Link suspensions for dummies? - Page 5 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > General Tech > General 4x4 Discussion
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2003, 11:37 PM   #101 (permalink)
StinkyFab Racing
 
StinkBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Member # 4946
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,741
damn, now i'm just gonna have to reinstall autocad and start playing with link setups and arcs and shit now that i'm starting to understand this stuff.

Dallas
__________________
Dallas Ashley

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your Source for: CNC Cutting & Engraving, Cages, Custom Suspension, Complete Vehicle Builds, and more!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Co-Dog #4432-KOH 2011 #88-KOH 2010, Crew Chief - KOH 2009, 2008
StinkBug is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-23-2003, 01:59 PM   #102 (permalink)
StinkyFab Racing
 
StinkBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Member # 4946
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,741
Quote:
Originally posted by TNToy
Foley - with your "magic" numbers of 36" and 75% of that for the upper link, the pinon will rotate DOWN as the suspension drops, right?

What you wrote was a GREAT primier on link building, but as Air Ride mentioned... with long-travel suspenions (unlike roundy-round cars that only move 2 or 3 inches vertically) it's probably a good idea to keep the links pretty close to the same length, so you don't bind the rear driveline at the diff, isn't it?
Just reading back through a bit and saw this. Does anyone have an opinion on what the magic #s might be for a rockcrawler. It sounds like having shorter uppers will help the way it functions, but will rotate the pinion. 80%? 85% anyone played around with em and have an answer? What about running a CV and rotating the pinion up, at least then when it rotates down it wont be rotating too far down. Am I nuts?

Dallas
__________________
Dallas Ashley

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your Source for: CNC Cutting & Engraving, Cages, Custom Suspension, Complete Vehicle Builds, and more!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Co-Dog #4432-KOH 2011 #88-KOH 2010, Crew Chief - KOH 2009, 2008
StinkBug is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 08-24-2003, 09:04 AM   #103 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Member # 2769
Location: Farmington NM
Posts: 2,135
Here's some pics of my unfinished project's rear links.
"J" arms with Johnny Joints.
An earlier version also built by Jim Peterson for his daughter, Amy Bulloch's "She-J", worked very well and won the Legends Class at the SuperCrawl.

Rear Links
Jaffer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2003, 01:48 PM   #104 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Box Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6754
Location: stuck at work as usual
Posts: 1,749
I'm sure this has been answered before but I thought I'd ask it again in this thread so it gets included in the awesome info that has come out thus far.

What is the advantage/disadvantage to using "J" arms instead of straight links?
__________________
Adam
1995 FJZ80 - 1980 Toyota Pickup
Box Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 02:26 PM   #105 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 21003
Location: Mobile Alabama
Posts: 58
Jaffer

Very clean.
__________________
Sometimes I cant even wait for it to break...So I can fix it!!
alyz1flr is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 02:30 PM   #106 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Member # 7962
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally posted by Box Rocket
I'm sure this has been answered before but I thought I'd ask it again in this thread so it gets included in the awesome info that has come out thus far.

What is the advantage/disadvantage to using "J" arms instead of straight links?
The J arm allows the links to be longer. The actual "J" has nothing to do with it. Its just that the points that the arms are connected are further apart because the lower link is now connected on the back side of the axle tube.

Now the reason why longer links are better is that they provide a more constant anti squat percentage as the suspension cycles or unloads on steep climbs.

In simpler terms, if you have longer links and the rear suspensin lifts up an inch or two (for whatever reason) it will change the overall geometry less than if you ran short links.

Sam
__________________
Land Rover SIIa, 302W, NP435, NP205, MOG404s, 42in Swamper TSLs, 112in WB

"An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less until one day they know absolutely everything about nothing."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- home of aussie rock crawling.

Last edited by Strange Rover; 08-24-2003 at 02:31 PM.
Strange Rover is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 02:32 PM   #107 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
The advantage is usually ground clearance if you mount them to the top or front of the axle like normal.
In Jaffer's case, my guess is that the advantage would be to get a longer link in a smaller space (short wheelbase).

The disadvantage is strength, which can be made up for depending on how you build them and/or what you build them out of. Considering that, a secondary disadvantage might be that they are a little harder to build.
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 02:59 PM   #108 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 21003
Location: Mobile Alabama
Posts: 58
?? Why not .....

Over the top?
__________________
Sometimes I cant even wait for it to break...So I can fix it!!
alyz1flr is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 03:13 PM   #109 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
No reason you can't go over the top. Looks like Jaffer had a coil spring perch right there though.
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 04:28 PM   #110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Member # 16812
Posts: 5,688
Just re-read this thread again, great tech. Don't let it die just yet..

Question:
What would the characteristics be with infintely long arms that are both parallel to the ground?
Meaning that as the rear axle articulates through it's cycle, the wheel moves straight up and down in relation to the front axle.

-tom
Attached Images
 
LandCroozer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 04:52 PM   #111 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4321
Location: Double Shoals, NC
Posts: 15,322
Send a message via ICQ to DEnd Send a message via AIM to DEnd Send a message via MSN to DEnd Send a message via Yahoo to DEnd
Lots of squat, impossible to build.
__________________
Lame Sig Line
DEnd is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-24-2003, 10:31 PM   #112 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Member # 7962
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally posted by LandCroozer
Just re-read this thread again, great tech. Don't let it die just yet..

Question:
What would the characteristics be with infintely long arms that are both parallel to the ground?
Meaning that as the rear axle articulates through it's cycle, the wheel moves straight up and down in relation to the front axle.

-tom
The rig would squat when it accelerates but the squatting effect is very small. I think you would be lucky to actually see it squatting as it accelerates.

What you need to remember is that 4wd really dont accelerate much. Most rock crawling launches are normally at 40:1 so you are only going to get to 15mph or so. Its not like drag racing at all.

So IMO you wont see any squatting but what you will find is that the rear tyres wont bite into the rocks and really agressively launch the rig. The acceleration wont be as harsh as something that runs more anti squat. What it will let you do is drive the rig really aggressively (lots of wheelspin and throttle) and not get out of control (wont hop and bounce etc).

Wont necessarily be less capable most situations but what you may find on some obstacles is that a rig with more anti squat will do better because when they do find traction they will punch the rig forward harder.

Sam
__________________
Land Rover SIIa, 302W, NP435, NP205, MOG404s, 42in Swamper TSLs, 112in WB

"An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less until one day they know absolutely everything about nothing."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- home of aussie rock crawling.
Strange Rover is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-25-2003, 01:25 PM   #113 (permalink)
Registered User
 
TNToy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5776
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 12,992
Excellent threads to read in addition to this one:

Go2Guy and Ken Shupes suspensions:


https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...hreadid=157471



TPI Jeep:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...hreadid=105415



Again:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...threadid=93576



More TPIJeep:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...hreadid=110558



MORE TPIJeep:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...hreadid=147147



MetalMender:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...threadid=55102

Last edited by TNToy; 08-25-2003 at 01:29 PM.
TNToy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-25-2003, 02:05 PM   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Member # 16812
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Rover


The rig would squat when it accelerates but the squatting effect is very small. I think you would be lucky to actually see it squatting as it accelerates.

What you need to remember is that 4wd really dont accelerate much. Most rock crawling launches are normally at 40:1 so you are only going to get to 15mph or so. Its not like drag racing at all.

So IMO you wont see any squatting but what you will find is that the rear tyres wont bite into the rocks and really agressively launch the rig. The acceleration wont be as harsh as something that runs more anti squat. What it will let you do is drive the rig really aggressively (lots of wheelspin and throttle) and not get out of control (wont hop and bounce etc).

Wont necessarily be less capable most situations but what you may find on some obstacles is that a rig with more anti squat will do better because when they do find traction they will punch the rig forward harder.

Sam
Thanks for the reply!

Still speaking hypothetically here, again what if the wheels moved in a perfectly linear fashion but instead of straight up and down, they moved at a slant relative to the chassis?

If I understand correctly:
in the top pic, as the rear wheels push forward, they will climb up and move closer to the chassis. Squat.
in the bottom pic, the rear wheels push forward, they will push away from the chassis. Anti-squat.

Correct?

-tom
Attached Images
 
LandCroozer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-25-2003, 02:31 PM   #115 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Member # 7962
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,507
I see where you are going:

In your top pic - yes as the wheels try to drive forward they will want to move closer to the chassis so it will really want to squat the suspension and in the bottom pic as the wheels try to move forward they want to move away from the chassis so they produce some anti squat effect. The first pic would almost impossible to build unless the links were behind the axle.

Now the other MAJOR thing to remember here is centre of gravity effect. The COG (which is up heigh in to body) will also try to squat the rear suspension as the rig accelerates.

Now the clever thing about all this is that force that the rear wheels drive forward with (assuming that when climbing the front wheels do nothing) is the same as the COG force.

So you essencially have two forces, the drive force that trys to lift the rear of the chassis and the COG force that trys to squat the rear of the chassis. Now the things that effect the interaction of these two forces is the height of the COG (the heigher the COG the more the COG force will squat the rear of the chassis) and the angle that the links drive at (the more highly the links are angled the more they will lift the rear of the chassis)

Now when the COG force perfectly balances the drive force we have 100% anti squat.

Sam
__________________
Land Rover SIIa, 302W, NP435, NP205, MOG404s, 42in Swamper TSLs, 112in WB

"An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less until one day they know absolutely everything about nothing."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- home of aussie rock crawling.

Last edited by Strange Rover; 08-25-2003 at 02:32 PM.
Strange Rover is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-25-2003, 10:16 PM   #116 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Member # 16812
Posts: 5,688
This is fun. Thanks again.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Rover
Now when the COG force perfectly balances the drive force we have 100% anti squat.

This makes things WAAAAAY clear ! (If I understand it right..)
100% anti-squat means that on level ground, accelerating neither raises nor lowers the rear end?
0% anti-squat means there is no raising force from the rear suspension at all, so the back will squat down when accelerating?
200% anti-squat means the back end will rise up just as much as it would have squatted if it were 0%? (an equal, but opposite movement)

Please let me be right,
-t
LandCroozer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-25-2003, 10:59 PM   #117 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Member # 7962
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally posted by LandCroozer
This is fun. Thanks again.




This makes things WAAAAAY clear ! (If I understand it right..)
100% anti-squat means that on level ground, accelerating neither raises nor lowers the rear end?
0% anti-squat means there is no raising force from the rear suspension at all, so the back will squat down when accelerating?
200% anti-squat means the back end will rise up just as much as it would have squatted if it were 0%? (an equal, but opposite movement)

Please let me be right,
-t
Yes - thats how I understand it.

Now you should be able to understand that if you have 200% AS and you apply the power quickly and instantly the rear links will actually throw the rear of the chassis up into the air which will pull the rear wheels off the ground and make them spin. You then loose the lift from the links so that the chassis begins to fall untill again the tyres bite into the ground and take up load and throw the chassis back up again. This is why rigs with a lot of anti squat hop on steep climbs.

Sam
__________________
Land Rover SIIa, 302W, NP435, NP205, MOG404s, 42in Swamper TSLs, 112in WB

"An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less until one day they know absolutely everything about nothing."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- home of aussie rock crawling.
Strange Rover is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 01:19 AM   #118 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Member # 16812
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Rover


Yes - thats how I understand it.

Now you should be able to understand that if you have 200% AS and you apply the power quickly and instantly the rear links will actually throw the rear of the chassis up into the air which will pull the rear wheels off the ground and make them spin. You then loose the lift from the links so that the chassis begins to fall untill again the tyres bite into the ground and take up load and throw the chassis back up again. This is why rigs with a lot of anti squat hop on steep climbs.

Sam


I'm getting it, I'm actually getting it!

Best suspension thread yet.



(oh and it's spelled "tire"..)

j/k thanks!

-t
LandCroozer is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 02:30 AM   #119 (permalink)
Registered User
 
TNToy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5776
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 12,992
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Rover
This is why rigs with a lot of anti squat hop on steep climbs.

Sam
But... they don't.

Here's a good example that I've thrown out before and not gotten a response to:


First, this is Ken Shupes rig. It climbs loose hillclimbs like nobodys business. While the links are not all on the same plane at the chassis, they're certainly not in line with what you normally see posted on this BB. It clearly has a lot of anti-squat. Typically this one is explained with "well, the tight limit strap allows the rear suspension to just stay jacked up" type of scenario. The problem is that, as you've mentioned, that doesn't seem like it should work. At some point it would lose traction, the tires would spin, and the rear end would drop back down... probably starting the vicious hopping cycle you mention. Heres the pic:


Now, lets make it harder: Suspensions with all 4 links terminating at the same cross member. DSI, Toyman, SnortClown, among others are all running suspenions similar to this: (Toymans buggy)


As mentioned before, he does appear to have a limit strap (cable?)... but IIRC DSI does not run a limiting strap. Now, any and all naysaying on the performance of this style of 4 link has been internet armchair-quarterbacking. These guys are all satisfied with the suspensions performance... and I don't think DSi would be competeing with a suspension that had him pogo-sticking any time he encountered loose terrain while climbing a hill.

So, can anyone explain why this should or should not work, beyond the usual "Anti-Squat is EVIL" type of thing?

No?

Last edited by TNToy; 08-26-2003 at 02:32 AM.
TNToy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 08:31 AM   #120 (permalink)
Tech Editor
 
Air Ride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Member # 1656
Location: Santa Margarita, north of bender land
Posts: 4,166
Quote:
Originally posted by TNToy
But... they don't.

Here's a good example that I've thrown out before and not gotten a response to:


First, this is Ken Shupes rig. It climbs loose hillclimbs like nobodys business. While the links are not all on the same plane at the chassis, they're certainly not in line with what you normally see posted on this BB. It clearly has a lot of anti-squat. Typically this one is explained with "well, the tight limit strap allows the rear suspension to just stay jacked up" type of scenario. The problem is that, as you've mentioned, that doesn't seem like it should work. At some point it would lose traction, the tires would spin, and the rear end would drop back down... probably starting the vicious hopping cycle you mention. Heres the pic:


Now, lets make it harder: Suspensions with all 4 links terminating at the same cross member. DSI, Toyman, SnortClown, among others are all running suspenions similar to this: (Toymans buggy)


As mentioned before, he does appear to have a limit strap (cable?)... but IIRC DSI does not run a limiting strap. Now, any and all naysaying on the performance of this style of 4 link has been internet armchair-quarterbacking. These guys are all satisfied with the suspensions performance... and I don't think DSi would be competeing with a suspension that had him pogo-sticking any time he encountered loose terrain while climbing a hill.

So, can anyone explain why this should or should not work, beyond the usual "Anti-Squat is EVIL" type of thing?

No?
It works because they have shock-absorbers
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


camo is my hero, even if he is gay


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Air Ride is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 11:35 AM   #121 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
AND... just because their links intersect (the IC) at the crossmember behind the COG, doesn't necessarily mean that they have a ton of AS (I think that is what TN Toy is getting at?).

Look again at that black and white picture of the car and the AS/COG. The AS is determined by whether or not the IC is above or below the sloped line from the tire contact patch to the COG (or the height of the COG over the front axle), not just the location of the IC front to back.

As the picture shows, your IC could be behind the COG and still squat.

The links in those pics are relatively flat, so I don't see them giving a ton of AS...
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by ErikB; 08-26-2003 at 11:37 AM.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 11:54 AM   #122 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
Also, I think in terms of S/AS you primarily need too look at the lower links. As was mentioned earlier, those links (when located at or near the axle compared to the uppers) see the most force and therefore have the most affect on handling.

I would think that if one of these engineer types took all the different vector forces and summed them up into one force, the resulting force would look like a link going through the axle center line and the IC... which would be where your lower links are if they're located at the axle tube.

Would that be correct?


If so, all that matters is your axle location and IC location in relation to the COG.
In other words, putting your lower links on top of the axle to make them "flatter" really has no effect unless it changes the location of the IC. The advantage is solely ground clearance.
I'll attempt a picture...
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by ErikB; 08-26-2003 at 12:01 PM.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 12:19 PM   #123 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
Here what I'm saying...

The links get progressively steeper as you go down in the pic, but the S/AS stay the same. The common denominator is the axle and IC location.
Attached Images
 
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 01:05 PM   #124 (permalink)
Registered User
 
TNToy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5776
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 12,992
Quote:
Originally posted by ErikB
The links get progressively steeper as you go down in the pic, but the S/AS stay the same. The common denominator is the axle and IC location.
Thank you Erik, that illustrates my point very well. This is *exactly* why I posted "IGNORE THIS" in huge letters when "make the links parallel from the side view" was posted earlier. All that matters as far a squat/anti-squat is the relation of the instant center to the COG... and having an infinite instant center (i.e. having the uppers and lowers parallel, not intersecting somewhere up in the chassis) makes this a bit more difficult. You can have the links nearly parallel or steep as hell... your drawing illustrates this very well. THAT is the point I was trying to make.

Quote:
Originally posted by Air Ride
It works because they have shock-absorbers
ROFLMAO!

I was just trying to call Strange Rover on what he was saying was getting a little over simplified. Not trying to be a jackass - just stirring the pot to squeeze a little more outta this thread.
TNToy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-26-2003, 01:54 PM   #125 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ErikB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 59
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,386
Quote:
Originally posted by TNToy
All that matters as far a squat/anti-squat is the relation of the instant center to the COG...
I don't think that is entirely true though.

You need the third point-- the location of the axle (or maybe the tire contact patch, which is related to the location of the axle by the size of the tire), so you can have a line with a slope that intersects something to actually figure out the S/AS.
(the "something" should be that line from the tire contact patch to height of the COG over the front axle).


I think the difference between parallel and non-parallel links (when viewed from the side)is this:

With non-parallel links that converge "at the same crossmember," as TN Toy put it, the IC is always right there at the crossmember and cannot move in relation to the COG. The only thing that changes as the suspension cycles is the slope of the line from the axle to the IC, and therefore where that line intersects.

With parallel links, the IC is an infinite distance away in front of the vehicle, and changes height depending on the slope of the links. IOW, the IC location changes position as the suspension cycles, as well as the slope of the line.

With non-parallel links that don't converge at the same crossmember, the IC location and slope changes position as the suspension cycles, just like the parallel links, but not as much depending on how close to parallel or actually converging they are.


So... I'm thinking the changing IC location is the reason others have said that parallel links "aren't the best way..."

They may or may not have said that before, but I don't think I really understood that until now.
__________________
[color=black].[/color]



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by ErikB; 08-26-2003 at 02:01 PM.
ErikB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.