Flexy Coils and Mathematical Theory for Review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Delancy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Sorry about misspeling your name.
- Thread starter
- #283
You should be, as I was apalled, since the first time in my life it's ever happened......
Bahahahahaha.
If I had a dollar for every second e, I'd be happy, happy.
AutoCraft Aus
Araco Master
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Threads
- 15
- Messages
- 918
- Location
- Central Victoria, desert region.
- Website
- 4xoaus.com.au
So whats next ?
theres a flexy flexy thread somewhere I just commented in.
They had your answer too I think, todays job.
theres a flexy flexy thread somewhere I just commented in.
They had your answer too I think, todays job.
richardlillard1
SILVER Star
Chris, you're a funny man.
Did you ever look at how much those arms bind on the brackets? Thinking they're going to go on a diet if I ever get around to replacing the bushings.
Did you ever look at how much those arms bind on the brackets? Thinking they're going to go on a diet if I ever get around to replacing the bushings.
Imho- if you are still weighing 5600lbs - you should simply get in touch with Franky and find his spring winders name.
iirc - its a California based outfit that was doing the cold rolled springs for him. 3-3.5" lift with 37s and you are in the sweet spot as far as : low COG.
great breakover angles and clearance
nice plush feel on and offroad without nosediving/ inducing roll on drops.
its hands down the nicest setup if you arent over 5800lbs and balances onroad stockish feel with offroad flex with control.
For mathematical theory: for every inch you go below or above 3" lift.......theres a 25% negative return on the opposite side of the "onroad/ offroad" spectrum. ie. 4" lift nets you 25% less onroad handling/ stability. 5" - 50% worse onroad 6" - check seatbelts/ rollovers imminent.
iirc - its a California based outfit that was doing the cold rolled springs for him. 3-3.5" lift with 37s and you are in the sweet spot as far as : low COG.
great breakover angles and clearance
nice plush feel on and offroad without nosediving/ inducing roll on drops.
its hands down the nicest setup if you arent over 5800lbs and balances onroad stockish feel with offroad flex with control.
For mathematical theory: for every inch you go below or above 3" lift.......theres a 25% negative return on the opposite side of the "onroad/ offroad" spectrum. ie. 4" lift nets you 25% less onroad handling/ stability. 5" - 50% worse onroad 6" - check seatbelts/ rollovers imminent.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #287
108" WB
Comp cut rear/Comp cut front (*)
80 width
Links
Coil overs
Balanced front and rear sways
Caged (not tubed to look pretty)
Gonna take a little of my own medicine....
37s in the pic, with axles sitting on the bumps.
If I can't get the ground clearance, with the lowers sitting flat, then 42s....then 44s....
The SEs or OEs?
Really doesn't matter, because they NEED to bind to force the rear to comply, otherwise the rear remains rigid.
Within the confines of the OE links, there's no way to better balance traction at the four corners than what Mr. T did.
Looking at the unequal weight bias from front to rear axles, when the front binds, say with one wheel off the ground, it acts like a lever, shifts the weight to the other three tires by forcing the rear to comply increasing traction on the rear, and it's better to push than to pull.
Without forcing compliancy to the corners that have traction, opening up the front nets corners that, while the tire may be on the ground, there's not enough force on the tire for traction, but BECAUSE it's on the ground screws with forces that are imparted on the other tires, which now have less of an ability to maintain traction.
Not enough room for a coil capable of maintaining a reasonable ride height, to be able to push the tire down to offset this (what a dual rate should do, not just keep it in the bucket) effect.
On top of that, think it's better that the 80 driver maintain a feel of level that relates to the field of vision, because it's a fat pig.
Better the driver sees and feels all based on the front ends plane...if that makes sense.
Traction/stability > flexibility.
Think the best way to achieve this is gain all ground clearance with tires, smoothen out the belly as much as possible.
If the tires rub the frame rails or coils, widen axles.
If the ass still drags, cut it off.
For mathematical theory: for every inch you go below or above 3" lift.......theres a 25% negative return on the opposite side of the "onroad/ offroad" spectrum. ie. 4" lift nets you 25% less onroad handling/ stability. 5" - 50% worse onroad 6" - check seatbelts/ rollovers imminent.
As a whole, the aftermarket suspension industry looked at a very complex equation, picked out the simplest, easiest calculation in a few of the brackets, then said problem solved.
We, the consumer, lapped it up off the dirty floor.
We've all read the threads about suspension calculators, roll centers, anti squat, anti dive, blah, blah, blah, which delves further into a solution to the complex equation, bit its still a smaller segment of bracketed functions.....not a holistic solution.
It's my opinion that the importance value of on road characteristics of a dual purpose rig should factor at ten times the importance of off road capability.....but think that the two more closely coincide with each other than we give credit to.
I didn't want then, don't want now, a trailered rig and at the core I am an Cruiser fanatic, first and foremost, before I'm a rock donkey pilot.
I'm not giving up, not accepting relegation to the bunny trails, but I have to be honest with myself and realize that, for 1/3 of invested in the rolled LX, I could've had an exponentially more powerful, more capable buggy....that's just not what it's about for me, personally.
Yes, love the rocks, but don't seek the glory of conquering Viagra or Warerfall, then driving onto a trailer and dragging it home (that may change if I can come up with the money for a Hino, I dunno), but more the satisfaction of wheeling hard, all day, then hopping on the 75mph highway and driving 100-200 miles home.
Gotta embrace the platform and love her for her flaws, too.....but I'm starting to think that, in the case of the 80, what's been perceived as flawed may be more beneficial to her fat ass stature than we've allowed ourselves to believe.
- Thread starter
- #288
@AutoCraft Aus
From the (*) above:
I'm looking at two options to free up the front end of the 73.
Fenderless
Or, the preferred, cutting up a 79 clip.
Since 80 width axles, spacious under the bonnet to relocate what'll be displaced when inner guards cut, killing several birds with one atomic bomb.
It's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to source in North America, but my usual suspects in QLD and NSW have said they rarely see, nor have had much desire to acquire wrecks.
If you were hunting a good, used front clip, who would you contact?
From the (*) above:
I'm looking at two options to free up the front end of the 73.
Fenderless
Or, the preferred, cutting up a 79 clip.
Since 80 width axles, spacious under the bonnet to relocate what'll be displaced when inner guards cut, killing several birds with one atomic bomb.
It's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to source in North America, but my usual suspects in QLD and NSW have said they rarely see, nor have had much desire to acquire wrecks.
If you were hunting a good, used front clip, who would you contact?
imho- it is what it is......
imagine the opposite- some Anti-Delancy with his buggy on 40s.......struggling like mad to make his rig more road friendly and firming up his suspension- unhappy with his on trail feel ONLY to get a smidgen better onroad feel.
The merits of the 80 platform is its size and relative onroad and offroad balance. venturing too far from the balance point is as futile as the anti-delancey trying to make his buggy into an 80.
NOW with that said- the jump to a 70 series is really the logical step in finding that magical "offroad bruiser/ onroad Cruiser" !
imagine the opposite- some Anti-Delancy with his buggy on 40s.......struggling like mad to make his rig more road friendly and firming up his suspension- unhappy with his on trail feel ONLY to get a smidgen better onroad feel.
The merits of the 80 platform is its size and relative onroad and offroad balance. venturing too far from the balance point is as futile as the anti-delancey trying to make his buggy into an 80.
NOW with that said- the jump to a 70 series is really the logical step in finding that magical "offroad bruiser/ onroad Cruiser" !
- Thread starter
- #290
We've seen how that turned out with the uber built, Baja, mid-engine rig.
Still don't know what that dood was thinking, but wish he'd take on a new project....
Did that ever sell??
I talked to him about buying it several times just for the cool oh s*** factor but there was soooo much untested, untried, and kind of unrealistic ideas that I just couldn't pull the trigger for his asking price.
The work looked to be very high quality but it was a HUGE project in every sense of the word. None of the structure had been finish welded just heavy tacks, body was still cut in 3rds length wise and tacked together. Suspension hadn't been bolted in and cycled with realistic spring rates, etc.
I talked to him about buying it several times just for the cool oh s*** factor but there was soooo much untested, untried, and kind of unrealistic ideas that I just couldn't pull the trigger for his asking price.
The work looked to be very high quality but it was a HUGE project in every sense of the word. None of the structure had been finish welded just heavy tacks, body was still cut in 3rds length wise and tacked together. Suspension hadn't been bolted in and cycled with realistic spring rates, etc.
We've seen how that turned out with the uber built, Baja, mid-engine rig.
Still don't know what that dood was thinking, but wish he'd take on a new project....
- Thread starter
- #292
Dunno.
Unparalleled 80 build.....if a resemblance to an 80 constitutes it being an 80. Well thought out and calculated design, construction was intense, to a degree that I believe you could roll at 100mph, flip it over and continue about the day, no problem.
But, in the back of my mind from first sight, brought about many "WTF was this guy thinking?" choosing an 80 to model after.
Think he woke up....
Edited: Side note:
@scottryana,
Have you seen the linked/cantilevered Pig build in the 'Sty?
Unparalleled 80 build.....if a resemblance to an 80 constitutes it being an 80. Well thought out and calculated design, construction was intense, to a degree that I believe you could roll at 100mph, flip it over and continue about the day, no problem.
But, in the back of my mind from first sight, brought about many "WTF was this guy thinking?" choosing an 80 to model after.
Think he woke up....
Edited: Side note:
@scottryana,
Have you seen the linked/cantilevered Pig build in the 'Sty?
richardlillard1
SILVER Star
The binding is limiting the front end's full ability. The way it is right now, it flexes to a certain point and then has to force. It's also bending the brackets slightly and I wish to avoid that. Have spoken with Kevin about it many times and while the SE arms are slightly narrower than the stock arms, they aren't narrow enough. Compare these two, you can see the waviness in my brackets:
The arms also get into the frame quite a bit on that end, so I will look at what can be shaved there, too.
As far as the coil debate, I'm good with what I've been running. Has manageable road manners and works well on the trail for the things I want to do. Even without the front sway bar.
But all this is probably best discussed in a thread devoted to arms and not coils.
I see that Kevin also bent his panhard bracket; I need to up my game.
Well it was unparalleled but I am not sure in a good way. lol. I did a lot of looking at it, had a hundred high res pics sent and there was going to be a lot of problems to solve. Some minor some quite major. Like how do you handle steering on a front end with 24" of suspension travel on a solid axle? The builder had no idea, he was thinking bell cranks, or just full hydro. Engine, could not be removed without cutting the tubing. Like I said tubing was not welded, some was 4130 some was mild.
I did like the idea and it was certainly eye catching, but I think it was more like "Let's build something" but not planned out.
I have not seen the 55. You wouldn't happen to have a link or title so I can check it out??
I did like the idea and it was certainly eye catching, but I think it was more like "Let's build something" but not planned out.
I have not seen the 55. You wouldn't happen to have a link or title so I can check it out??
I did up the measurements (math) just to get it in the ballpark......but final measure was done on the alignment/laser.
- Thread starter
- #296
@scottryana
Skip to about the middle.
Resto-mod on my 55 has begun
@richardlillard1
They are beef tastic compared to the OE's, eh?
Surely wasn't a forethought, but often wondered if the weight was figures to force compliancy from the front.....or even an anti-roll measure, since a lot of additional unsprung mass, down low.
Of course, that wondering ceased when proving the latter theory to be incorrect.
Skip to about the middle.
Resto-mod on my 55 has begun
@richardlillard1
They are beef tastic compared to the OE's, eh?
Surely wasn't a forethought, but often wondered if the weight was figures to force compliancy from the front.....or even an anti-roll measure, since a lot of additional unsprung mass, down low.
Of course, that wondering ceased when proving the latter theory to be incorrect.
@Delancy That is too funny! I started watching that 55 back in like 2009 when the thread started. I never in a million years would have guessed the direction it took!
That front 3 link bring back some memories. haha. But his fab is much nicer, and he came up much higher with his shock towers. I only did 12" Kings and he is using 16"s I started with 14"s but they made the ride height too tall with how low I made my towers.
I often thought about doing a 4 link rear but did not want to cut the floor to fit the coilovers. That setup takes care of all of those problems! It will be interesting to see how it goes. I didn't look at the ratio is it 1:1? If not spring rate could be an issue, but it looks like it is close to 1:1.
I love that kind of project! 187 metal work and some suspension, would be killer on that 70......
That front 3 link bring back some memories. haha. But his fab is much nicer, and he came up much higher with his shock towers. I only did 12" Kings and he is using 16"s I started with 14"s but they made the ride height too tall with how low I made my towers.
I often thought about doing a 4 link rear but did not want to cut the floor to fit the coilovers. That setup takes care of all of those problems! It will be interesting to see how it goes. I didn't look at the ratio is it 1:1? If not spring rate could be an issue, but it looks like it is close to 1:1.
I love that kind of project! 187 metal work and some suspension, would be killer on that 70......
Shut the fxxx up and go wheeling!
AutoCraft Aus
Araco Master
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Threads
- 15
- Messages
- 918
- Location
- Central Victoria, desert region.
- Website
- 4xoaus.com.au
I noticed in the thread when I saw the rig for sale that you were interested in it, and would of liked to have seen someone finish it.
Ideally, I think a semi tube chassis to hold the front clip, bobbed and boat sided [sills up] like that build on 40s so standard height suspension but big tyres had on a proper 80 would still be killer with 3 link coil over front, and same rear as a normal 80 lust with longer control arms so sway bars still worked etc.
Delancy,
if your going 80 width, maybe go 80 length as well, less overhang to stretch the wheelsbase, and some 50/50 weight distribution for better handling.
I did this with my 40 many moons ago, moved the engine and gearbox back, spare wheel on the floor in the back, big tank under the seat, batteries on the floor behind the seats, moved the radiator and everything back with the LS7 already shorter, and tucked the highmount into the front as far back as I could on a light weight front bar.
Everything heavy mounted as close to the ground as possible on the car, back in the late 90s.
Ideally, I think a semi tube chassis to hold the front clip, bobbed and boat sided [sills up] like that build on 40s so standard height suspension but big tyres had on a proper 80 would still be killer with 3 link coil over front, and same rear as a normal 80 lust with longer control arms so sway bars still worked etc.
Delancy,
if your going 80 width, maybe go 80 length as well, less overhang to stretch the wheelsbase, and some 50/50 weight distribution for better handling.
I did this with my 40 many moons ago, moved the engine and gearbox back, spare wheel on the floor in the back, big tank under the seat, batteries on the floor behind the seats, moved the radiator and everything back with the LS7 already shorter, and tucked the highmount into the front as far back as I could on a light weight front bar.
Everything heavy mounted as close to the ground as possible on the car, back in the late 90s.
