jpg
That happens to be Ken Shupe's ass end and that thing climbs like a monkey. I'll let some of these smart guys rebuttal a little better than I would:flipoff2:



Can someone explain to me what that heim joint in the lower right hand side of the pic is for? It looks like it is attached to a link going straight up.

Originally posted by bad booger
Can someone explain to me what that heim joint in the lower right hand side of the pic is for? It looks like it is attached to a link going straight up.

Shupee's so cool he doesn't need to disco his swaybars.

cmk

sway bar, its another $$$ item you use after you blow your $$$$ on coilovers to get them to behave in off camber situations. Just another "advantage" to going coilover on a rock buggy.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by bad booger
[IMG]
Can someone explain to me what that heim joint in the lower right hand side of the pic is for? It looks like it is attached to a link going straight up.
I would say that is the Currie Antirock....

Originally posted by PIG

If you guys want to take a look at one of the most correct suspension 4 link set ups I have seen on this site do a search for MetalMenders rig. This dude DID his homework. Here is the LINK (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55102&highlight=project)

hey PIG, i looked at the pics of metalmenders setup, looks good. One question I do have is that I thought I read it caused other problems by having a small vertical seperation between your upper and lower mounting points on the axle ? somebody explain this please, i'm trying to get a handle on all this, so, I could be way off ...

- jack

I may be wrong, and I'm definitely not trying to pee in anybody's cherios, but I will try to provide what I think is the answer on Shupee's rig and mix it with what strange said. I'm not Shupee, so I can't speak for him, nor am I trying to.

Originally posted by Strange Rover
-You will drive up easy loose hills easier (lots of anti squat drives the rear wheel into the ground when it finds a bit of traction and thus gives more traction)

-A rear wheel will walk under the chassis when it drops into that same hole



Since Shupee's rig is for comp, he can throw away a lot of other parameters and just go for the basics. I'm guessing the thing he wants most is lots of traction. The best way to plant the rear wheels is to make the links like he did to get plenty of antisquat. This works well on flat surfaces, but aim it up a hill and funny things happen. (like what strange listed)

So to work around it he puts a short limit strap on it in the center, this keeps the axle from trying to get under the rig but still allows for articulation. The tires get plenty of planting power but it is under control. Take the limit strap off and the anti-rock bars and the thing would not work as effectively.

Originally posted by PIG


Its NOT that simple.

Never said it was, but I never could put my simple leaf sprung mind around what squat and anti squat were. I finally see the light, and you know what?? I am sticking with my simple leafs springs. :D

Originally posted by bigjeepinYJ

I would say that is the Currie Antirock....


So...........whats a currie antirock? Don't burn me too hard I just woke up.

the currie antirock is just a fancy swaybar.....

In regards to this debate that has gone on and on way too many times here with out a real answer....
sure, the converging links work great in comp. rigs w/ a short little limiting strap to the axle, because all the anti-squat just pulls against the limit strap.

I'm real curious if anybody runs this converging link setup w/o the short limit strap. For pure rockracing, this style works great, but for a "real world" wheeler doing more than driving straight up rock faces, I think a different setup would work better, one that would also allow for some actual vertical axle travel as well as articulation. I can't imagine those converging links w/ limit strap can be anything but scary trying to go fast down a fire road...(for example)

Originally posted by Berne
In regards to this debate that has gone on and on way too many times here with out a real answer....
sure, the converging links work great in comp. rigs w/ a short little limiting strap to the axle, because all the anti-squat just pulls against the limit strap.

I'm real curious if anybody runs this converging link setup w/o the short limit strap. For pure rockracing, this style works great, but for a "real world" wheeler doing more than driving straight up rock faces, I think a different setup would work better, one that would also allow for some actual vertical axle travel as well as articulation. I can't imagine those converging links w/ limit strap can be anything but scary trying to go fast down a fire road...(for example)

OK, one more time. Link geometry is a function of link placement. It is quite possible to set up a "dual triangulated" linked suspension to have similar suspension functions (ie. squat, roll axis, etc.) as a single triangulated set up. Look HERE (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70358&highlight=antisquat)

AAAAHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused: :confused: :confused:

Okay, I can see that the guys who know are fed up with all the stupid questions. Link Suspensions are the only part of any 4wd that I am not fully schooled in, I am a planner and am not going to build this thing just to guess that it will work.

From what I had read before posting this thread was that you wanted a |V| setup with the links as parallel to the ground as possible.

I guess I really need to do more homework but damn all the threads seem to have conflicting ideas.

This is what I am building my suspension for, it is not a all out comp rig, the wife likes to ride with me on the rides so I want saftey if we decide to hop on the highway. We do alot of hill climbs with steps and rock gardens, I am choosing a link setup get a better ride, articulation and ease of extending the wheelbase, 3" rear, 7" up front.

What I hope to get from this suspension is:

Better off camber control
Better traction and less wheelhop
More stable feel in turns
Due to the axle relocation I will be able to lower the rig 2-3" for a lower COG

If anybody out there really wants to assist me with my design I would greatly appreciate it, I hate that this thread is turning into a pissing match.

Thanks guys, Yall really have me thinking now, I guess I will pull out the race car scales and find the true COG even though it will change when I lower my chassis.

:beer: :beer: :D

i guess im one of those guy's that are tired of all the 4 link geometry dicusions.

setting gometry aside: heres a tip for all the bootie fab back yard mechanics...

a great way for you to mock up your rear ends etc is to use wooden dowls and a chunk of exhaust tube. then you can make ether plywood or cardboard brackets to use as templates. this way you can mock things up with light weight parts that are cheep and easy to modify. you can even hog out the holes so that there is 10-15 degrees of misalighnment so you can flex things up and check for bind.

what a concept!:flipoff2:

i guess im one of those guy's that are tired of all the 4 link geometry dicusions.

setting gometry aside: heres a tip for all the bootie fab back yard mechanics...

a great way for you to mock up your rear ends etc is to use wooden dowls and a chunk of exhaust tube. then you can make ether plywood or cardboard brackets to use as templates. this way you can mock things up with light weight parts that are cheep and easy to modify. you can even hog out the holes so that there is 10-15 degrees of misalighnment so you can flex things up and check for bind.

what a concept!:flipoff2:

Originally posted by bad booger



So...........whats a currie antirock? Don't burn me too hard I just woke up.

Its a sway bar that works on the torsion bar principle.

by converging I meant the uppers and lowers, so the chassis mounting points are all along the same axis...ie...the common SNORT susp.


:flipoff2: :flipoff2:

Wasn't there another thread just like this a few weeks ago?

What came out of it was a list of things that work....

-Keep the links the same length, upper and lower
-Keep the mounting points the same distance apart on the axle and on the frame.
-Keep the angle on the arms down, level is best.
-Wishbone uppers work just fine
-double wishbone arms eliminate a lot of rear steer.
-really really long arms tend to get in the way.

That is what I remember...that is what I try and design.

Originally posted by nobody20


Its a sway bar that works on the torsion bar principle.

Thats how all sway bars work.

Originally posted by Berne
by converging I meant the uppers and lowers, so the chassis mounting points are all along the same axis...ie...the common SNORT susp.


:flipoff2: :flipoff2:


ummm, there's 2 SNORT members currently running that setup... toyman's buggy and the rear of neckster's willy's... so it's not quite the "common" setup ;)

Originally posted by Mieser
Wasn't there another thread just like this a few weeks ago?

What came out of it was a list of things that work....

-Keep the links the same length, upper and lower
-Keep the mounting points the same distance apart on the axle and on the frame.
-Keep the angle on the arms down, level is best.
-Wishbone uppers work just fine
-double wishbone arms eliminate a lot of rear steer.
-really really long arms tend to get in the way.

That is what I remember...that is what I try and design.

Agreed - but it does seem that a certain amount of anti squat may be useful and the threadrear suspension anti squat PERCENTAGE? (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70358&highlight=antisquat) did talk about this.

IMO minimising the amount of antisquat will at least keep the rig stable in most situations so that it will do the exact opposite to the list I wrote earlier. Most importantly it will be less likely to start to hop on high traction climbs and it will be less likely to fall over backwards on really steep stuff and it will be less likely to fall over sideways on off camber climbs. These things are all good in a rock crawler.

The only thing having the links converge achieves is it keeps the pinion pointed at the transfer case but IMO it totally stuffs up everything else and it isnt worth the compromise. Thats what uni joints are for.

Sam

Originally posted by JohnnyJ


Since Shupee's rig is for comp, he can throw away a lot of other parameters and just go for the basics. I'm guessing the thing he wants most is lots of traction. The best way to plant the rear wheels is to make the links like he did to get plenty of antisquat. This works well on flat surfaces, but aim it up a hill and funny things happen. (like what strange listed)

So to work around it he puts a short limit strap on it in the center, this keeps the axle from trying to get under the rig but still allows for articulation. The tires get plenty of planting power but it is under control. Take the limit strap off and the anti-rock bars and the thing would not work as effectively.

I think JohnnyJ nailed it on the head here as to why Shupee can run his converging links.

Sam

Originally posted by T1H5_TA3
i guess im one of those guy's that are tired of all the 4 link geometry dicusions.

setting gometry aside: heres a tip for all the bootie fab back yard mechanics...

a great way for you to mock up your rear ends etc is to use wooden dowls and a chunk of exhaust tube. then you can make ether plywood or cardboard brackets to use as templates. this way you can mock things up with light weight parts that are cheep and easy to modify. you can even hog out the holes so that there is 10-15 degrees of misalighnment so you can flex things up and check for bind.

what a concept!:flipoff2:

i used 2x4's and 1/2" conduit :flipoff2:

seriously

I think a good design to copy is the Warn XCL for a CJ-7. I have wheeled with the engineers that designed the kit and their rigs work well for all types of terrain. However, DO NOT use coilovers and mount them inboard of the frame. That allows way to much body roll and instability on steep climbs. What all the Warn guys are doing now is retrofitting the XCL kits with TJ 2" coils mounted to the frame just like a TJ. This gives much better stability. HTH

Originally posted by Strange Rover

The only thing having the links converge achieves is it keeps the pinion pointed at the transfer case but IMO it totally stuffs up everything else and it isnt worth the compromise. Thats what uni joints are for.

Sam

Try again buddy. It helps to define the roll axis.

The only thing having the links converge achieves is it keeps the pinion pointed at the transfer case :rolleyes: WTF?

Originally posted by PIG
Thats how all sway bars work.

Sick 'em PIG !

cm "beat me to it" k

P.S. Seriously now, all the fawkers that don't know 100% what they're talkng about need to shut the fawk up. I'm watching this thread turn into a bunch of mumbo jumbo just like all the rest. Get educated before you get outspoken.

Originally posted by PIG


Try again buddy. It helps to define the roll axis.

The only thing having the links converge achieves is it keeps the pinion pointed at the transfer case :rolleyes: WTF?

I mean the top and bottom links converging when looking from the side.

Sam

Originally posted by cmk


Sick 'em PIG !

cm "beat me to it" k

P.S. Seriously now, all the fawkers that don't know 100% what they're talkng about need to shut the fawk up. I'm watching this thread turn into a bunch of mumbo jumbo just like all the rest. Get educated before you get outspoken.

OK cm"beat me to it"k, how the hell do you tell who knows 100% and who doesent. If you think you know more than me then get off your high horse and tell me where Im wrong or quit your bloody whining.:crybaby2:

Sam

Lets get this thread back on course, I've been reading and did some redesigning. I double triangulated the links in a XX pattern, Tell me if I am heading in the right direction, can somebody also calculate my Anti-Squat percentage, I think all the figures are there. My upper links are red, lower blue, the aqua line is my roll axis.

Thanks guys, just trying to learn here..

Here is the other one with the Anti-squat numbers on it..

Originally posted by Strange Rover
OK cm"beat me to it"k, how the hell do you tell who knows 100% and who doesent. If you think you know more than me then get off your high horse and tell me where Im wrong or quit your bloody whining.:crybaby2:

Sam

It's late.

I have better things to drink than to waste my time writing a dignified response to this dribble.

Therefore, refer to my first post in this thread.

cm "bloody .... yeah, whatever" k

This is a little off the current topic but if the lower links are parallel, to figure out the roll axis, is it a line parrallel to the lower links (in the side view) that goes through the point where the upper triangulated links converge, or is it the line throug the point where the uppers converge through were the upper mount of the lower links are?

I tried to word that so it is easily undersandable. I checked through some other threads and i got half the answer but just need clarification.

Ian-

Originally posted by KrustyKruiser
This is a little off the current topic but if the lower links are parallel, to figure out the roll axis, is it a line parrallel to the lower links (in the side view) that goes through the point where the upper triangulated links converge, or is it the line throug the point where the uppers converge through were the upper mount of the lower links are?

I tried to word that so it is easily undersandable. I checked through some other threads and i got half the answer but just need clarification.

Ian-

parallel to the lower links, or vice versa if you lower links converge, it's parallel to the upper links.

Originally posted by convertiyota


parallel to the lower links, or vice versa if you lower links converge, it's parallel to the upper links.

No insult but that was the type of relpy i did not want. Can you use more words and explain exactly what you are saying?

Basicle what 2 points determine the line of the roll axis. The link setup in question is the typical triangulated uppers, and parallel lowers.

Ian-

Originally posted by Strange Rover


I mean the top and bottom links converging when looking from the side.

Sam

OK

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Here is the other one with the Anti-squat numbers on it..

OH my. I am happy to see this drawing. I sure wish everyone could do this. VERY NICE work TPI! I would guess that the anti-squat value is about 110%. To find this value take the COG plane height and use it to divide the intersection point between verticle plane the splits the center line of the front axle and the other line that goes throught the center line of the rear tire @ the ground. That will give you about 110%, if your drawing is correct. Take a look at moving the uppers @ the axle up a little more and spacing the lowers at the t-case a bit farther out. Take a look at the top view of the lowers. Try to make the IC point of the links as close to the CG point as possible. Overall, I am really impressed with your CAD SKILLz. Nice work man.

Originally posted by KrustyKruiser
This is a little off the current topic but if the lower links are parallel, to figure out the roll axis, is it a line parrallel to the lower links (in the side view) that goes through the point where the upper triangulated links converge, or is it the line throug the point where the uppers converge through were the upper mount of the lower links are?

I tried to word that so it is easily undersandable. I checked through some other threads and i got half the answer but just need clarification.

Ian-

Krusty, if the lowers are parallel the roll axis is a plane parallel to th lowers but that intersect the IC point of the (uppers @ the axle in the top view) in the side view. That came out a little funny, do you get it?

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Here is the other one with the Anti-squat numbers on it..

What I would be woried about with that setup is the shortness of the links (im guessing about 30in long). With the 110% or so of anti squat when driving up an incline the rear springs could very easily unload an inch or two (the softer the spring rate the worse it will unload). Now if you redo your diagram with the same links with an extra inch or two of lift your anti squat percentage will blow right out. Just looking at it quickly a 1in increase in sus height gives about a 10% increase in antisquat. This is why having long links is so important cause they dont change angle much as the rear springs unload and therefore it keeps the amount of antisquat you started with more constant on climbs.

I think that the lower links need to be a lot longer.

Sam

PIG,

Thanks for the comments, taught myself AutoCAD this monday :D My drawing has been off, fromt he get go I wanted to lower the chassis 2" but forgot to do it, I jus redrew the diagram with the chassis 2" lower and the lower mounts moved out on the crossmember..
What do you think?

My calculation is off, the Anti-Squat is in the 200% range.... duh!!!

Top view of the new diagram...

Out of curiosity, why are you using such short (relative to what I'm seeing a lot on the BB) links? Is there a space constraint you're working with? An if so, is it still the exhaust system? Just curious. :)

Originally posted by PIG


Krusty, if the lowers are parallel the roll axis is a plane parallel to th lowers but that intersect the IC point of the (uppers @ the axle in the top view) in the side view. That came out a little funny, do you get it?

I think i do now.
So here we go, if i wanted to look at the roll axis physicly, I could tie a string to the point where the uppers intercet eachother, or the bolt of the rod end on a wishbone 3 link(just using that as another example) And hold the string parallel to the lowers in the side (profile) view and In the top view all three lines(the string and lower links would be parallel, so since the lower links angle up the string would hit the bottom of the body tub at some point.
doesn't that make the angle of the upper links and there location on the frame have nothing to do with roll axis.
I hope thats right.

I love this stuff and just thought of another for you guys.
Is the cener of gravity a line point or plane. The way i was goin to find it is put jack stants under the frame with the spring tied up so they don't droop, and find the point where it rocks front to back easily. and then go strait up form that pioint to the center of the drivetrain. most likely will be in the front of the trany. So would it matter if the IC is above or below that point, but as long as it is in the same verticle plane it will still give me little anti squat right.

I did just print out the whole thread on finding anti squat % but have not really played with how different measurements affect the numbers.

LinK ON dudes.

Ian-

Just went over some stuff and put #s into TPIJEEPS bad ass cad diagrams, and it looks seems to me that if you keep the IC on the horizontal livne that is the CG, the further back you move it the lower the anti squat %. So is the higher the anti squat percent equal less anti squat. That does not make sense to me. But the further back you put the IC shouldn't that give you more antisquat.

Ian-

Originally posted by TNToy
Out of curiosity, why are you using such short (relative to what I'm seeing a lot on the BB) links? Is there a space constraint you're working with? An if so, is it still the exhaust system? Just curious. :)

Well the main reason for the shorter links is the transfer case, I am building the cross member right up to the back of it, I could get an extra 2" by building the cross out of 2x2 instead of 2x4. Once I get the design principles figured out I will see about moving the Atlas up and redesigning from there if need be. The links are currently equal length at 27.4. If the axle was moved back 2 inches also i would be in the 31.5 range is that better?

Originally posted by TPIJeep
PIG,

Thanks for the comments, taught myself AutoCAD this monday :D My drawing has been off, fromt he get go I wanted to lower the chassis 2" but forgot to do it, I jus redrew the diagram with the chassis 2" lower and the lower mounts moved out on the crossmember.. I am getting a 48% anti squat.

What do you think?

OK I have been sitting here studying for a Finance Midterm for about 12 hours more or less and taken a peek at this thread every few hours or so. All I have to say is where else can you have a disscussion like this over the net?............ NOWHERE this place is awesome! This will be my last look at this thrad for the night. TPI, you are the man. Try to seperate the side view convergence of the uppers and lowers. The pic you just showed shows over 200% anti-squat. Lets bring it down buddy.

Thanks PIG, thought I lost you there for a moment, my learning curve is sorta flat so thanks for hanging in there.

Okay lots redesign here, guess I am not doing the math right here on my anti squat but I get 118% on this one. Looks to me like raising the chassis 1" will make a world of difference. Tell me what ya think..

CAD is easy once you lock yourself in your office and beat the wife off with a stick and spend every waking moment drawing.. :D

top view, longer links this time

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Thanks PIG, thought I lost you there for a moment, my learning curve is sorta flat so thanks for hanging in there.

Okay lots redesign here, guess I am not doing the math right here on my anti squat but I get 118% on this one. Looks to me like raising the chassis 1" will make a world of difference. Tell me what ya think..

CAD is easy once you lock yourself in your office and beat the wife off with a stick and spend every waking moment drawing.. :D

OK, I have what you call a POR addiction. I tell myself no you can't look at POR right now but it just ends up happening. Your 118% looks/sounds about right from that drawing. Try moving the upper CA axle mount up a little bit now. I would say try and get 80% anti-squat. You are getting very close TPI. Keep hammering away. One thing though. If you plan on carrying a heavy load (ie. campping gear, etc.) take that into consideration as IT WILL change things (squat values & roll axis). Maybe you want more than 80%. I don't know what %age you had in mind here but IMO 80 is about right.

EDIT; I was just loking at the drawing again and moving the axle Upper ca mounts up will also make the roll axis even flatter.

EDIT: OK, I am looking at it some more. Along with moving the upper CA 's monts on the axle up a tad bit more, also move the lowers up a little on the axle tube. Not doing this will take you a step back where we were before with more anti-squat. There may be a point where you can't tweek it anymore without sacrificing anti-squat for roll axis values, but lets see.

EDIT: Last one I promise. You may want to try and bring the chassis LCA mount down just a hair also.

I carnt see any reason why you are triangulating the lower links. The roll axis is straight through the convergent point of the upper links and parallel to them. So if the lowers were running parallel to the chassis rails (and not converging), were much longer and were parallel with the uppers (when looking from the side) you would end up with a setup with a much more stable anti squat (from longer lower links) a lower level of anti squat (50% to 80% easily) and the exact same roll axis.

Sam

Originally posted by Strange Rover
I carnt see any reason why you are triangulating the lower links. The roll axis is straight through the convergent point of the upper links and parallel to them. So if the lowers were running parallel to the chassis rails (and not converging), were much longer and were parallel with the uppers (when looking from the side) you would end up with a setup with a much more stable anti squat (from longer lower links) a lower level of anti squat (50% to 80% easily) and the exact same roll axis.

Sam

Think about it. Durring wheel travel with the links parallel the roll axis is more suceptable (sp?) to change. Having the links triangulated helps keep the RA defined durring articulation in the same or close to same plane as it appears to be at static ride height.

Originally posted by PIG


Think about it. Durring wheel travel with the links parallel the roll axis is more suceptable (sp?) to change. Having the links triangulated helps keep the RA defined durring articulation in the same or close to same plane as it appears to be at static ride height.

Good point. Id never actually worked out why the double triangulated links was such a great setup. Do you really think that having a horizontal roll axis is such an important thing. Does it do more than just eliminate rear steer??

Sam

Good thread.

I know some of you are perfectionists with design but..... For a competition vehicle is there a large downfall to the short limitimg strap theory to control a large anti-squat percentage? (I don't see one and haven't heard anyone comment negative on it sice the subject was mentioned)

Okay, more changes all explained on the picture, I get 110% AS, not sure if the calculation is correct.

My concerns:

ISSUE 1: This is all based off of the Assumed Center of Gravity ( you know Assumed makes and Ass out of U and Me) so should I load the jeep up to ride specs and find the COG as it sits now?

ISSUE 2: How will this setup handle off camber and climbing situations? Don't want to flop over in a stupid place with the wife and little one on board.

ISSUE 3: Road Manners, will she behave?

The Jeep is 84" wide outside tires and will be 81" to the top of the windsheild. weighed in at 4600 few months ago.

Okay now here is the pic.... Pretty sad when you have to edit your CAD drawing with MS paint.. :D

P.S. Pig, hope you pass the test!

I get 111.2% AS, which will work well enough, But I think you can get it lower. In response to your other questions, YES you should find the ACTUAL COG, otherwise all this planning if for naught. I think it will be lower than where you have it now. SO the current link config might come in at more like 130% or so... have to find that COG to be accurate.

As far as sidehills go, don't worry, you have leafs up front to keep the rig predicatble, and with a roll axis that high and flat it shouldn't be too tippy if you run stiff enough springs. And, you can always add a swaybar later, if you feel it's necessary.

Road manners will be fine.

As for climbing, it's all about getting the IC as low as you can, and as far forwards as you can. I think the pics of SHupe's rig show what works well, but without that limiting strap, i don't think it would work nearly as well as it does.

Honestly, dude, what you've got will work well, but I know you want it perfect, so keep trying...

PIG - I agree that 80% AS is a good number to shoot for. Mine is like 300% right now, LOL, can you say "beachball"...

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
[B].

As far as sidehills go, don't worry, you have leafs up front to keep the rig predicatble, B]


I am going to run coilovers up front as well so I can move my front axle foward 6-7" :eek:

What does that change?

Ohhh, you're doin' the front too, huh?

Yeah, that changes quite a bit... are you running coils, or CO's??

if CO's, then the placement and spring rates have ALOT to do with how tippy it is...

stiffer springs and father out = more stable but less potential flex.

that will make the antisquat number rise! :eek: moving your front axle to gain 6" of wheelbase will move your POC along the white line. the value of POC will increase with your COG staying the same, causing the ratio to increase.

more benefit would be gained by stretching the rear to get more wheelbase to allow for longer rear arms. leaving everything else alone, moving the rear axle back would decrease the slope of the rear lower link and allow for a lower IC, which will drop the POC and allow for lower anti-squat numbers.

(or you could move your COG way up to make the antisquat number decrease. you wouldn't squat, but instead flop! :p )

Johnny J,

The pictures are drawn with the wheelbase already extended 3" rear, 2" front. I wish it was a simple matter of just moving the axle back but I can only move the tank so far back... I could attempt to move the links further forward to offset the extended front wheelbase.

To keep this thing looking somewhat like a Jeep I can move the rear back a total of 3" and still retain whats left of my fenderwells, now up front I can stand to go forward because I am building tube fenders... and the further forward I go the better my tire to FIREWALL clearance becomes and my 40" meats fit better...

What is the wheelbase of a stock 85 CJ-7? with lift springs, SRS I cant remember..

Oh, I thought you still had to move them more from where you're at.

It looks like you just have to find a way to move the IC further towards the front of the Jeep (if you want to try to get closer to 80-100% antisquat). With your upper being pretty much parallel to the ground, I can only see this happening by either decreasing the slope of the lower or dropping the link (both axle and frame attachments) and keeping it's slope.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that a "perfect" suspension design is not possible without making other sacrifices. Perfection itself is very subjective, so I'd put the links where they make the most sense and optimize your roll center and antisquat given your space considerations.

Pig should be done with his exam soon, I'm sure he can push this thread farther than I can.

Just a thought, but does anybody have real numbers for the comp rigs out there? It would be interesting to take the top five and compute COG, Roll Center, Anti-squat, etc. I haven't heard anything about the Shaffer rig or some of the other top qualifier's. Top Secret? How bout some pics of them? This thread is the best so far I think in terms of nailing down a design and throwing out some real numbers. We could have CAD drawings of all the top rigs! cool shiat

;)

Originally posted by JohnnyJ


Pig should be done with his exam soon, I'm sure he can push this thread farther than I can.

Damn. I don't think I really have much else to add right now. You guys got it.

Hey Elfy, :flipoff2: .

this is great. between the pics and the limited argueing, we now have 2 pages of stuff where you can see what affect small changes make. and now people shuld have a better visual idea of whats going on! i wish i still had some of my cad stuff.. makes life alot easyer..

now if only we could condense it, get rid of all the useles dribble, then make it a sticky so its easy to find w/o searching, it'd be a great beginers guide to link suspension.

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Okay, more changes all explained on the picture, I get 110% AS, not sure if the calculation is correct.

My concerns:

ISSUE 1: This is all based off of the Assumed Center of Gravity ( you know Assumed makes and Ass out of U and Me) so should I load the jeep up to ride specs and find the COG as it sits now?

ISSUE 2: How will this setup handle off camber and climbing situations? Don't want to flop over in a stupid place with the wife and little one on board.

ISSUE 3: Road Manners, will she behave?

The Jeep is 84" wide outside tires and will be 81" to the top of the windsheild. weighed in at 4600 few months ago.

Okay now here is the pic.... Pretty sad when you have to edit your CAD drawing with MS paint.. :D

P.S. Pig, hope you pass the test!

Issue 1: Find the COG, if its not right or at least close this is all fuct and you just wasted some time like ELF said. But at least you learned something.

Issue 2: Get the anti-suat down more to around 80 and don't look back.

Issue 3: It will drive better than you could ever imagine, as long as you get the spring selection down right. That can be another thread.

As far as that fawkin test........... D is for degree. I hope I passed.

hey PIG, :flipoff2: back atcha!!

when r you gonna get a rig?? You need to come wheel some AZ trails...

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
hey PIG, :flipoff2: back atcha!!

when r you gonna get a rig?? You need to come wheel some AZ trails...

Needed to sell the old rig to fund some stuff. Hows a couple of pallets of shocks sound? I do have a couple leads on some salvaged TJ's though, in time young Elfy, in time.

Dave,
Can you give me any opinions on my link configuration? I have done the math and it looks like it should work well, but I am always looking for a second opinion. Thanks

I'm far from being a moderator (duh), and I'm going to try not to sound like someone on a power trip... but TPI started this thread to get help with his suspension setup. I think it would be appreciated if everyone else would hold off on hijacking his thread with pictures and questions about their setup until he's go his figured out. ;)

in time young Elfy, in time.

uhh, i'm older than you are!:flipoff2:

Originally posted by TNToy
I'm far from being a moderator (duh), and I'm going to try not to sound like someone on a power trip... but TPI started this thread to get help with his suspension setup. I think it would be appreciated if everyone else would hold off on hijacking his thread with pictures and questions about their setup until he's go his figured out. ;)

Yea, I am with TNT here. Start another thread holms.

Originally posted by TNToy
I'm far from being a moderator (duh), and I'm going to try not to sound like someone on a power trip... but TPI started this thread to get help with his suspension setup. I think it would be appreciated if everyone else would hold off on hijacking his thread with pictures and questions about their setup until he's go his figured out. ;)

Thanks TNTtoy,

I want this thread to help everybody out there, there is a ton of stuff on this board about this subject but I spent a Day yes an entire day reading and really could not make sense of it all.

I don't mind people jumping in with questions it can only make things better, I figured that learning CAD would be the best thing to do and start designing so I could work in a 3D world and get all the numbers I needed.

If we can keep the chit chat down and have all the people who have posted chit chat in this thread to delete their post this thread will turn out to be a jam up good tech post. I am all about learning something new and so far this thread has taught me a bunch, I am glad I posted all the different configurations to see what affects what. Thanks guys for all your help to get me headed on the right path.

Now back to tech:

I plan to run coilovers at all 4 corners, they will be placed at the absolute maxium width on the axle, the rear will come up into the fender well they will pretty much be straight up and down. But that is another thread :D

I will compute the COG tomorrow, I just need to find some sort of lift to get my front tires up 2+ feet with the rear still on the scales, After this I will redraw my diagram with all the mods I plan, hoping to get a few more inches up front and then we can start on the front links..

As I asked before why don't yall erase you chit chat posts on this thread and keep this baby all tech!

Thanks again guys, this thread is bringing back my love of the POR

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Originally posted by JohnnyJ

(or you could move your COG way up to make the antisquat number decrease. you wouldn't squat, but instead flop! :p )

Wouldn't moving the COG down get the point of convergence and COG on a closer plane therefore lowering anti-squat?

Originally posted by TPIJeep


Thanks TNTtoy,

I want this thread to help everybody out there, there is a ton of stuff on this board about this subject but I spent a Day yes an entire day reading and really could not make sense of it all.

I don't mind people jumping in with questions it can only make things better, I figured that learning CAD would be the best thing to do and start designing so I could work in a 3D world and get all the numbers I needed.

If we can keep the chit chat down and have all the people who have posted chit chat in this thread to delete their post this thread will turn out to be a jam up good tech post. I am all about learning something new and so far this thread has taught me a bunch, I am glad I posted all the different configurations to see what affects what. Thanks guys for all your help to get me headed on the right path.

Now back to tech:

I plan to run coilovers at all 4 corners, they will be placed at the absolute maxium width on the axle, the rear will come up into the fender well they will pretty much be straight up and down. But that is another thread :D

I will compute the COG tomorrow, I just need to find some sort of lift to get my front tires up 2+ feet with the rear still on the scales, After this I will redraw my diagram with all the mods I plan, hoping to get a few more inches up front and then we can start on the front links..

As I asked before why don't yall erase you chit chat posts on this thread and keep this baby all tech!

Thanks again guys, this thread is bringing back my love of the POR

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Just out of curiousity, what size (OD/length) CO's you going with? As to the chit chat. I got a couple in there, consider it gone TPI.

Originally posted by PIG


Just out of curiousity, what size (OD/length) CO's you going with? As to the chit chat. I got a couple in there, consider it gone TPI.

I am thinking of CO's with a 2.5" OD spring, probably 14" travel if I can fit them..

It let me delete a few posts, strange! Maybe a mod could help if they cared to :D

Okay check me out made some changes.. AGAIN, :D wheelbase is where I want it at 100" Roll center seems flat and nice and HIGH, I am getting 82% AS am I right?

I get 82.3% as well. Looks good to me dude! Good Luck!

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Okay check me out made some changes.. AGAIN, :D wheelbase is where I want it at 100" Roll center seems flat and nice and HIGH, I am getting 82% AS am I right?

I recommend raising your upper control arms equally at the axle and frame mounts. My reason for saying this is to reduce the torque that the control arms/rod ends will see. It will also give you a touch of roll understeer which is IDEAL for a vehicle that will be seeing the road a bit. It helps make the vehicle a little more stable around corners.

Raising your upper arms would have a minimal effect on your AS from what I see in your drawing(well, from what I remember of it now anyway, since it will not let me see it while I am typing).

Having allot of roll oversteer like most backyard engineered 4 links have can be down right scary to drive at speed around corners. This is aggrevated by the very high CG that most of the vehicles that these thrown together control arm layouts end up on. I applaud your numerous attempts at getting your suspension right, and your willingness to change your ideas.

Sean

I see by looking over your drawing again that the LCA's are a bit above axle center. This make me stress even more that you should have a little more vertical seperation been your upper and lower CA's.

With a heavy Jeep, 40's, and all the power that you have, you will be putting ALLOT of stress on those control arms at their current position.

You are very close though IMO.

Sean

Double check my math for me, to find the AS I am taking the point of convergence and Dividing it by the COG and then multiplying it by 100 is this right?


Station,

Ya the vert sep on the axle has me concerned to, when I find the real COG I will see what I can do about that!

:)

Okay, I just got my frame dimensions done for the front, I have the axle at ride height. What are the do's and don'ts of a front 4 link or really 5 link because I will be running a track bar.

These are the specifics, axle is 4" forward of normal, running a Dana 60 with high steer, going to make rear steering arms to get rid of my steering box to tie rod clearance issue. This will require me to mount the control arms fairly low on the axle probably the center of the heim at or 1/2" above the top of the axle tube, the bottom can go as low as need be.

The track bar will connect on a drop bracket half the distance from the frame to the axle, on the pass side. the other side will go up from the axle 1/2 the distance to the frame on the drivers to keep the track bar level at ride height.

The lower arms will be in the 41 inch range mounted about 4 inches below the frame rail with the uppers mounted on the same bracket about 1" behind and 3" up from the lowers.

Lets get some pictures of various mounting options to keep this thread full of as much link tech as the law will allow..

Thanks.

Sorry. I totally agree and understand your point. I will start another thread and delete my posts here.

TPI, you really should start a new thread for the front stuff, or this is gonna go another 5 pages, LOL!

here's the short versions...

5 link means binding during articulation because the axle twists as it articulates, so you would have to use softer polyurethane, or rubber bushings to get good travel. BUT, then you'll get axle wrap, 'cause the poly won't hold the thing in place when you throttle it.

SO - one good option is the 3 link with panhard bar. Basically the same as a 5 link, but you remove one of the upper links, this gets rid of your binding. IMO, it's good to remove the pass. side link. That way when you throttle it, it pulls down on the driver's side of the chassis. This pulling balances out the natural driveline torque that is applied to the chassis by the engine/tranny/tcase. make sense??

Another good option is the missing radius arm setup. This is similar to the 3 link with panhard. BUT - instead of using 2 lowers, and 1 upper, you have 2 lowers and a radius arm that attaches to the lower driver's side arm. Ever seen a Rubicon Express Xtrm TJ lift?? Exactly like that, but pull off that pass side radius arm, and you get no binding. Same thing as bronco guys that run wristed radius arms.

So, blah blah blah... there are other otions if you don't wanna run a panhard, but those are the best panhard setups - IMO

wow, what time is it???

TPI.......just out of curiousity, why are set on running a panhard bar?? I agree about starting another thread to keep front and rear stuff separate. IMHO, you can sacrifice roll axis more up front than in the rear in order to keep the links tucked up as high as possible, since the front axle steers anyway.

We are moving the front end tech to this link to keep the information provided grouped for easy searching...


Front End Thread (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94306)


Keep the rear end tech coming, then we will have to have a spring rate discussion.. :D

I'm finally getting around to setting up and finishing the rear 4 link on my bro's 4runner. I'm so happy I added this one to my list of 4 link threads to go back to when it finally came time to do it. :D

So I'm guessing you have the truck finished and have had it out and wheeled it.

A review of what final setup specs you went with (pics of possible) and how it works would be a great asset to those people doing searches and reading this thread later down the line.

Matt,

I have been posting pics of my progress weekly.. no its not done, but the new baby in the house is the slow down..

So far all my planning is working out for the best and the assembly is going perfect.

Good Luck with yours
:D

Originally posted by TPIJeep
Matt,

I have been posting pics of my progress weekly.. no its not done, but the new baby in the house is the slow down..

So far all my planning is working out for the best and the assembly is going perfect.

Good Luck with yours
:D

Congrats on the new baby. I'm going to put the links to the other threads here for everyone else. :D I understand the slow buildup and I don't have a kid! ;)

4 link Brackets: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139196

Rear 4 link done:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147147