[Tuner Inside]

Found these pictures a few months back and can't remember where I got them. Thinking about trying this design on my SJ410 in the front on some Toyota axles.

Was thinking about that setup. Make the same setup on both sides.

See his setup is only a 3 link which scares the hell out of me. He doesn't heven have a panard bar!!! Ekkkkk

So what do you guys think? Would this setup work well on a light little rig like mine? Going to use areostar coils for now and switch to airbags when I have some cash.

Thoughts? Places to improve?

 

[larryboy]

those pics look like jeeper111.

http://www.extremevehicledesign.com/ProjectPita/projectpita.html

 

[larryboy]

here is a similar set-up.http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106709


similar to what i'm working on for the front of my junk.i'm using aerostars as well.

 

[95geo]

you wont be able to make it the same on both sides....
once it flexes one of your mounts will break or it wont allow it to flex

if you will be driving it on the street you might want to consider the caster... lay it out, i did and with 37" controll arms and 12" of travel without flex results a 15*caster change as your driving down the road

just some things to think about

 

[Tuner Inside]

so the design does work hey. cool. so just make it a 3 link with a panard bar? I guess it wouldn't have worked as a 4link(binding.)

I guess my main question is, is this a good design? With a panard bar of course!

 

[billj]

I went and look at the pics on the site mentioned above....... Just how the fawk IS the axle maintained on center under that rig. No Panhard, no A-arm, no nothing, at least that I could see.......


As for the control arms, the overall design look proportionally OK. Heims suck, IMHO, but in geneal, it outta work..... You mentioned the use of the same control arm design on both sides. This won´t work, unless you design in some sort of provision to let one of the arms "wrist". Otherwise, you´ll have extreme suspension bind under flex.......

FWIW, here´s my suspension, a 2-link with panhard, front and rear. Simple, yet quite effective........

http://200.155.1.101/publicos/goto?AID=23215

 

[Tuner Inside]

THanks for the input the Billj. Yeah I didn't see a panard bar either? Thats why I was thinking of doing the setup as a 4link but as everyone said it would bind. So I guess I will shoot for the 3 link and a panhard bar.

Quick question. A panard bar should ssit level at stock ride heigth and be the same ength as the chassie is wide, right? So for the newbie question......

 

[kris]

(DSI can't log g/f off )

basically hwat you have pictured there is a radius arm design, origionally used by ford on all F150 trucks through the 60's and 70's, also used on all EB's you only need the 3rdlink on one side, preferably the side opposite the diff (drivers in your case) the panhard rod help's to be as level as possible so it doesn't pull the axle to one side or the other when you droop/compress

i would however recomend putting some form of a limit strap so the coils do not decide to unload on a steep climp

 

[billj]

THanks for the input the Billj. Yeah I didn't see a panard bar either? Thats why I was thinking of doing the setup as a 4link but as everyone said it would bind. So I guess I will shoot for the 3 link and a panhard bar.

Quick question. A panard bar should ssit level at stock ride heigth and be the same ength as the chassie is wide, right? So for the newbie question......

If you do a 4 link, then there is no reason to have the double connection on the driver´s side arm. And to eliminate the need for the panhard, just design triangulation into the two upper arms and call it good.


But to your question.......

Yes, the panhard should be as level as possible. However, even more important than this is that the panhard MUST be paralell to the drag link. Otherwise, bumpsteer will be killer.

As far as the panhard length, I can think of no reason why it needs to have any relation to the width of the chassis. It should be as long as practical, but above all, paralell to that drag link......

 

[Pook]

(DSI can't log g/f off )

you only need the 3rdlink on one side, preferably the side opposite the diff (drivers in your case)

i don't really understand why this is relevant could someone please explain... on my buggy the y link is on the pumpkin side but the link is long and at the frame end it lines up with the u joints on the tcase so the drive shaft doesn't even really slip in or out...is this going to cause problems when i get it on the trail? I always thought it was more of a space issue.

 

[Tuner Inside]

See you learn something new everyday. I didn't know that the panard bar had to be paralell to the drag link! But that does make sense. Oh yeah I forgot about limiting straps!!!

So I guess the big question on my mind still is:

Is this setup good w/panard bar or would a 4 link work better. This will be my first coil buildup so adjustability is nice in case I dont get my angles bang on!

Sounds like a 4 link with some triangulation might be a bit easier to muddle through.

 

[billj]

i don't really understand why this is relevant could someone please explain... on my buggy the y link is on the pumpkin side but the link is long and at the frame end it lines up with the u joints on the tcase so the drive shaft doesn't even really slip in or out...is this going to cause problems when i get it on the trail? I always thought it was more of a space issue.

I´ll try..........

First of all, I believe that Kris has it backwards........

Let´s assume Pook´s setup, that is with the y-link on the pumkin side. When this pumkin side droops, the pinion will rotate together with the y-link. Conversely, when the opposite side droops, the pinion angle does not change.

OK, assuming equal droop for both sides, it stands to reason that the pumpkin will fall further away from the chassis when the pumkin side droops. So, in order to minimize u-joint angles, it would be preferable that the pinion "turn up" when the pumpkin side droops, which is what happens when the y-link is on the pumpkin side.

I did a really shitty job of explaining this, but it´s the Friday before Carnaval, so I´m really thinking of other things right now!!

:beer: :jester: :grinpimp:

 

[Root Moose]

you wont be able to make it the same on both sides....
once it flexes one of your mounts will break or it wont allow it to flex

You might want to e-mail Rubicon Express the tell them their very succuessful lift doesn't work.

:flipoff2:

[email protected]

 

[zukiboy]

You might want to e-mail Rubicon Express the tell them their very succuessful lift doesn't work.

:flipoff2:

[email protected]

good point....i was thinkin the same thing....but i think that the rubicon arms use rubber mounts at the axle.....these act like the "C" bushings on ford radius arms and allow for a certain amount of twist......with heims at all 6 points....4 on axle and two at the frame....i think this set up would not work well

 

[Root Moose]

This can't be a complete suspension, it has no real lateral control - i.e. Panhard or more links.

That suspension is basically a two link (like a 1970s coil Ford like someone pointed out).

It is not a 3 link - the second link on the drivers side does nothing except keep the axle from rotating about its axis. It is attached to one of the radius arms and not the frame so it is essentially part of that radius arm.

Hell, it is practically in the same vertical plane as the radius rod, if it is forced to do anything laterally the forces will be huge - *POP* goes the bushing.

Add a Panhard and it will be cool. Let the bushings at the ends of the radius arm deal with articulation, the Panhard will deal with lateral restraint.

[email protected]

 

[Root Moose]

OK, assuming equal droop for both sides, it stands to reason that the pumpkin will fall further away from the chassis when the pumkin side droops. So, in order to minimize u-joint angles, it would be preferable that the pinion "turn up" when the pumpkin side droops, which is what happens when the y-link is on the pumpkin side.

Additionally the location of the vertical restraint makes a difference to the torque loads on the axle. I can' remember why - too many wobbly pops at lunch I guess. Something about lever arms I think.



[email protected]

 

[larryboy]

another good thread using this suspension design.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95389&highlight=aerostar

i'm attempting to mimic this set-up as closely as possible seeing as how this is a proven rig that works. i'm not saying that the others don't work but rockstompers has been around awhile.

 

[MuddMachine]

You might want to e-mail Rubicon Express the tell them their very succuessful lift doesn't work.

:flipoff2:

[email protected]

Hahaha, you took the words right out of my mouth. I've seen Rubicon shit work, and work well it does.

 

[Pook]

I´ll try..........

First of all, I believe that Kris has it backwards........

Let´s assume Pook´s setup, that is with the y-link on the pumkin side. When this pumkin side droops, the pinion will rotate together with the y-link. Conversely, when the opposite side droops, the pinion angle does not change.

OK, assuming equal droop for both sides, it stands to reason that the pumpkin will fall further away from the chassis when the pumkin side droops. So, in order to minimize u-joint angles, it would be preferable that the pinion "turn up" when the pumpkin side droops, which is what happens when the y-link is on the pumpkin side.

I did a really shitty job of explaining this, but it´s the Friday before Carnaval, so I´m really thinking of other things right now!!

:beer: :jester: :grinpimp:

this is how my brain had it all figured and it seemed to work in all in shop testing ...just got scared and thought i had a brain fart and missed something important.