Basic IFS/IRS driveline tech - 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 11-30-2014, 05:53 AM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Basic IFS/IRS driveline tech

So my head is full of question related to IFS/IRS CV joints and axles.

Somewhere on this board I saw a hilariously titled picture of two guys in the desert (Hammers?) walking up a trail with their rig sidelined in the background. It said some version of "IFS, for those who enjoy long quiet walks back to the pits.". Not that I'm the expert, but from my reading it does seem that most agree -- the current limitation with IFS when it comes to travel, radius and reliability is the axle/CV.

I get that more power through them reduces reliability. I get that more angle does the same. I certainly get that when you combine the two it's death. What I'm wondering is if any documented testing has been done regarding the torque capabilities of these driveline components at their range of angles or is this segment of the market (U4, etc.) such an outlier market wise that the testing is done pretty much by running them in races and watching them break?

Take an outboard, non-plunging, top of the line RCV or such (something like Shannon or Loren would run). If we plot the failures, could we assume that they cluster at the outer angle ranges (say 35 to 45)? If a theoretical driveline was designed that limited the CVs to say 30 degrees total and yet still allowed 45 degree articulation of both control arm travel and steering angle, would the total CV failure rate drop dramatically, or are other failure modes (boot failures due to an intrusion lets say) so statistically significant that the total failure rate would still be high?

Another area where I need an education is in plunge. I get why plunge should be minimized in any driveline, but it's also just another parameter. If overall reliability is better in a system that has plunge, then so be it. My direct question is this:

Trophy trucks put a TON of power through their driveline. Their rear suspension cycles fast and furious. They also reqularly have an inch or more plunge in the driveshaft (so I read). Is the reason that a spline slip joint (such as used in a TT) not generally considered an option in IFS/IRS because the torque loads are higher outside of the third member? Do they bind up and tear bearings out under those circumstances?

Remember, I'm not advocating plunge as a band-aid for poor geometry. I'm asking if a suspension/driveline design could dramatically reduce CV off axis failures but involved plunge, is there some fundamental, unsolvable issue with plunge in the IFS/IRS context?

Thanks
JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 07:08 AM   #2 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,775
I don't have a good answer for you, but why not get find a fancy joint you like, contact the MFG and see what they show for it's limits and build/limit your suspension and steering around those. If you know what you are working around, it will help focus your thoughts. If you can advantage out any more gain in the suspension, go for it but it will at least help keep you in realistic land instead of working up stuff using theory angles when you could get real numbers



And realize that sometimes stuff just breaks, so there will always be days when walking just can't be avoided.
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 11-30-2014, 08:06 AM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Provience View Post
I don't have a good answer for you, but why not get find a fancy joint you like, contact the MFG and see what they show for it's limits and build/limit your suspension and steering around those.
Tried that and they didn't have a good answer for me either. Manufacturers are generally (and understandably) reticent to publish numbers at the extremes used by the racing community.

Was just wondering if anyone had done any independent testing other than just run it and see.

Quote:
And realize that sometimes stuff just breaks, so there will always be days when walking just can't be avoided.
So true. Been involved in racing for 35 years ... done my share of walking.

JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2014, 08:10 AM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Really Provience, the key CV question in OP was this one:

"Take an outboard, non-plunging, top of the line RCV or such (something like Shannon or Loren would run). If we plot the failures, could we assume that they cluster at the outer angle ranges (say 35 to 45)? If a theoretical driveline was designed that limited the CVs to say 30 degrees total and yet still allowed 45 degree articulation of both control arm travel and steering angle, would the total CV failure rate drop dramatically, or are other failure modes (boot failures due to an intrusion lets say) so statistically significant that the total failure rate would still be high?"

Considering the many genre of autosports that utilize CVs, that's likely only a question that racers in a particular genre can answer.

JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 09:28 AM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 7233
Location: Jefferson
Posts: 27,613
Send a message via AIM to Wilson
The meme you are recalling was more of a dig at lance, I believe. The failure had to do with a loss or lack of grease iirc. Years ago Shannon Campbell pretty much proved that the cv's could take some serious abuse after his rear ring and pinion went and he attempted a full throttle attempt, in reverse, up tub rock. Somewhere there is a video, but I am failing to find it.

Loren and a few others have started playing with some "non traditional" stuff from Armada Engineering and Proformance that improve packaging, allowing for longer shaft lengths and more angle at the wheels.
Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 09:36 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson View Post
The meme you are recalling was more of a dig at lance, I believe.
LOL -- got it. Had no idea it was aimed personally at a particular failure.

Quote:
The failure had to do with a loss or lack of grease iirc.
Ahh ... that's the sort of information I'm looking for. Trying to understand the failure modes. Do you know if something tore/punctured a boot or such? Surely someone didn't simply forget to put the grease in.

Thanks.
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 09:40 AM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member # 81455
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 483
A poorly setup ifs/irs will eat series 30 cv's like candy but if you build in a small safety factor and pay attention to working angle/max angle ( typically it's droop where shit goes wrong) and keep plunge to a minimum then they can take an amazing amount of abuse. In an Irs setup if it's a trailing arm like a typical class one with a fair amount of plunge they can wear pretty fast due to heat and the class 1's don't put out as much HP as a TT (generally) to try and save the drivetrain
joefab is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 09:46 AM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 7233
Location: Jefferson
Posts: 27,613
Send a message via AIM to Wilson
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinAirDesigns View Post
LOL -- got it. Had no idea it was aimed personally at a particular failure.



Ahh ... that's the sort of information I'm looking for. Trying to understand the failure modes. Do you know if something tore/punctured a boot or such? Surely someone didn't simply forget to put the grease in.

Thanks.
https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gener...l#post23997138
Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 09:52 AM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson View Post
Thanks. Ouch.

JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 01:51 PM   #10 (permalink)
Rock God
 
ISDTBower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Member # 94026
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by joefab View Post
A poorly setup ifs/irs will eat series 30 cv's like candy but if you build in a small safety factor and pay attention to working angle/max angle ( typically it's droop where shit goes wrong) and keep plunge to a minimum then they can take an amazing amount of abuse. In an Irs setup if it's a trailing arm like a typical class one with a fair amount of plunge they can wear pretty fast due to heat and the class 1's don't put out as much HP as a TT (generally) to try and save the drivetrain
This pretty much summarizes it, but there is also the clearance between a 35 spline shaft and the outer race of a CV. At very close to max angle, I have seen witness marks from both the race and the CV bolt heads on the shaft. I think turning with a 934.5 (934 with 35 spline shaft) would be limited....??

On the subject of heat, I haven't seen a CV overheated around KOH (When greased). I thnk it is because we don't do the sustained high speed runs as do desert cars. A few drivers have and will be going desert racing, maybe they can comment.

At one time I had a strength chart from GKN. I have not been able to find it nor on the internet. I remember it being less than 25% at any kind of sharp angles. I think the catalog below might go up to 18'.

Personally I will be running a 934.5 on the inside IFS (22' max) and series 30 at the upright. All "race prepped."

(For your electro programming....minimize the torque at high angles .....unless you are loosing)

http://www.gknservice.com/fileadmin/...alVehicles.pdf

ISDTBower is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 02:08 PM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member # 81455
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISDTBower View Post
This pretty much summarizes it, but there is also the clearance between a 35 spline shaft and the outer race of a CV. At very close to max angle, I have seen witness marks from both the race and the CV bolt heads on the shaft. I think turning with a 934.5 (934 with 35 spline shaft) would be limited....??

On the subject of heat, I haven't seen a CV overheated around KOH (When greased). I thnk it is because we don't do the sustained high speed runs as do desert cars. A few drivers have and will be going desert racing, maybe they can comment.

At one time I had a strength chart from GKN. I have not been able to find it nor on the internet. I remember it being less than 25% at any kind of sharp angles. I think the catalog below might go up to 18'.

Personally I will be running a 934.5 on the inside IFS (22' max) and series 30 at the upright. All "race prepped."

(For your electro programming....minimize the torque at high angles .....unless you are loosing)

http://www.gknservice.com/fileadmin/...alVehicles.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GzQUeGOQRo

Classic Jim! He was always covered in cv grease! The Gomez car is a good example of bad setup.. The original fab work was good but it had multiple hands on it with no communication between them. So it was over sprung, over drooped and relied on stretching (and breaking) limit straps for controlling droop. I reworked the entire front end of that car and it has not lost a cv since.
joefab is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 02:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISDTBower View Post
I think the catalog below might go up to 18'.
That's exactly what I found - they publish numbers that are within what they consider 'normal' usage and we are the freaks they don't really want to acknowledge.

JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 03:06 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISDTBower View Post
(For your electro programming....minimize the torque at high angles .....unless you are losing)
Thought experiment:

Pretend you had race prepped 45 degree capable (at the extreme) non-plunging CV joints and you limited them to 30 degrees. Pretend this was in a rig like Shannon's and that it drove exactly as it does now -- same steering angle as before, same suspension travel as before. In other words, a theoretical design that allows full suspension travel (control arms ~45 degree each way) and full steering (45 degree each way) at the same time, but puts the CVs off axis no more than 30 degrees without plunging them.

Would race failures go down dramatically or are there so many other CV failure modes (heat, lack of grease, etc) that it wouldn't matter that much?

The above is just different wording of the related question in the OP. I ask because I have a design in my head that I've been mulling over but if it's an answer searching for a question then why bother.

Thanks
JB

Last edited by ThinAirDesigns; 11-30-2014 at 03:10 PM.
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2014, 10:11 PM   #14 (permalink)
Rock God
 
ISDTBower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Member # 94026
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 2,418
[QUOTE=ThinAirDesigns;28999353]Thought experiment:
/QUOTE]

I'll take a shot at this.

If the "rules" are followed the series 30 survives by maximizing the angle between 40 and 44 degrees. If you drop back to 30 degrees, you are well within the needs of a KOH rig with minimal plunge creating heat.

Now, since the new design might be so good....Why don't you try to scale back to a 934.5 in the front outer. The front outer is hella huge and heavy because it has to contain that huge CV. That would be awesome if you could still turn and articulate like the series 30.

There might be some history here. I believe Dave Cole's IFS buggy (seen about the same time as Shannons) had 934(.5-?) in the front but was limited to around 30' turning. Someone would have the info as it was a good driver, and is still around. I believe I did heqr about some CV failures but that rig was also run in several desert races. It had some decent HP.
ISDTBower is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-01-2014, 11:15 AM   #15 (permalink)
OCB
Registered User
 
OCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Member # 160626
Location: OC CA.
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinAirDesigns View Post
So my head is full of question related to IFS/IRS CV joints and axles.



I get that more power through them reduces reliability. I get that more angle does the same. I certainly get that when you combine the two it's death. What I'm wondering is if any documented testing has been done regarding the torque capabilities of these driveline components at their range of angles or is this segment of the market (U4, etc.) such an outlier market wise that the testing is done pretty much by running them in races and watching them break?

Take an outboard, non-plunging, top of the line RCV or such (something like Shannon or Loren would run). If we plot the failures, could we assume that they cluster at the outer angle ranges (say 35 to 45)? If a theoretical driveline was designed that limited the CVs to say 30 degrees total and yet still allowed 45 degree articulation of both control arm travel and steering angle, would the total CV failure rate drop dramatically, or are other failure modes (boot failures due to an intrusion lets say) so statistically significant that the total failure rate would still be high?

Another area where I need an education is in plunge. I get why plunge should be minimized in any driveline, but it's also just another parameter. If overall reliability is better in a system that has plunge, then so be it. My direct question is this:

Remember, I'm not advocating plunge as a band-aid for poor geometry. I'm asking if a suspension/driveline design could dramatically reduce CV off axis failures but involved plunge, is there some fundamental, unsolvable issue with plunge in the IFS/IRS context?

Thanks
JB
I started working with the company that builds this plunging axles in the picture below. (the last one)They turn out to be total waste of my time. They lied!! I have never seen such B.S. form a big company like Voo doo/,RCv. It is said ,if you don't have something good to say then don't say it at all. IMO their is need for some axle plunge IFS/IRS designs! I started on low horse power ones for VW and never finished



Last year I started some R&D on axles for low HP but never finished. ( Picture #1)I have some data on CV limits from testing but nothing on axles. With plunging axles I will run axles on the driveline to get some twist . You mite have to do something with driveline to deal that shock load. I have been using the U-joint chart to compare with the test data from the CV joints. I think the roller bearing is much stronger the ball design in plunging axles.
If I show you the design can you model it? Do you have the program to run dynamic stress testing?

OCB










Last edited by OCB; 12-01-2014 at 05:59 PM.
OCB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-01-2014, 06:19 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCB View Post
If I show you the design can you model it? Do you have the program to run dynamic stress testing?

OCB
I'd be happy to produce a model. I don't have the simulation and FEA add-in for my package (Autodesk Inventor), but I've been considering upgrading. Perhaps is a good time. :-)

PM me if you like.
JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-02-2014, 08:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
OCB
Registered User
 
OCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Member # 160626
Location: OC CA.
Posts: 133
Plunging axles

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinAirDesigns View Post
I'd be happy to produce a model. I don't have the simulation and FEA add-in for my package (Autodesk Inventor), but I've been considering upgrading. Perhaps is a good time. :-)

PM me if you like.
JB
I think we can do this in the open for all to see. I think we can try and do better with input from everyone here and JB .
There has been some big $ spent on trying to use the plunging axles. We have a Jimco class one car that had series 30 non plunging 45' and Mcenzies axles. They cost $5000 a set and never worked great but I give Jeff a 10 for effort. ( No one else even try something new for years )I Talked to Jeff about CV tech a few times. I know he has done a ton CV R&D for the desert cars. We took them off and sold them. IMO the picture with opposing roll bearing in line will hold the loads without to big of OD & weight. ( I seen them first on a Aston martin back in the day) The try pod CV joint plunges great already. Maybe 2 rollers opposing bearing may be good. ( Mite make sure about patent infringement with try pod designs)Most plunging axles are roller bearing now days. With EDM I think they can be made without costing $5000. Hope this helps.

OCB

http://www.racepaint.com.au/wp-conte...ging-axles.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqhjGs2zFLo

















http://www.racepaint.com.au/wp-conte...ging-axles.pdf

Last edited by OCB; 12-03-2014 at 10:34 AM.
OCB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 10:16 AM   #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Throwing something out there. It again is conceptual only and not drawn with packaging or practicality in mind - just a conversation piece. It's modeled with a portal, but that's not important to the concept.

It's based on the premise that CVs will handle plenty of HP when used with less angular offset and that the major failure mode encountered in our world is high angle and not other (that's why I was asking those related questions earlier).

By aligning the suspension pivots between two opposing joints, the geometry will passively divide the angle between the two based. This division could be an even division (as you would likely want on the interior set) or an unequal division (as you would likely want on the outer set).

By operating the CV in a lower angle regime, wear would be less, heat damage would be less, HP loss would be less and angular failures would be less. Are these advantages great enough to offset the disadvantages? Can't say.

Not claiming it as a new idea -- probably discussed ad-nauseam some where.

JB
Attached Images
   

Last edited by ThinAirDesigns; 12-03-2014 at 10:24 AM.
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 10:40 AM   #19 (permalink)
OCB
Registered User
 
OCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Member # 160626
Location: OC CA.
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinAirDesigns View Post
Throwing something out there. It again is conceptual only and not drawn with packaging or practicality in mind - just a conversation piece. It's modeled with a portal, but that's not important to the concept.

It's based on the premise that CVs will handle plenty of HP when used with less angular offset and that the major failure mode encountered in our world is high angle and not other (that's why I was asking those related questions earlier).

By aligning the suspension pivots between two opposing joints, the geometry will passively divide the angle between the two based. This division could be an even division (as you would likely want on the interior set) or an unequal division (as you would likely want on the outer set).

By operating the CV in a lower angle regime, wear would be less, heat damage would be less, HP loss would be less and angular failures would be less. Are these advantages great enough to offset the disadvantages? Can't say.

Not claiming it as a new idea -- probably discussed ad-nauseam some where.

JB
IMO you are going down the right road there!

OCB
OCB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 10:52 AM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Member # 392218
Location: PHOENIX, Arizona
Posts: 204
driveshafts

WOW YOU GUYS HAVE TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS THE ORIGINAL REASONS THEY PUT CVS ON DRIVESHAFTS WAS TO ELIMINATE VIBRATION ISSUES AND TO GET PAST A CROSS MEMBER YES THE DOUBLE U-JOINT WITH A CENTER POINT CUTS THE U-JOINT ANGLE IN HALF WITCH LOWERS FRICTION AND MOVEMENT SO YOUR U-JOINTS DONT WORK TO HARD THE DRIVESHAFT IS ALSO THE MOST OVERLOOKED PART ON A VEHICLE SO PUTTING ALL THIS TECK WORK IN ON A PROVEN PIECE OF EQUIPMENT I PERSONALY THINK IS WASTFULL THATS WHAT THE FACTORYS ARE DOOING AND IT SCREWS THE COMSUMER BECUSE PARTS ARE PARTS STICK WITH WHAT WORKS AND DONT REINVENT THE ROCK A ROCK STILL A ROCK AND IF IT DOSENT NEED TO BE SUPER ROCK WITCH BY THE WAY YOURE PICS ARE LOOKING KEEP IT SIMPLE
driveshafter is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 11:01 AM   #21 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Driveshafter. I wish I knew what your point was - that design would boast the same advantages (and disadvantages) whether utilizing CV or Ujoints). Either could be used.

JB
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 11:57 AM   #22 (permalink)
Rock God
 
ISDTBower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Member # 94026
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 2,418
I believe there are a few fronts like that running around in Scandinavia. Part of the Insane Quarry climbng events. There was a pretty good thread on one here on Pirate maybe 3-4 years ago? I couldn't find it. As I remember there was a very large distance between the spindle and KPI. It was also solid axle so the axle shaft could have been supported at the end of the tube???? It turned over 45'. BIG.

Two each 934/5 = 1 each Series 30. $$$$

Here is a thread on steering systems for SA's. Some ideas in there that may spark more thought.

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gener...fast-rigs.html
ISDTBower is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 12:50 PM   #23 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISDTBower View Post
Two each 934/5 = 1 each Series 30. $$$$
I think what you're saying here is that the budget for cv joints needn't go up for that design because smaller cv joints could be used. Seems logical to me.

JB from phone.
ThinAirDesigns is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2014, 10:51 PM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Member # 116338
Location: Bailey, CO
Posts: 492
In my new ifs/irs ultra4, I went back and forth a dozen times on drive axles.
934/934 plunging with custom shafts
Stock gm 1 ton inner and outer Cvs with custom shafts
Even considered 930s for a bit.

When I looked at cost, amount of work, and potential failures, I ended up going with RCV shafts front and rear.

934 axle shafts are ridiculous expensive to begin with, and I wanted to take a component of of my "unknowns". Go with proven shafts, and spend the time running the new technology.

The plunging inner from rcv gives me the travel I want. And the outer certainly meets my turning requirements.

Max plunge for me is 1.25 with my three link trailing arm rear. Nature of the design. The inner Cv takes that and more. I think RCV rates the pro4 inner joint at 1.875 plunge.

Are they expensive? Yup. But worth it.

Price out a set of race prepped 934/934 plunging Cvs along with a stub shaft, boots, and axles. You get pretty close to the price of RCV!
__________________
[U][B]2015 Ultra4 Sponsors[/B][/U]
- EATON - RuffStuff - PRP - Raceline - Jim Coughlin P.E. LLC - J&S Performance and Tuning - NW Fabworks- FOA - ATD - Novak Conversions - Pro Comp Tires - RCV
ihcj9 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-04-2014, 10:43 AM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Member # 492769
Posts: 429
Have the 'spherical' RCV boots turned out to be more reliable than the more traditional 'accordion' boot?

Thanks
JB
ThinAirDesigns 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 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.