Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Tech Forum > Long arm kits

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Long arm kits Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler 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:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
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.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-04-2013 04:57 PM
sinbob
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
So a 4 link... Double or Single triangulated?
Double!!!
04-04-2013 04:42 PM
CMA_Rider
Quote:
Originally Posted by vballspen View Post
The bushings shrunk. they were set up right and after 5000 miles or so I kept hearing this loud clunk every so often. Got down there and found this. RC sent me rebuild kits for all the joints but still 5k miles! i have gotten about 8 out of the set on it now and they are almost to the same point that the old ones are. Swapping them all out for a tnt long arm.
I have well over 5k on my xflex joints and have no complaints, everything is as tight as the day I built the joint. You sure you built it right?
04-04-2013 04:35 PM
smashtj
Quote:
Originally Posted by vballspen View Post
The bushings shrunk. they were set up right and after 5000 miles or so I kept hearing this loud clunk every so often. Got down there and found this. RC sent me rebuild kits for all the joints but still 5k miles! i have gotten about 8 out of the set on it now and they are almost to the same point that the old ones are. Swapping them all out for a tnt long arm.
What if u bowel the joint previes to putting it in.i need to check mine.
04-04-2013 02:56 PM
vballspen The bushings shrunk. they were set up right and after 5000 miles or so I kept hearing this loud clunk every so often. Got down there and found this. RC sent me rebuild kits for all the joints but still 5k miles! i have gotten about 8 out of the set on it now and they are almost to the same point that the old ones are. Swapping them all out for a tnt long arm.
04-03-2013 07:49 PM
smashtj
Quote:
Originally Posted by vballspen View Post
I am a little late but here is my rc x-flex end after 5000 miles.

Rc x xlift - YouTube
Is that the threads rattling or the joint?ive built some of these,they do have to be maintained after breakin.but mine are holding up well.with some work that is.
04-03-2013 10:59 AM
vballspen I am a little late but here is my rc x-flex end after 5000 miles.


Rc x xlift - YouTube
03-25-2013 10:47 AM
Rusty762
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROK1 View Post
Imped, did you cut all your mounts off? (upper, lower and axle - front and rear). Did you fab any of your mounts or did you buy pre-fab? I thought I read you used some Poly mounts, but all of mind are crushed and bent. I would like to scrap all the stock mounts - frame and axle to build off clean parts.
Rok1 I belive Imped made his own mounts for the front and used the Poly brackets for the back. I am gettting ready to stretch the rear, 4 link, One ton and Coilovers on my rig and will be using the same mounts. Here is a link

Poly Performance JEEP/TRUCK & BUGGY*::*Fabrication Parts*::*Axle & Chassis Brackets*::*Synergy Suspension Universal 4-Link Frame Mount Brackets - 4X4 Off-Road Parts, JK Synergy Suspension Systems, Fox Racing Shox, Beard, CNC Brakes, Johnny Joints®, C
03-20-2013 04:55 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFOtestpilot View Post

This is where my inexperience with a live axle multi-link is going to get me. I probably should have kept my mouth shut but I wanted to help with the distinction. On a McPherson setup it would be the lower rearward mounting point that would alter it directly, but there may be a better way to alter the effect on the link setup.

Anti-dive decreases the downward force that occurs in the front during forward weight transfer. Dive can load the front tires pretty good.

Anti-lift decreases the front lift associated with reward weight transfer.

I probably want to go back to listening because of my lack of experience with the vehicle/system in question.
It's all good! Ha thanks for the new vocab either way. We're all here to learn. The reason I asked about AS instead of anti-dive or anti-lift was because on the 3 link calc it said AS percentage at the top. And unless I'm just getting everything backwards, Imped's front is set up with the 3 link and panhard.
03-20-2013 04:44 PM
aTX427 Imped, did you cut all your mounts off? (upper, lower and axle - front and rear). Did you fab any of your mounts or did you buy pre-fab? I thought I read you used some Poly mounts, but all of mind are crushed and bent. I would like to scrap all the stock mounts - frame and axle to build off clean parts.
03-20-2013 04:17 PM
UFOtestpilot
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post

Which mounting point are you referring too? Axle or frame side? Upper or lower CA or the panhard? And can you be a little more descriptive with "dive" and "lift?

I'm guessing lift is the raise in height seen by the front end during acceleration? And dive is the decrease in height seen by the front end during braking?
This is where my inexperience with a live axle multi-link is going to get me. I probably should have kept my mouth shut but I wanted to help with the distinction. On a McPherson setup it would be the lower rearward mounting point that would alter it directly, but there may be a better way to alter the effect on the link setup.

Anti-dive decreases the downward force that occurs in the front during forward weight transfer. Dive can load the front tires pretty good.

Anti-lift decreases the front lift associated with reward weight transfer.

I probably want to go back to listening because of my lack of experience with the vehicle/system in question.
03-20-2013 04:01 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFOtestpilot View Post
That would be "lift" and "dive" properties in the front. Move the mounting point down and you decrease lift, move it up and you decrease dive.
Which mounting point are you referring too? Axle or frame side? Upper or lower CA or the panhard? And can you be a little more descriptive with "dive" and "lift?

I'm guessing lift is the raise in height seen by the front end during acceleration? And dive is the decrease in height seen by the front end during braking?
03-20-2013 03:39 PM
UFOtestpilot That would be "lift" and "dive" properties in the front. Move the mounting point down and you decrease lift, move it up and you decrease dive.
03-20-2013 03:28 PM
PStov98TJ So lets talk so numbers now. So AS in the front end. Is it essentially like the rear but during breaking? Or is it during rearward acceleration? I know not to get my head too wrapped around the calc but it is fun to play with. But what is ideal AS range for a tri-link with a track bar for the front end?
03-20-2013 03:17 PM
UFOtestpilot Carrol Shelby has some books that are still relevant to this day. "Tuning to win" has some pretty straightforward explanations of stuff. I have all of his books, but I am also interested in "Race car vehicle dynamics" by Douglas Milliken.

I'm trying to wrap my head around approaching the solid axle, and the knowledge I had in the front of my brain has moved into a foggy back corner so I'll be reading and re-reading lots of stuff this summer.

What I would LOVE to have is the CG data on a stock TJ. If anyone has weighed one and has the tangents from as high of a rise as possible I would be most grateful. I sold the scales when I gave up my track toy and gadgets.

Thanks to those that have a working knowledge of what the subject actually is here for sharing some fact-based, real world experience.

As for the other BS: It's generally considered wise to know the "why" of your disagreement BEFORE you challenge someone on a subject. This way, when you're right you don't look like a tool, and when you're wrong you can actually learn something because your ego isn't at stake.
03-20-2013 02:15 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by geiman View Post

If you're interested in learning more there are many good threads to read out there, but this is one in particular and it has links to others as well:

Suspension Geometry - JeepForum.com
Thanks. I'm gonna give that one and the many others I've book marked a reread.
03-20-2013 02:13 PM
geiman
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
Ok. Now I see it. Just needed to be told what that was. I'll go play with the calc for now. If I have anymore questions I'll post here again. Thanks for all the input! This turned out to be a great thread in the end.
If you're interested in learning more there are many good threads to read out there, but this is one in particular and it has links to others as well:

Suspension Geometry - JeepForum.com
03-20-2013 02:05 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
Yes, that's a 3 link suspension with a track bar.

Not the greatest picture in the world but you can see the mini truss with link tabs on top for the control arm.

I already posted a picture above of the frame mount. It's the one with the ugly bowed coil spring....that has since been taken care of.
Ok. Now I see it. Just needed to be told what that was. I'll go play with the calc for now. If I have anymore questions I'll post here again. Thanks for all the input! This turned out to be a great thread in the end.
03-20-2013 01:26 PM
Imped Yes, that's a 3 link suspension with a track bar.

Not the greatest picture in the world but you can see the mini truss with link tabs on top for the control arm.


I already posted a picture above of the frame mount. It's the one with the ugly bowed coil spring....that has since been taken care of.
03-20-2013 12:41 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by geiman View Post
Yes he does only have one, a la 3-link. Read through his build when you get a chance, lots of great info.
I've already read through it a few times but alot of the pics are down unfortunately. But I am going to re-read it along with re-reading the other builds he mentioned. They're fun to look at and drool sometimes. Haha

So now my question is, where does that one UCA connect to the frame and axle? And are there any other options for a front suspension that would obtain similar results?
03-20-2013 12:38 PM
PStov98TJ Never mind about how to use the calc. I was tired last night trying to figure it out. That was possibly the dumbest question I could ask...
03-20-2013 12:37 PM
geiman
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
Wow that makes alot more sense now! So one more dumb question, in your front set up, do you really only have one UCA
Yes he does only have one, a la 3-link. Read through his build when you get a chance, lots of great info.
03-20-2013 12:36 PM
PStov98TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
In short, the roll axis angle follows the slope of two points--the LCA intersection point and the roll center point. As seen here--this is a screen shot of my front suspension:

So, its slope is a direct relationship of the slope of the lower control arms and track bar. The roll center point is defined as the center point of the lateral locator link, so in this case the track bar. The frame end is ~26" off the ground and the axle end is ~17" off the ground. What's the average of those two points? ~21.5", my roll front center height. If either point is raised, the roll center will raise. The higher the roll center, generally the less body roll you'll have due to the mass of the vehicle having less leverage over the roll point. This is exactly why I'm a proponent of flatter control arms. Along with really helping the on-road driving characteristics, the climbing performance offroad is much better.


Correct. In a rear triangulated 4 link, most people choose the upper control arms to constrain the rear axle, therefore they're the lateral locator. So, as you see here, the roll center height is defined by the upper control arm points at the axle:


Also notice that my lower control arms have about 10* of triangulation. Due to that, the roll center height is brought down a little bit. If you look at the roll axis, it's perfectly flat.....remember how I said I designed the suspension to be neutral in order to minimize roll steer effects? That's exactly why. If I ran less triangulated lowers or more triangulated uppers, the roll center height would increase a little bit, resulting in a downward sloping roll center axis = roll oversteer. If anything, I'd rather have a little understeer. If you look back up at the front, I did want a little under steer dialed in--in reality, I'd prefer a little more but that's not how it ended up, which is OK. So, do you see the relationship with those parameters? If you break it all down and just look at it fundamentally, you're just dealing with a few triangles. Go back to your geometry and physics notes and what was once muddy water will become pretty clear.


Which lines are you referring to? It's simply an input/output calculator.
Wow that makes alot more sense now! So one more dumb question, in your front set up, do you really only have one UCA (I'm certain you don't because I feel like that would cause crazy problems, but I've been wrong before)? Or is it a wishbone style CA or something else?

And about the lines, I'm referring to the lines that represent the CA's, TB, roll axis, AS lines, etc.
And is the calc you used for the rear the same one used for the front?
03-20-2013 12:03 PM
Imped
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post
agreed. there is nobody more experienced with suspension design in this thread than Imped. I've done a fair bit of suspension cycling work, but when I have questions about brain bending anti-squat, roll center, arm lengths, etc concepts; I ask Imped. then I'm reminded I need to spend a few more hours on Pirate4x4 reading.
Thanks bud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
So concerning roll axis angle, what are the factors and components that effect it? I'm starting to understand IC and AS (which I feel like is the simpler stuff in the equation of suspension geometry). And I'm beginning to scratch the surface on the other stuff.
In short, the roll axis angle follows the slope of two points--the LCA intersection point and the roll center point. As seen here--this is a screen shot of my front suspension:

So, its slope is a direct relationship of the slope of the lower control arms and track bar. The roll center point is defined as the center point of the lateral locator link, so in this case the track bar. The frame end is ~26" off the ground and the axle end is ~17" off the ground. What's the average of those two points? ~21.5", my roll front center height. If either point is raised, the roll center will raise. The higher the roll center, generally the less body roll you'll have due to the mass of the vehicle having less leverage over the roll point. This is exactly why I'm a proponent of flatter control arms. Along with really helping the on-road driving characteristics, the climbing performance offroad is much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
But if I'm not misktaken, triangulation of uppers will raise the roll center and triangulation of the lowers will bring it back down, correct? How will triangulation and the other possible combinations of triangulation effect the roll axis angle?
Correct. In a rear triangulated 4 link, most people choose the upper control arms to constrain the rear axle, therefore they're the lateral locator. So, as you see here, the roll center height is defined by the upper control arm points at the axle:


Also notice that my lower control arms have about 10* of triangulation. Due to that, the roll center height is brought down a little bit. If you look at the roll axis, it's perfectly flat.....remember how I said I designed the suspension to be neutral in order to minimize roll steer effects? That's exactly why. If I ran less triangulated lowers or more triangulated uppers, the roll center height would increase a little bit, resulting in a downward sloping roll center axis = roll oversteer. If anything, I'd rather have a little understeer. If you look back up at the front, I did want a little under steer dialed in--in reality, I'd prefer a little more but that's not how it ended up, which is OK. So, do you see the relationship with those parameters? If you break it all down and just look at it fundamentally, you're just dealing with a few triangles. Go back to your geometry and physics notes and what was once muddy water will become pretty clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
And this is a bit of a stupid question, but I'm pretty much a computer idiot. I downloaded the calc from Pirate4x4, but how do I get it to change the lines on the graph at the bottom after changing the values at the top? Thanks!
Which lines are you referring to? It's simply an input/output calculator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
And to Imped, thank you for keeping the conversation technical and not just blasting people even though some are pretty rude. I'm here to learn everything I can as you suggested to me a few weeks ago and in my opinion, you're one of the best to learn from on this subject. So thanks for being helpful and willing to share pics and the solid, thought out, scientific, real life experiences and knowledge you have.
No problem, that was my goal all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMTJEEP View Post


Is it me or the picture but is your upper arm bent at where the joint is?

Also after a couple weeks of going through your build I'm considering redoing my suspension and try to run a different setup once I get my MC joints. If I can remember how to do the 4 link calculator and get all my measurements could you take a look at it if I pm you the info or guide me if those calculations are way off?
It's not bent but it sure looks like it there....weird.

First, plot your current suspension and send it to me. We can determine if there's room to improve and if it's feasible. If you have any questions on how to use the calc, PM me.

And just a quick note on the calc: Don't go crazy using it. It's a great tool to help you learn and to help you actually see the relationships that exist. I use it as a visual aid and that's about it anymore. Once you understand this stuff, you won't need the calc very often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tj2 View Post
Love these threads. There is so much technical information about suspensions that I realize I was clueless. When it comes to engines and general vehicle stuff I'm pretty good but man, this is a leading experience. And a fun one in that. I'm planning a stretch with a 4 link in the rear and this among other things posted by Imped, unlimited, and others has helped so much. Thanks guys for the factual information and the advise on what not to waist money on. Would an off the shelf kit work for me? Probably. I only wheel 5 times a year if that. But sometimes we want to do things and do them right just because we want to, and that's my plan. Thanks again.
Not a problem.
03-20-2013 11:35 AM
00tj2 Love these threads. There is so much technical information about suspensions that I realize I was clueless. When it comes to engines and general vehicle stuff I'm pretty good but man, this is a leading experience. And a fun one in that. I'm planning a stretch with a 4 link in the rear and this among other things posted by Imped, unlimited, and others has helped so much. Thanks guys for the factual information and the advise on what not to waist money on. Would an off the shelf kit work for me? Probably. I only wheel 5 times a year if that. But sometimes we want to do things and do them right just because we want to, and that's my plan. Thanks again.
03-20-2013 11:12 AM
EMTJEEP

Is it me or the picture but is your upper arm bent at where the joint is?

Also after a couple weeks of going through your build I'm considering redoing my suspension and try to run a different setup once I get my MC joints. If I can remember how to do the 4 link calculator and get all my measurements could you take a look at it if I pm you the info or guide me if those calculations are way off?
03-20-2013 10:36 AM
PStov98TJ So concerning roll axis angle, what are the factors and components that effect it? I'm starting to understand IC and AS (which I feel like is the simpler stuff in the equation of suspension geometry). And I'm beginning to scratch the surface on the other stuff. But if I'm not misktaken, triangulation of uppers will raise the roll center and triangulation of the lowers will bring it back down, correct? How will triangulation and the other possible combinations of triangulation effect the roll axis angle?

And this is a bit of a stupid question, but I'm pretty much a computer idiot. I downloaded the calc from Pirate4x4, but how do I get it to change the lines on the graph at the bottom after changing the values at the top? Thanks!

And to Imped, thank you for keeping the conversation technical and not just blasting people even though some are pretty rude. I'm here to learn everything I can as you suggested to me a few weeks ago and in my opinion, you're one of the best to learn from on this subject. So thanks for being helpful and willing to share pics and the solid, thought out, scientific, real life experiences and knowledge you have.
03-20-2013 09:26 AM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
3. You may not have noticed but I don't drink the "KoolAid" B.S. that you, Jerry, and UnlimitedLJ try to serve to the newbs.
In case you hadn't noticed, Jerry and I don't agree on much.

and what "KoolAid" do you speak of? The part where I (or the others) suggest people read, learn, comprehend, understand and gain experience with how their vehicle works so they can make their own educated decision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
And what's that? Experience? You can group me with those two gentlemen if you'd like but with no disrespect intended for them, I've got more experience in this particular area than they do. I'd venture to bet that both of them have more than you.
agreed. there is nobody more experienced with suspension design in this thread than Imped. I've done a fair bit of suspension cycling work, but when I have questions about brain bending anti-squat, roll center, arm lengths, etc concepts; I ask Imped. then I'm reminded I need to spend a few more hours on Pirate4x4 reading.
03-20-2013 09:09 AM
Imped
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
2. I said high clearance LA, which means not the cheap off the shelf bolt-ons
Fair enough. Let's have that discussion then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
1. I have yet to see a rig with a true high clearance LA setup (mounts above the frame rail) get hung up on the mounts or arms.
That's because a rig with nothing below the frame rails won't get hung up on something that isn't there. Truly a profound observation from you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
Maybe you dont know how to properly set one up, have you thought about that.
No, I haven't thought of that because I've done it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
2. You dont know me, if you did you'd know I would not go get a off the shelf bolt-on LA, I wouldnt be happy with it unless I made it, and made it to perfectly meet my needs. (true double triangulated 4link front and rear w/ full hydro)
I was basing my replies on your perceived knowledge of the subject. My perception of you hasn't changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
3. You may not have noticed but I don't drink the "KoolAid" B.S. that you, Jerry, and UnlimitedLJ try to serve to the newbs.
And what's that? Experience? You can group me with those two gentlemen if you'd like but with no disrespect intended for them, I've got more experience in this particular area than they do. I'd venture to bet that both of them have more than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
4. Still not High clearance, and I know a guy who I have seen hit his LCA frame mounts and get hung up.
Again, profound. People hit low-hanging control arms and mounts? Shocking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
5. You still wont have the available droop that a LA setup would give you, the longer arms along with decreased angle will increase your droop. CA angle is only part of the equation.
This is your inexperience talking. Why would I care about maximum droop when I can't use it? Again, fewer opinions and more numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
6. longer droop and less angle
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
7. No, but you can out-board and then a LA setup would have more available droop than a SA, and it wont pull your axle back as far when at full droop.
You completely missed the point due to your inexperience. Feel free to try again. I'd like for others to understand this point so if you miss it again, I'll be forced to provide the answer that's staring us all in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
8. Ignorance
If I'm ignorant, what does that make you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
I would like to see your shortened short arm rig do this, Imped
You've got to be kidding me.....that's the basis for your argument?


Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
Ok. Lets not let this get to be a pissing match. And as far as I'm concerned, RTI ramps make for cool pictures but I've never seen one on a trial anywhere. Lets see trail pics and keep the info to technical instead of bashing each other.
Agreed. Bringing an RTI ramp into a technical discussion is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. That doesn't help your points one little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PStov98TJ View Post
Beside that, lets talk about rear steer a bit. Imped, is there any noticeable rear steer in your set up? How did you avoid it if there isn't any?
Is there any rear steer from y'all's LA kits?
I'm leaning to the shorter style arms right now as a future mod, just wanting to get some advice from real world experience.
Steering input from the rear suspension is a function of the roll axis angle, or oversteer/understeer. I have set my suspension up to be very neutral so the roll steer input is minimal. There will always be some, especially in higher travel applications, since it's impossible to totally mitigate the effects of wheelbase change throughout the cycle. I keep travel in check and don't notice one little bit of steer input when on the trail at low or high speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
Yes my rig is on a 2bb and 1.25bl, the reason is Im on a college student budget. If it wasnt for that, Id have a built rig on LA's and 1tons. Im also runnin RC x-flex short arms up front and the joints on them are the same as currie's, they just dont cost an arm and a leg. Ive done my research and have witnessed the pros and cons of both LA's and SA's.
Not that it pertains to this thread in any way, but I worked two jobs while in school full time, built my current axles and performed my first two 4 links before my senior year of college. That's not even mentioning the 8-10 rigs I had a hand in and helped build during that time. What's your point.

As for your RC vs. Currie JJ argument, there goes your inexperience again. If you've had both of them apart, side by side, and actually understood the reasoning for fixed preload and other characteristics of the Currie joint you wouldn't have said that. Simple as that. I've rebuilt more RC joints than you've probably laid your eyes on, have ran JJ's for more miles than you've probably driven your Jeep, and have spent more time on this subject than most would ever care to. RC joints don't hold a candle to JJ's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinbob View Post
I will say this about the LA kit.....it takes some time to get used to. 1st time I passed a semi at 70mph on the freeway I thought he would blow me off the road.
I also haven't had any problems with rear steer, but it is whippy as hell. Probly need new shocks.
That has nothing to do with arm length. That has to do with roll steer, shocks, and sway bar. A suspension with arms of any length can roll like or be on rails. Zero correlation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinbob View Post
Our trails here are very rocky here. I have noticed that the LA's seem to have an easier time than the SA's. Now that may also be due to many other factors too, but that is what I have observed.
There are many other factors involved. If you can give a direct comparison with more details, we might be able to determine what those factors are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear94 View Post
Because people don't look into things, they just believe everything they read on forums.
I can agree with that. But here's one thing I know for sure--I don't spout out information on anything that I don't have direct experience with. I value my credibility too much to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
Yes Id rather run the RC version of JJ, they are the same thing with the same amount of movement and their cheaper and easier to rebuild/replace.
I'd love for you to provide the forum a picture of both joints, disassembled, showing that they indeed are the same thing....because they aren't. Are you saying that because both joints provide X* of misalignment capability, they are the same thing? The rebuild argument makes no sense. If you actually use the rig and appreciate a silent suspension, you'll be rebuilding the RC joints a minimum of 10x more often than a Currie joint, which will cost more money and will require much more time. No joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear94 View Post
I'm a leaf spring guy so I don't know much about JJ and RC joints. But if I did the research I would probably find the same info he did. People just see what "certain" others post on the forums and believe every word they say....
Get some direct experience and review the subject then. I think you'll bite your tongue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFOtestpilot View Post
I'd prefer to see a bit more geometry and physics and a tad less bravado, but that's just me. Suspension geometry and function is probably my favorite aspect of vehicle dynamics. While I appreciate string opinions, I appreciate them more when they have mathematics on their side and a real world application behind it. A never-ending RTI ramp and infinite droop doesn't do it for me.

Each component's relationship to the whole is more important than any one component by itself. Focus on details all day long, but lose sight of the big picture and its back to square one guaranteed.
This is the kind of mentality that will lead to an excellent understanding of this stuff. Props UFO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
I said I was planning on doing a custom setup that no company has yet to come up with, and the high clearance LA I am referring to is where the mounts are located above the bottom of the frame and the arms are bent for max clearance.
That's a fantastic way to go. How do you plan to counter the excessive antisquat numbers, higher placement of the upper control arms due to the required amount of vertical separation, and potential for less up travel due to the previous statement?

This is the exact reasons custom buggies/juggies can get away with longer, higher-placed arms. They don't have a tub or box frame in the way. With our Jeeps, we have limitations and constraints that must be minded or else you'll give up more in concessions than you'll gain. A balance must be achieved and until you deal with more setups and get some experience under your belt, you won't have a full understanding of those constraints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
I was referring to the droop of the front axle not the RTI ramp distance (droop does have a real world meaning)
You need to define what in the world we're talking about. My entire discussion has revolved around coil springs and shocks. Things get too foggy when you introduce something else without at least stating it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
I punish my rig probably more than you, and I have kept up with and surpassed rigs on 35s+, locked front and rear, when Im on 33s open or even when I was stock. And dont even start in on drivers skill cause they are infact good drivers.
Here you go


Quote:
Originally Posted by CMA_Rider View Post
All you need to rebuild a X-flex joint is a pair of needle nosed pliers and a allen wrench, and you do not have to set a preload.
You don't? What's that threaded collar for then?


Now that that's out of the way, we'll talk a little "high clearance long arm." Aside from my rig, I haven't spent more hours under another Jeep than this one:



Crossmember-mounted lower arms, a total PITA crossmember, but great clearance. That suspension presented many problems, namely bouncing when crawling due to the high AS....directly caused by the steep lowers. It had excessive body roll due to the triangulated lowers. After a long time of dealing with it and thinking of ways to fix it, the only feasible fix was to ditch it and start over. He was also tired of dealing with the high quality version of the RC joints (Summit Machine) and switched over to JJ's all around. Unfortunately, we haven't taken any pictures of the link setup itself but here's a view of the new frame-mounted lowers


Back to the Tennessee TJ that was posted earlier. After moving from stock mounting points, he did a high clearance rear link setup as seen here:


I no longer have the calc screen shot but he was sitting around 200% AS. There is literally no easy way to tackle the fix other than bringing down the lower frame mounts. That suspension was wonderful in terms of clearance but was a nightmare when climbing, which made it very hard on parts.

Here's the suspension I helped him design








Minimal loss in clearance, huge gain in overall performance, handling and up travel. He'll tell you the same thing I will after actually doing it and experiencing the differences--save the ultra high clearance stuff for the rigs that can support it. A TJ, even with a heavily modified frame, cannot support nearly the travel or clearance a completely custom rig can, period. The three rigs I've shown you in this thread happen to be the top three build threads on JF. Between the 3 of us, we've done a hell of a lot of cool stuff and there's very little we haven't had a hand in.

Some pictures of mine:











So CMA, what have you done? You can talk all the game you want but until you can show me what you've done and actually keep up in this conversation, you're not really pertinent. My goal was to simply spread some knowledge and help people save money and time. I've wasted more money and time learning what works and what doesn't than you probably have on your entire Jeep and my sole goal is to prevent others from wasting theirs.

So, for those of you that would like to learn, feel free to ask away. For those that want to pretend like they know what they're talking about, start another thread.
03-19-2013 11:17 PM
CMA_Rider
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMTJEEP View Post
If you have kept up and surpassed rigs that are on 35's and what not, while you are stock or 33's then why upgrade anymore? Save the money run stock/33's if you can surpass them.
Because I wanted 33s and now I want 37's and tons on a custom 4-link, its a sickness but Im not joking I keep up and surpass well built rigs.
03-19-2013 11:11 PM
jeepsrgreat Sub
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC