tractionbar build by camcruise .... boring

[inkpot]

Originally Posted by '74 UA FJ

Would 2 inch tube, 1/4 inch thick be good enough for the arms on this type of traction bar?

Howdy! 2" might be a little overkill, but I also come from the school of "use what you got" fabrication. I built my front bumper from 3" x 1/4 tube that was free. The words "lightweight" and "Landcruiser" do not belong in the same sentence. I mean, like who's gonna see it, and who's gonna care? There's plenty of room for it, and the weight is down low where it is not going to hurt the center of gravity. John

['74 UA FJ]

Originally Posted by John Smith

I think 2" would be too large and a PITA to make a traction bar from. I made mine from 1.5" 1/4 wall tube and it has held up great.

I thought cam was using 2". Is that 1.5" he's using?

[John Smith]

Originally Posted by '74 UA FJ

I thought cam was using 2". Is that 1.5" he's using?

From the pictures it looks like 1.5 to me. Though I am sure he will post up what he is using.

['74 UA FJ]

What's the diameter on a 40 driveshaft? That will give a little comparison. If there is plenty of room under there, which I think there is, I don't see a problem with using 2" tube. Probably a little bit stronger. 1.5" would definitely look better, though.

[Brian in Oregon]

Can you post some pics of the bars when the axles are at or near max articulation?

[camcruiser13]

1.75 tube

maybe a little overkill but it aint movin.

[yellowstoner]

Dameron, Cameron! That was fun to read. Any chance you still have that roll cage or did you get sick of waiting for me?

[camcruiser13]

Originally Posted by yellowstoner

Dameron, Cameron! That was fun to read. Any chance you still have that roll cage or did you get sick of waiting for me?

still got it, but i did move it outside, got tired of looking at it in the garage, im a phone call away.


i gotta finish this thing up and get some action shots

[camcruiser13]

okay well finally finished it up and took it for a run in the back fields,

took that camera along. here are some pics.

this is the johnny joint doing what its supposed too. worked out nicely


and another

[camcruiser13]

as you can see the rear was pretty twisted and all is well




one more



ignore all the wires hangin down gotta redo some trail lights etc, no biggie

[camcruiser13]

so there you have it. hope this will help some and appreciate all comments and opinions.


goodnight now!!!!!!!!!

[dustin]

looks good. I broke my first one which had super thick tube like yours, but had a slip shaft of solid tube in the front to allow max rotation (no need for a joint or shackle)... The solid 1.25" thick cold steed busted like a piece of balsa wood after doing a burn out on a dirt road. Not only proof of a poor design or choice of materials on my part, but also stressed the point very well of how much torque is going on down there. Its an incredible amount.
My current one is similar to the one you just did, though I used RE's instead of a jonny joint - and works well. The axle side RE's allow the bar to direct the front attachment point a little easier under flex (wiggle side to side as the axle articulates). I would really keep an eye on where you connect the top bar to the bottom one though. As thick as that tubing is, you do risk folding that tube where they come together. Either after landing on it (mine has saved my drive line a few times), or from doing wheelies down your street.

cheers!
Dustin

[Tankota]

Looks good!

One comment...I had mine connected to the axle housing just like yours is. It ripped completely out of the housing. This was partially cause the cruiser housings being about 1/8" thick...and partially due to my driving. I ended up putting a few extra braces to help hold that bracket to the housing. That worked fine till I swapped in a dana 60 which has VERY thick tubes.


edit: what ripped it off was not noticing the whoopties at the bottom of a dune. I let off the gas but still got the front then rear then front then rear bouncing action. Sorta like a bucking bronco.
This design is really good in regards to not limiting articulation of the suspension. However, the limits on even suspension travel (both sides at the same amount and same time) is the drawback to this design. It binds up a bit. It works good for me most of the time cause I don't baja my rig (with the exception of those hidden whoopties).

[camcruiser13]

i drive like grandma



especially after watching my buddy tear his rig to pieces,


i tend to save money by doing this

[inkpot]

Originally Posted by camcruiser13

i drive like grandma



especially after watching my buddy tear his rig to pieces,


i tend to save money by doing this

Howdy! Good logic. Spend more time driving, and less time wrenching, on the trails. That anti-wrap bar is mighty cheap insurance to prevent big problems plus it gives you some extra DS protection. Side benefit: now you can drive normal throttle in 2wd Low Range, for those easy to moderate trail sections. John