V-link Front Suspension

[Walking Eagle]

Originally Posted by ginericLC

It doesn't matter which one feels like it is going to tip, It is which one is going to tip. I'd rather feel like it was going to go a long time before it did go. I think you are going to screw up a perfectly decent suspension for your application. Your application does include daily driving and long trips still doesn't it? When did you get the tow rig? I'm just curious because after you do this your are going to need one. If you really want more flex just make a custom set of lower control arms that utilize a flexible joint. They Hyperjoints that Metal Tech has been using would give you tons more articulation without redoing all the links. You would be surprised at how much more flex you can get out of the stock system if you open up the ability to flex on just one end. I'm sorry I don't agree with folks that think the 80 needs to mimic a buggy for it to be a successful trail vehicle. I've never been passed by a buggy on the interstate, not even by one on a trailer.

Well, as far as which on is going to tip, I can tell you which one flopped twice on Ultimate Adventure

Don't get too wound up, just thinking out loud on the forum ya' know, try'n to figure it out - probably won't try anything too crazy till Brutus is done.....

Wouldn't mind trying out just the x-link from Australia - price isn't too bad, and it's pretty much reversable. Guess that's part of screwing around with an x link or v-link, if it's that horrible on the road, just buy a couple used arms to put back in, or new brackets for the axle.... it's not like hacking off all the stock mounts from the frame and stripping the axle clean of all brackets or anything...

And since the front swaybar on the 80 is easy to disconnect, if x-link or v-link created too much body sway on the road, you could always put a HD sway bar on, and disconnect for off-road use.

Next weekend I might go wheeling, and I'll try to get some pictures of the truck in situations where I think a little more front end flex would be advantagous.

[Waggoner5]

Yea, but Christo could roll his wifes RAV4 in his driveway. And Ben.....well we won't even talk about his rolling experience.

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by Walking Eagle

Well, as far as which on is going to tip, I can tell you which one flopped twice on Ultimate Adventure

Web wheeling at it's best . Once flop was in the sand and one was done pretty much on purpose. Camera's rolling, right spot, right time. So it has nothing to do with how the suspension was set up.

One thing I have said repeatedly is that if you make it superflexy, you increase the instances where the truck unloads on you. That is
much worse then not articulating. There are times that more articulations helps, but there are more times where it hurts. I have never been in a situation that I wanted more articulation in the ShortBus, yet I have been in loads of situations where I was really glad that it does not unload. Run run relatively short springs, captured both top and bottom to create a negative spring effect on the truck that stops the truck from unloading.

Have a look at this video. This truck was a ramp champ, yet Ben would agree that he hated the characteristics on the trail.

http://www.sleeoffroad.com/video/moa...cker-part2.wmv

I am not saying the articulation can not be improved, but I have to agree with Eric on this. It is a lot of work for minimal gains, if you want to keep your 80 one piece.

[motoloco]

Watch the vid, a "less flexy" truck would have been just as bad off or maybe on its roof. 2nd I owned that rig, It did not need that much lift for those tires, some more trimming and some bumpstops, and about 2" less lift would have made it more stable. Build it flexy as possible and keep it under control with a anti-rock sway, bumps, and removable straps, then you can set it up for whatever you feel comfortable with depending on the trail. A 3 link that is less stable is a 3-link that is not set up right. You can make it what ever you want, just go for it. I will post pics of my setup soon.

[Dusty]

Too much flex is dangerous and slopy and unroadworthy. Long armed links are overrated. But It is fundamently better to have a robust linked suspension that is potentially too flexy and then reign it in with spring/shock/swaybar combinations than to have a restricteed suspension (ie 80 series radius arms) where options are so severly limited. I have never seen Mike or seans's 3 links in action or the short bus for that matter, but I have wheeled my truck and it is too stiff in front.

[sleeoffroad]

The truck in the pic and video was not the same as when you got it. The basic suspension design was the same, but not the springs. I believe when you got it, it was 2" taller than the time we did that trail.

I drove that same obstacle with a 80 with 5" of lift and 35's with a stock suspension setup and I did not end up in that situation.

For trails where a 3 link is needed, you need more clearance under the truck. It is not just tire clearance. If you think you can get a way with a 80 setup with a low suspension to make it stable, but you want to play on those kinds of obstacles you are making a mistake. The 80 just gets stuck on it's belly and you are done.

I have yet to see someone get a antirock Swaybar installed on a 80. I think it would help, but I have also seen a lot of those swaybars break the links on super flexy trucks.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by sleeoffroad

For trails where a 3 link is needed, you need more clearance under the truck. It is not just tire clearance. If you think you can get a way with a 80 setup with a low suspension to make it stable, but you want to play on those kinds of obstacles you are making a mistake. The 80 just gets stuck on it's belly and you are done.

Could this not be improved by simply building less intrusive frame link bracketry? My trck does most of its rubbibg on the rear lower links. I wonder what improvements would be realized by moving the links to framesides. the 80 is just another 112" wheelbase truck and stretched rigs (heeps) are becoming commonplace. Only diff is 80 is big assed (poor departure), under geared and heavy. Although little can be done to help these 3 issues the suspension can be maximized.

[Walking Eagle]

Why is it that everytime improved flex is mentioned, people start talking about ramp champs that aren't set up well? You can take the shocks off completely and probably get the same ramp results, but it's not going to drive the same on the road or trail. Heck, take the springs off you'll probably get some great ramp #'s too.

Sure, you can increase the flex and have crappy spring and shock set-up and get an unstable set up.

You also can get an unstable set-up with soft 6" springs, underdamped shocks, and still have crappy flex too.

Motoloco is right - I'm not talking about uncontroled flex. Uncontroled is bad period, weither it's x-link, 3 link, leaf, or radius arm.

I find it hard to believe that all the people out there with bronco's and land rovers, and 80's in Austrailia are ALL wrong in their attempt to unbind the front suspension a little.

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Could this not be improved by simply building less intrusive frame link bracketry? My trck does most of its rubbibg on the rear lower links. I wonder what improvements would be realized by moving the links to framesides.

I believe that you would gain a lot if you moved the lower links inboard and made the link to frame transition smooth. The fronts can be done the same way if you are going to do a custom three link.

[sleeoffroad]

Originally Posted by Walking Eagle

Why is it that everytime improved flex is mentioned, people start talking about ramp champs that aren't set up well? You can take the shocks off completely and probably get the same ramp results, but it's not going to drive the same on the road or trail. Heck, take the springs off you'll probably get some great ramp #'s too.

Don't get me wrong, I think it can be improved and you could probably gain some. However everytime this comes up, people start posting pics of trucks on the ramp. The more flexed up they are, the better people think the suspension is. I just wanted to show that there are more to the picture than just ramp pictures.

I think your design is good out of the box thinking. I can see the benefits you mentioned in setting everything up and then just cutting the front part of the control arm off. I am just not sure you are going to get that link positioned under the truck.

I have not seen Mike's truck with the three link perform, but from all accounts it does seem to work really well. That said, ask Mike what the next hurdle is. Steering. Sector Shafts, Loss of steering with large tires, hydro assist etc etc. This is more a warning for the newbies that see goobles of flex and want to strive to have a truck like that. An 80 is not a buggy or minitruck. Period. The flexy front end is just one of the part of the puzzle.

[motoloco]

BOTTOM LINE. you can take anything as far as you want to take it, there are different set ups for different ppl's uses. A 4-6" lift and some 35's are perefect for 90% of 80 owners. I am taking mine a little further, but if you want a FULL BLOWN ROCK TRUCK/BUGGY an 80 is the wrong truck.

[FJBen]

Originally Posted by Walking Eagle

I find it hard to believe that all the people out there with bronco's and land rovers, and 80's in Austrailia are ALL wrong in their attempt to unbind the front suspension a little.

I agree, and especially with the "little" part

In my "Quest for Flex" (thats trademarked by the way ) I found out A LOT without actually going to a true 3 link up front etc.

The most change I noticed was the "poor mans 3 link" that in combination with longer shocks allowed the front to balance the rear (before I put the 14" shocks on) and it stayed relatively level. I think this was by far the most balanced of the setup. worked great on the trail and allowed me still really good highway manners.

When the quest continued, I changed to 14" shocks in the rear which then caused the body to lean more now that the rear far outflexxed the front again. At that point it basically just "felt" more tippy and sure I could flex more, but at what expense?


I like the idea of beefing up the front for the poor man's 3-link....or trying to figure out a beefier way to do that. That balances the flex and allows "normal" manners until you want more flex.

In this pic, an 80 did the same line in front of me. They had the OME/L shock standard setup and lifted a tire going over it. I pulled the hitch pin and didn't lift a tire at all. I wasn't even maxing out yet on the front end.

Did it stop either of us from making that climb? No...but I do like the extra couple of inches of flex when I might need it.



I feel that it performed better in the above pic, than when I was going for a lot of flex. here I had quite a bit more flex from the rear. The front flexed and maxxed out my shocks as well, but it was just too much IMO for what I was going to do with the rig.

[Walking Eagle]

Originally Posted by FJBen

The most change I noticed was the "poor mans 3 link" that in combination with longer shocks allowed the front to balance the rear (before I put the 14" shocks on) and it stayed relatively level. I think this was by far the most balanced of the setup. worked great on the trail and allowed me still really good highway manners.

I like the idea of beefing up the front for the poor man's 3-link....or trying to figure out a beefier way to do that. That balances the flex and allows "normal" manners until you want more flex.

I sorta figure the X-link type suspension is just that, a beefier poor man's 3 link.

The one interesting thing in the video Slee linked is there really isn't a whole lot of articulation going on on that truck! DS is maybe 6-8" up from the bottom of the flare (depending on where in the bouncing you look) and the PS is at the bottom of the flare. What I see in that video is a truck that is top heavy from the amount of lift it has laying over on it's side, and rearing up on it's hind legs. Obviously the taller you go the more it's going to want to tip back as you climb, it's simply the CG working it's magic.

I also think there is a fundimental difference between sitting at 4" over stock and trying to get more droop on a suspension that you can easily compress to the bumpstops, and trying to get a truck that is 6" over stock to hit bumpstop on one side, and still droop on the other. You have 2" more to compress, multiply that times the spring rate, and that's quite a bit of force. Droop doesn't take much force.

[Walking Eagle]

Originally Posted by sleeoffroad

Don't get me wrong, I think it can be improved and you could probably gain some. However everytime this comes up, people start posting pics of trucks on the ramp. The more flexed up they are, the better people think the suspension is. I just wanted to show that there are more to the picture than just ramp pictures.

Yep, we agree, there is more to it than just ramp pictures - but those two pics were easy to grab, and ramps do have the nice part of there not being as many different lines to take as opposed to rocks. If I get motivated, maybe I'll take some shots of my truck climbing a ledge, then pull one of the bolts, ala poor man's, and try to run up the exact same line. Try to get some apples to apples like FJBen did on the ramp - but a little more real world. I'm looking as much at how the body is sitting in those pictures as how the axle is sitting. Which is somewhat the same thing, and somewhat not. I guess on that 3link ramped picture, if the body was in the same possition relative to the axle as the picture of the short bus, it'd be on it's side. In that case I'd rather have it balanced such that you'd start lifting the front tire before you roll.

Originally Posted by sleeoffroad

I think your design is good out of the box thinking. I can see the benefits you mentioned in setting everything up and then just cutting the front part of the control arm off. I am just not sure you are going to get that link positioned under the truck. .

I'm not sure I can get that link possitioned under the truck either. I do get a little more room having the drop brackets, the arms don't angle into the frame as much, so there is a little more usable space - enough? Don't know yet.

If I could get another 3 inches of droop - get that front wheel in my first picture back on the ground, with the body sitting the same, I would call that a success. The second picture of my truck, you can tell I'm doing my best to force as much flex out of it as possible, and just a little more would have been nice. The 3" that would get me touching in the first picture would not get me touching in the second, and that's fine. Not trying to build a ramp champ, just get that little more out of the system without throwing it all out the door and 3 linking or 4 linking it.

Nice thing about web wheeling is can hash some of this stuff out and see if a theory is worth testing or not.

[landtank]

I think that spring rate/ truck weight is a bigger factor in perceived flex than most realize. It's easy to see how too high a rate will limit compression on the high side but too low a rate hurts it as well.

I have no idea of how to quantify it but my truck has been doing quite well. This isn't the best of pictures but it gives you an idea.

[LC80Ducati996]

Look at this truck and what it can do. What it has accomplished. 2005's Class 7S Baja 1000 winner Still street legal and registered. Now pay attention to the front axle linkage system. Used to be a 4 link.



Big air



Big Flex



Um Radius arms


FWIW I think the best option for the sway bars is go to a torsion rod style sway bar like the baja trucks and include remote disconnects/reconnects into the system.

[Isotel]

Originally Posted by LC80Ducati996

Um Radius arms

Im pretty sure that setup is referred to as a Y-link.. Stock Jeep stuff..

radius arms tend to suck at steep climbs because the geometry is not setup for climbing.. properly designed 3-links are better at that, but lets face if folks 80's are bad ass wheelers, but IMO if you need 3-link, you need a Smaller lighter rig more suited for rock crawling.. 80's are way to big for the type of stuff 3 links are good at.. action jackson 3-linked his cruiser and sold it 6 months later.

It would be sweet to see a nice 3 link kit available for those who want to push an 80 that far! with a nice sway bar and proper design it could work

[FJBen]

Here's about as Apples to Apples as I can get ya

97 w/ OME J springs, L shocks caster plates 35" toyos
93 Slee 4/OME J rear L shocks SLee arms 35" toyo's no sway bars, hitch pin pulled

You can see just how much further I went up this same rock. Our rigs were basically identical in terms of weight. The difference was sway bars, why not the hitch pin? Because mine was on the drivers side so it could only move UP .5" instead of drooping down. So this was all in the sway bars.

Here's the pics

Pic #1 97 from the side, notice rear tire in air and position to rock
Pic #2 mine from a slightly different angle, tire on the ground
Pic #3 97 from behind

[FJBen]

here's mine from behind....wouldn't let me post 4 pics :(

[Nay]

Originally Posted by Isotel

It would be sweet to see a nice 3 link kit available for those who want to push an 80 that far! with a nice sway bar and proper design it could work

I don't think you want a swaybar - you want a limiting strap design that provides retention at the end of the shock travel on the corners and allows about 3" of droop in the center. These are relatively easily designed and very cheap - you just need axle mounts. What you achieve is the inability for the entire front end to drop out and unload and resistance on the corners at full droop without hanging the entire assembly off your shock.

Other rigs running 3-links have honed in on this technique to stabilize the front end while allowing the flex without having to upper retain a coil spring and shorten its life. It is a better approach than a swaybar, because a swaybar will not prevent flat out unloading.

The anti-rock bars were designed to prevent "torque jack" in 5-link quad coil short arm Jeep platform, which is where a rear tire just picks up under torque in a flexy situation (this had led some TJ owners to go to leaf sprung rears like the XJ). I don't think that is an issue on an 80 due to arm length and other factors, but I could be wrong.

Outside of the "poor man's" approach, this is what I would do if running a 3-link - while I am no expert by any means, but I think it brings some of the positive features of a leaf spring (progressive resistance to droop) into a flexy coil link suspension.

I really don't want to rely on a suspension component that I expect to flex to also limit that flex if $100 worth of limiting strap would perform that function effectively for me and probably pay for itself several times over in suspension component lifespan.

I've never heard an argument against the limiting strap, and most 4x4 shops seem to carry them, but I guess because it's not "bolt on" you need some fab work to create the axle mounts and most people don't ever get into fabrication.

[Isotel]

by Sway bar, i guess i meant something similar to an anti Rock, They make one now that can be disconnected by the turn of a dial.. this would help with body roll and handling on the highway correct?

Any linked suspension should utilize limit straps and bumps!

[Walking Eagle]

Originally Posted by Isotel

, but IMO if you need 3-link, you need a Smaller lighter rig more suited for rock crawling.. 80's are way to big for the type of stuff 3 links are good at..

Ya', but you ever try to stick 5 kids in the back of a 40 series?