[cruiserrg]

Have any of you built in adjustment hole into your link brackets? Most of the pics I have seen don't have any adjustment other that link length.

Any reasons not to have extra adjustment holes? I am thinking of building my rear links (4 link with tri-uppers) to have the upper link have 3 mounting locations for parallel, some Anti-squat, and more anti-squat. I will probably build the front with no adjustment and have the links parallel.

Any thoughts? Pics of link suspensions with built in adjustment would be great.

 

[CWToyota]

Like this?

 

[convertiyota]

Check out allpro's site. Bundrant's first truggy had numerous holes in the link brackets.

 

[Station]

I am making my susension mounting points so that I bolt the actual brackets onto the axles. To me it seems stupid to weld in only one possible suspension configuration. Espescially on comp vehicles thats are expected to be the top performer in all kinds of various terrian/traction situations.

Here are some pictures that show how the brackets are going to be attached....


Sean

 

[Station]

Another

 

[Station]

1 more

 

[cruiserrg]

I am making my susension mounting points so that I bolt the actual brackets onto the axles. To me it seems stupid to weld in only one possible suspension configuration. Espescially on comp vehicles thats are expected to be the top performer in all kinds of various terrian/traction situations.

I agree that there should be more than one suspension configuration. My rig will see many different trails where I might want less or more anti-squat in the setup. Thanks for the pics of the brackets your gonna run, its a good idea. Nice portal axle BTW. I will probably weld in brackets with more than one mounting location, because it will be tight to fit a bolt on setup to my axles.

Keep the post coming...

 

[Station]

You can use the bolts that hold the inner knuckes to the axle housing, to bolt some brackets to the axle. Also the spring pads bolt on to the 404 axles right? You could use those to bolt brackets to also right?

Mine do not take up much space at all.

They only stick up from the housing 1.125". They are 0.375" thick. They only added 2 pounds per axle. 3 0.5" socket head cap screws are going to hold the brackets to the welded on flanges.

My brackets are going to be peices or rectangular box tubing which fit tightly between the two flanges, notched around the axle tube, with 3 peices of round tubing that the bolts will pass through , which will support the flanges.

Sean

 

[BJ On Roids]

station how will this change the performance of the vehicle, i am curious, and very intrigued by this concept (new to me at least)

adjusting the suspension, will change how it performs in what situations?

can you give examples and so forth?

thanks!

 

[cruiserrg]

You can use the bolts that hold the inner knuckles to the axle housing, to bolt some brackets to the axle. Also the spring pads bolt on to the 404 axles right? You could use those to bolt brackets to also right?

Yeah I have thought of using the bolts that hold the knuckle on my 404s to use for link mounting. I could only use those for location of the lower links, as my uppers with be triangulated and converge at the axle. I will have to see where the lowers will end up to see if thats a possibility, because I may have to angle the lowers in to miss the tires and mount decently on the chassis.

At this point I am only looking at making the rear upper links adjustable;
- because I want the lowers to have as much clearance as possible while keeping them aligned with the lower part of the chassis
- also because the lowers would only be for fine adjustment of anti-squat, the upper give much more change with adjustment.

Do you plan to have all your links adjustable, or just upper or just lowers?

 

[cruiserrg]

adjusting the suspension, will change how it performs in what situations?
can you give examples and so forth?

Not having run a link supsension off-road yet, my thought are only speculative but I give them anyway and see what everyone else says.

I want to have the suspension adjustable to allow it to react differently on different trails. Say that I am going to a comp with many steep climbs, I would probably want to adjust in more anti-squat to give me more traction for the initial climb. Compaired to a more level bolder filled course where I would want less anti-squat to have more control over the rear axle and how the body shift with accel.

Now of course this may be totally wrong and only real world test will determine what works and what doesn't.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[ROCKSFORBRAINS]

I agree.Math helps you with the initial geometry, but Real World Testing will quickly tell you how your suspension performs under varying conditions and whether you like the way it behaves. You may change your mind about how much anti-squat you like after trying it for a season, so multi- holed mounts are a smart way to build.

Just keep in mind that the closer together you mount upper and lower links in relationship to each other (on the axle end) the more stress that will be placed on them. In retrospect I probably should have built the adjustment holes into the frame mounts instead of the axle on the last setup. Right now they are 5 1/2" apart which puts alot of tourque on them.

Pics to follow (when I can figure out how to post them as an attachment -any tips?)

 

[MOGXJ44]

...Just keep in mind that the closer together you mount upper and lower links in relationship to each other (on the axle end) the more stress that will be placed on them...

...Pics to follow (when I can figure out how to post them as an attachment -any tips?)

When you say "the closer together," you are talking about distance off centerline of the axle up and down trying to control axlewrap, right? I'm in a quandry about loss of ground clearance due to the links, or keeping the lowers low to control axlewrap. My 404 axles are already gonna exhibit major axlewrap characteristics just because of their design. So do you figure link distance off of axle centerline, or wheel centerline? I'm guessing I'll have to sacrafice some of the additional 6" ground clearance to regain control of the axle.

Posting pics: Size a pic to 640x480 and no bigger than 50kb (I know it says 90kb, but you won't notice any real degredation from 90 to 50). I find Photoshop 7 to be a great program. Once your pic is sized, save it as a .jpg or .jpeg and remember where you saved it. Come to Pirate and post a reply. Under the reply box is a button for attatchments. Click browse and find you file. Done. Submit your reply as you normally would.
Travis

 

[cruiserrg]

Just keep in mind that the closer together you mount upper and lower links in relationship to each other (on the axle end) the more stress that will be placed on them. In retrospect I probably should have built the adjustment holes into the frame mounts instead of the axle on the last setup. Right now they are 5 1/2" apart which puts alot of tourque on them.

Pics would be great, I have been thinking along the same lines. I think I may put a singe mount at the rear axle for the upper links and build in multi-holed brackets at the chassis mount for the upper links. This was I can keep the same link seperation at the axle.

 

[cruiserrg]

When you say "the closer together," you are talking about distance off centerline of the axle up and down trying to control axlewrap, right? I'm in a quandry about loss of ground clearance due to the links, or keeping the lowers low to control axlewrap. My 404 axles are already gonna exhibit major axlewrap characteristics just because of their design. So do you figure link distance off of axle centerline, or wheel centerline? I'm guessing I'll have to sacrafice some of the additional 6" ground clearance to regain control of the axle.

I'm in the same boat with the MOG 404s. It is especially difficult in the front because there is just not much room with the drive train. My lower mounts might be slightly below the axle, but I plan to built sturdy mounts angled upward toward the front to ease the skidding over effect. Also since they are close to the knuckles and wheel, the concern might not be as bad. I will still probably end up with only 6-7" of link separation at the axle.

 

[BJ On Roids]

Pics to follow (when I can figure out how to post them as an attachment -any tips?)

hit reply

hit the brose button you see below where you are typing your reply

from there the pics can be uploaded to the pirate bulletin board from your PC

pretty simple really

nice ideas guys!

 

[gopar68]

I will be installing a 6 hole track bar brackets from a circle track car for my upper link attachments this weekend. If this thread stays hot, I'll post pics next week.

 

[ROCKSFORBRAINS]

Heres a pic of what became a four link with a panhard bar.

 

[ROCKSFORBRAINS]

Just got home from the shop & figured out the picture thing- thanx

Heres a pic of what I was talking about earlier. It became a four link, not triangulated, with a panhard bar, poly bushings on axle end and 3/4 heims on frame end. I get a little too much axle torque transmitted to the bushings (which wears them a little quicker) caused by not enough vertical separation between the upper and lower links on the axle end. I think on the next one I'll go for about 7 to 8" of vs & make sure to leave enough room on the frame end of the links to have a few adustment holes to play with the anti- squat.

 

[Station]

Sorry... Between being busy, and not being able to get onto the board when I have time, I have not been able to answer any follow up quesions.

The link mounting points make up all of the charicteristics of a linked suspension. By changing the spread on the axle mounting positions I can change the IC(Instantaneous Center) by a large ammount. I can go from 50%AS(Annti-Squat) to 150%AS with just the change of a bracket or two. I can also fine tune the the roll center to give me the effect I am looking for. The brackets will give me a very wide range of verticle speration/angle adjustability, and will also allow for some side to side seperation adjustability.


Both uppers and lowers will be adjustable at the axle.

I am actually considering making the chassis mounts adjustable as well, if I can figure out a compact effective way to do so.
I plan to start off with infinite IC's front and rear in a dual triangulated 4-link configuration. I am going to run that for a bit to get the feel for it. And since the vehicle will be complete , I can weigh it complete to get accurate measurements for COG. I will feel it out from there, possibly making two sets of brackets to begin playing with, high and low IC %ages.

Just speculating, I think the infinite IC should work pretty decently everywhere. An all around performer. But something that is good at everything is rarely the best at anything. I think a high IC% will work good for mud, and low traction on fairly flat ground. Medium high IC% should be good for slippery or loose hillclimbs. I think a low IC% would be the ticket for high traction, pedal to the floor hillclimbs like at Supercrawl.

One setup is not going to be the best everywhere though, so that is why it seems silly to me that so many competitors weld in one configuration and go. Then just say "It works!" wothout doing any other experimentation. Even drag cars adjust their suspensions to match track conditions(Drag cars that have suspension that is), and the spread different track conditons is so much narrower for them than for us. The goal is still the same though... to be able to make the most traction, to put the most power to the ground. WHoever can make the most traction relative to vehicle weight is going to be the one who makes it to the top of the hill the fastest,easiest, or cleanest(not bouncing/swerving and taking out cones)

You can do a search under suspension, and my name to see what I have had to say about this in the past. I have been preaching this for awhile.

Sean