|12-21-2017 02:18 PM|
|chopped50ford||Thank you - Great thread|
|11-26-2017 04:16 PM|
Looks like I have a lot more research to do, lots of info here!
|02-28-2017 10:57 AM|
|ForMud||Mark it out on the shop floor, measure for length, then go buy one of these Husky 5 in. Digital Protractor-822H - The Home Depot read numbers, now you have your angle. Send me $5 for my wisdom.|
|02-25-2017 07:42 PM|
I need some help here boys, Im terrible at figuring out angles without putting them into action first and then re doing my work.
Im putting a buggy together that formerly had toy axles, now going to 1 tons. Suspension geometry was good and would like to keep everything as close to the same as possible. Im trying to figure out my lower lengths right now to run through the calculator and scratching my head. Here is the info I know from before
current spacing at frame-12 inches
former spacing at axle (toy) -35 inches (center to center)
New spacing at axle (dana 60) should be 40 (center to center)
to keep my heims straight and inline with the old frame tabs, how long do my lowers need to be? I bought 20* link mount brakets to angle them in as much as possible, but I'm afraid it won't be enough. Any help here? This is probably simple as shit but I just can't put it together tonight.
|02-23-2016 07:01 AM|
Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but I have a question / discussion for the big brains...
What (if any) ill-effects would you see with a setup having the instant center behind the rear drive axle? In other words, a negative IC x-axis.
Playing with it in the calc, doesn't seem to affect anything too greatly slipping from the parallel plane to a negative IC, and I can't come up with anything in my head that would cause any weird jacking in the suspension (assuming proper separation & geometry otherwise)
|02-23-2016 04:53 AM|
|02-22-2016 07:14 PM|
|02-05-2016 09:56 AM|
|02-04-2016 09:39 PM|
|73 ford guy||Thanks for responses guys. I want the design to also help protect the shafts with the links. A carrier bearing could come into play in front as well. The rear I original had a 1350 cv shaft but after dropping a significant amount of lift for better stability I could just run 1350/1410 shaft probably but the rear truss was built anticipating rotating diff for cv. Gotta start crunching some #'s in a calculator|
|02-04-2016 09:01 PM|
|02-04-2016 04:47 PM|
All my lowers are all the same length and so are my uppers. Uppers dont bend very often but I am using DOM for my lowers and expect them to bend over time.
|02-04-2016 01:37 PM|
|Juicysluice||Funny you mention the links. I fought hard with link placement, the "#"s and the steering so I could carry 1 spare link in the toolbox to get me home. Steering, panhard, front lowers and rear 4 link are all 40". For obvious reasons the tie rod and front top link are of different length but least likely to fail or suffer a damaging impact. Vetteboy built his TTB buggy around equal drive shafts. Think he only had a 1/2" variance in his design|
|02-04-2016 12:56 PM|
|02-04-2016 08:22 AM|
The advantage is clear to having equal length shafts. One spare.
Imo, weight bias and gross weight are not concerns of the op. Check his build out. I believe what he is doing is eating the length of the intermediate shaft off the trans and swinging the balance of the long front shaft to the rear shaft.
In any other "buggy" app, equal length shafts ARE a result of BETTER weight bias and a midship is run on the front output.
The lower length of the links front to rear doesn't really effect the drive shafts until the geometry, WB or vertical sep of yokes gets to extreme values. What I mean by this is you can have equal front and rear shafts but different link geometry front to rear. Only have to mind the capability of the u joints. Also the length of the lower links in the X plane (viewed from side) is altered by the horizontal separation of the links in the Y plane (viewed from above). This means you can have 40" links but the further they are triangulated in the Y plane might mean you have a 36.5" link distance in the X plane. 40" axle horizontal separation and 7" at the frame Those are the figures from my rear links. 40" lowers f&r and 25" f&r shaft measurement iirc. 1410 joints, non cv.
X2 what Stubs said
|02-04-2016 07:37 AM|
|02-03-2016 09:19 PM|
|02-03-2016 06:42 PM|
|73 ford guy||
Bumping this thread up. When linking front and rear axles how important is it to have the links similar lengths front and back to maintain equal driveshaft lengths?
Also I read you want your lower links as close as possible to the output shafts on tcase.
I have a divorce tcase and I can easily move it forward. Current driveshafts are 40" rear and 55" front
|10-27-2015 01:20 PM|
Also, have you come to a conclusion on the lesser of two evils regarding the long vs short upper link and driveshaft angle vs castor? I'm in that same boat right now.
|09-23-2015 03:13 PM|
Nice video but of the 17 minutes only a few had anything to do with link placing and adjusting. Practically nothing about 3 link systems. They could have put an hour into this topic easily. For instance I would like to know why factory systems seem to violate most of the rules of thumb. The dodge trucks I see with 4 link suspensions, well correction. 5 link suspensions seem to have plenty of angle on their links which we all know is going to lead to a ridiculous roll center and AD(anti-dive). My problems are getting the roll center to 0 and have any anti dive left on a 5 link. With the vehicle having only an 8 inch lift it is impossible to fit any triangulation into the front.
Such is the fun of a custom 4x4 Van
|05-31-2015 04:22 PM|
|05-31-2015 07:57 AM|
|05-31-2015 07:46 AM|
|Mauiview||Thanks for this Cliff Notes version of this thread, appreciate it!|
|02-14-2015 01:23 PM|
Suspension 101 - Rock Racing | Xtreme 4x4 | PowerBlockTV - Full Episodes
easier to just watch a video
|09-26-2014 09:07 AM|
So, I have a question for you. I have read this entire thread, purchased a book on suspensions and played with the calculator. Its all really great stuff. But, my question is just how off do some of these numbers have to be to really notice a difference.
For example, my wifes' stock JK's numbers aren't all that great. From the builds I see people do, their numbers are much better. I have not off roaded her jeep but I hear in stock set up, they do quite well.
for example, the role axis on the JK is over 12%. That is pretty high by the standards in this thread. I would love to hear from folks who had to make corrections because the numbers where to high. How far off where your numbers and where did you have to set it before you were happy with it.
|01-28-2014 06:19 AM|
Just summing up this thread as I just read the entire thing.
- read pages 1-9, 13-15 ( some ass hats in the middle ask bad questions and are answered with info that doesn't jive with the rest of the thread.)
- read CJ2ota's post on pg.14 he sums it up nicely
To fix your roll values have you considered increasing link separation at the frame or axles , like CJ2ota mentions on pg14 (separation meaning widen or narrow)
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|