ok, im thinking of building a 4 link for the fron of the range rover. it is already set up for coils but has crappy radius arms stock.

the easiest option that i could do is to run a 4 link with a panhard, meaning 2 parallel uppers and 2 parallel lowers. the uppers on one side would also be parallel to the lowers on the same side.

what is the adbantage to this set up over radius arms? i am having a hard time envisioning whether or not it will bind.

opinions?

Why not build longer, wristed arms?

wristed arms=yuck.

plus, for all the work ill go through it would be just as easy to build 4 equal length, identical arms and 2 each of 2 different brackets and have a four link :D

Originally posted by 9V
ok, im thinking of building a 4 link for the fron of the range rover. it is already set up for coils but has crappy radius arms stock.

the easiest option that i could do is to run a 4 link with a panhard, meaning 2 parallel uppers and 2 parallel lowers. the uppers on one side would also be parallel to the lowers on the same side.

what is the adbantage to this set up over radius arms? i am having a hard time envisioning whether or not it will bind.

opinions?

No need to use 2 uppers. Just use one holms.

No need to use 2 uppers. Just use one holms. ?????
Come on Pig, enlighten us....

Originally posted by 9V


the easiest option that i could do is to run a 4 link with a panhard, meaning 2 parallel uppers and 2 parallel lowers. the uppers on one side would also be parallel to the lowers on the same side.

what is the adbantage to this set up over radius arms? i am having a hard time envisioning whether or not it will bind.

opinions?

If the arms are parallel and right on top of one another, yes, it will bind. When the axle tries to articulate, your 4-link will effectively be trying to twist the axle torsionally. The radius arms would do the same thing if not for the soft bushings used to attach them to the axle.

Recently, I designed and built a 2-link for the front and rear of a TJ. Basically a vertical triangle and an horizontal triangle connecting the axle to the frame. No panhard bar required. Flex is very good, although not competition rock buggy level, and the the thing I liked best is it only requires two attachment points at the frame.

If you'd like more detail, let me know, if not, I'll not waste the bandwidth.

Originally posted by mrtwstr
?????
Come on Pig, enlighten us....

You only need one upper. to control the wrap. The panhard keeps it in check. Think about it and do a search, there is some stuff on this site about it.

You are now enlightened................

To 4 link your ride with paralell bars of equall length you'll use a panhard bar. But that is useless for four whellin, so forget that.
What you need to do is keep them equall length, the bottom bars stay the same, but the top bars are put together on the top of the axle to locate and restrain it from lateral deflection.

Sorry Pig, I misread. I thought you said you need two uppers, now I see the light...... I was :confused: for a minute. They need to have a little dude bowing to the gods you could put on here, but since they don't...:flipoff2: Take that!!!

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


If the arms are parallel and right on top of one another, yes, it will bind. When the axle tries to articulate, your 4-link will effectively be trying to twist the axle torsionally. The radius arms would do the same thing if not for the soft bushings used to attach them to the axle.

Recently, I designed and built a 2-link for the front and rear of a TJ. Basically a vertical triangle and an horizontal triangle connecting the axle to the frame. No panhard bar required. Flex is very good, although not competition rock buggy level, and the the thing I liked best is it only requires two attachment points at the frame.

If you'd like more detail, let me know, if not, I'll not waste the bandwidth.


Like this???
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={885F163D-261F-4136-9F95-6B7831038DF6}
Front View

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={05FFB53F-593C-426A-9CB5-9CDBBC3986A0}
some idiot testing the suspention :flipoff2:

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={7704EF87-2D2B-49F0-A5EF-BDB81A36893A}
Drivers side rear arm

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={33995A75-C7F6-4B25-8E2A-6D82C7F70C48}
Pass Side arm

You all can see the rest of the pics at TOR Jeep TJ build up (http://www.tennesseeoffroad.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=38&t=000002)

Originally posted by Brian in Mass
To 4 link your ride with paralell bars of equall length you'll use a panhard bar. But that is useless for four whellin, so forget that.
What you need to do is keep them equall length, the bottom bars stay the same, but the top bars are put together on the top of the axle to locate and restrain it from lateral deflection.

thats called a triangulated fout link and the problem is that it wont clear stuff like the OIL PAN

panhard useless for four wheelin? WTF does a TJ use stock? what about a land rover (like mine?) or any other factory coil sprung front end for that matter? panhard bars are a great solution IF YOU DONT HAVE THE ROOM FOR A TRIANGULATED LINK DESIGN, like i dont.

now what i am thinking is doing what all the other aftermarket land rover companies do, and is a three link with a panhard and the third link located below the axle centerline right in the middle of the housing.

Funny - people see wristed arms and think that they are bad (I do too) and this two triangle link thing people think is OK but its the exact same animal. I wouldnt do in the front and never in the rear.

If you are going to drive the thing on the street I wouldnt run with only one upper arm to control the axle wrap because with the non symetric links any deflection in the link bushings will cause the axle to steer.

Triangulated three link up front is no good with a steering box cause it will bump steer (if your drag link isnt horizontal) and it will self steer when the front axle articulates.

I would go for a symetrical three link (all links running parallel to the chassis when looking from the top) with a panhard rod. You can also make the upper and lower links converge (when looking from the side) to get some anti dive so that is behaves better when you jump on the brakes.

Sam

I guess i'm just used to thinking big. You're right, panhard bars will work wheelin. I am thinking of susspension travel and jumping and stuff of that nature with BIG trucks. I'm not used to seeing panhard bars on trucks.
I guess it all depends on what ya gonna do with what ya got !

You are missing the #1 reason to run panhard in the front. This is the reason I will only run pan hard in the front.

NO BUMP STEER

What the f-ck!

OK farkers, post up. Whats wrong with a panhard rod??

Sam

Originally posted by TR





http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={05FFB53F-593C-426A-9CB5-9CDBBC3986A0}
some idiot testing the suspention :flipoff2:



Who you callin' an idiot, knothead?? :flipoff2:

Originally posted by Strange Rover
Funny - people see wristed arms and think that they are bad (I do too) and this two triangle link thing people think is OK but its the exact same animal. I wouldnt do in the front and never in the rear.

Heeheehee... wristed arms are evil. You are obviously not evil enough... (in my best "Dr Evil" impression, which, BTW, sucks).

Wristed arms have their place--their entire premise is for a dual-purpose suspension. Hack jobs have made them out to be much worse than they can be, and as a result, people assume that if you have wristed arms, you're a hack. Reality is, any suspension can be hack, and most can be very well built, and very safe.

Just for the sake of argument, I would (and did, and still do) run wristed arms front and rear. Again, they have their place, but they have a lot of "quirks" that you have to deal with.

TR, I ran basically the suspension you've posted pics of, for a couple weeks. Found that it worked, but induced too much inward movement of my tires (since my quarters are inboard of the tires, that was an extremely bad thing) on articulation. I'm back to a panhard bar and am much happier with it now.

Originally posted by Strange Rover
OK farkers, post up. Whats wrong with a panhard rod??

Sam

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH PANHARD, IT IS GOOD

So what's the deal? Since we've had two or three good suspension design threads (TPIJeep's front & rear, for instance)... we now have to have a retarded one full of misinformation to keep the balance?

Originally posted by calpolystud
What the f-ck!

Look what the cat draged in...........calpolypud.

TNT: Sorry, I had to add to the retardedness.

Hopefully i will have that sucker running by thanksgiving and i will get pics of it on the ramp. Mark i couldnt find a fuel pressure regulator for the way you had it set up so im gonna have to replace the cross over hose and add some AN stuff to it. Also im guessing you heard that Sam wants Dans Krawlers for it now huh?

Originally posted by mrtwstr
Sorry Pig, I misread. I thought you said you need two uppers, now I see the light...... I was :confused: for a minute. They need to have a little dude bowing to the gods you could put on here, but since they don't...:flipoff2: Take that!!!

Toby, I didn't know that this was you. In that case, :flipoff2: , rightback at ya.