Y-Link Radius Arms, does it matter which side is up? (2 Viewers)

[Mace]

My point about moving the links up to "save" them becomes even more relevant than.

Just build the arms in a conventional way and make them stronger.

If you want to move them up and pre bend them, then make sure that you build them VERY strong.

 

[Dusty]

i dont think there is room to flip the radius arm unless you are running lots of lift and limiting up travel. you will hit the frame. at least in my application you would.

another thing to consider is the dshaft protection offered by those links.

and the hang up factor is just the deal killer hear.

and my long flat radius arms behave nicely. antisquat is minimized. build the rear so the trackbar is flat and doesn't bind and there will be no regret save one...

the rear bushings will wear out just as Mace told me. im about to replace my 3rd rubicon express joint. next week im taking the 80 to utah again to wheel st george--i like it more there than moab

 

[Walking Eagle]

A Y-link is a radius arm. There is essentially no difference.

I realize the Y-link is a radius arm. That's why the title of the thread is "Y-Link Radius Arms". The difference is in having the bushings the same distance from the pivot on a Y-radius arm rather than how they are on a 80, which is one in front of the axle, one behind, the arcs are different, and it creates more binding. It gains you some flex, without letting it get too out of control.


So, it sounds like the only reasons not to do it upside down are 1. There may simply not be enough room. 2. The bushing / joint may be subseptable to damage.

 

[Mace]

The difference is in having the bushings the same distance from the pivot on a Y-radius arm rather than how they are on a 80, which is one in front of the axle, one behind, the arcs are different, and it creates more binding. It gains you some flex, without letting it get too out of control.

No it won't. In fact, it may likely reduce your flex because your mounts are further away from the axle housing. If you used Rod ends on the Y link, you would pretty much stop all rotation of the axle and bind rapidly. Front to back, top to bottom does not matter.

The rotation of the axle housing is what causes the binding issues, and reduced flex. The only way to gain flex is to have larger bushings or mod the bushings to achieve more deflection.

The nice thing about the Y design suspension is that you can remove one of the upper links and essentially create a "wristed" suspension link. Course, again, you have to make the other link VERY strong.

 

[Mace]

So, it sounds like the only reasons not to do it upside down are 1. There may simply not be enough room. 2. The bushing / joint may be subseptable to damage.

1. pretty damn important.

2. bushing/joint won't see much more potential damage. unless you are talking about where the links merge in the armpit of the Y. And honestly, that joint won't see nearly as much grinding as the one on the fame (or the lower axle mount)

 

[Walking Eagle]

1. pretty damn important.

and pretty easy to figure out

 

[Dusty]

The rotation of the axle housing is what causes the binding issues, and reduced flex. The only way to gain flex is to have larger bushings or mod the bushings to achieve more deflection.
.

that is a good point. we traditionally make the y link with the axle brackets on top and bottom. there is no reason the the brackets couldn't be front to back on your y link just like toyota did it

 

[Chop Shop]

Not that it really matter or could be done to a stamped sheetmetal housing like a toyota but it has been dont on a D44.

There was a white old small bodied bronco about 10 years ago that had the stock bronco radius arms and the guy was a machinist by trade (not cost affective to have done) and made a swivilamabobber joint that was basically a sleeve inside a sleeve and it let each side of the housing rotate independently of each other.

Basically the driver side axle tube and the diff were one side and the passenger side tube was the other side. The joint had a couple zerks and was greasable also.

It worked well to free up the bind that ladder bars and radius arms create. I remember it having a tire parked on top of a 55gal barrel. Not bad for a short rig.

 

[4WheelUnderground]

If the upper portion of the radius arms both met at the same point on the axle such as the middle and only the middle then you would reduce bind.

By sparating the mounting points/make them further away from each other in a vertical fastion, on a radius arm. You increase rate at which they would bind.

It is not the radius arm design that gives these vehile their stability, its the springs, shocks and anti sway bars.

Do your self a favor and ditch that design. Toyota and all those aftermarket companies that build radius arms are doing it because Jeep guys think its cool.


How ever if you are determind to use a radius arm design, then yours is fine so long as it clears the fame and everything else. In fact its what I would do too. Keep it off the rocks. And I like the 2.25"x.375 DOM. I run that too.

 

[Chop Shop]

I was able to find a rerun article of it in 4WOR form a couple years ago. I first seen it in Fourwheeler along time ago.

It had cool hinged leaf perches also.

The most interesting feature of the Dana 44 is its two-piece design. A close-up shows that one tube is able to rotate inside of the other, which keeps the radius arms from binding, allowing for more flex. The zerk fittings feed grease to the whole assembly.

Here is the rig

1971 Ford Bronco - 4Wheeloffroad.com

 

[Mace]

I was able to find a rerun article of it in 4WOR form a couple years ago. I first seen it in Fourwheeler along time ago.

It had cool hinged leaf perches also.



Here is the rig

1971 Ford Bronco - 4Wheeloffroad.com

essentially a wristed arm type suspension.

Really funky street manners during braking..

 

[97kurt]

Not sure if this helps, I found this pic a year or so ago when researching radius arm setups. Kinda looks like what you were describing.

 

[Walking Eagle]

I like that - looks beefy. 2nd arms short enough to not be real subsebtable to rocks - wonder how it works?

 

[Mace]

Donno how much extra room you are achieving doing it that way. But those arms do look good.

 

[Walking Eagle]

Donno how much extra room you are achieving doing it that way. But those arms do look good.

Ya', I don't think that way gains as much if any, but it looks stout enough to consider it as an alternative. Though those paticular arms almost look like they would work the same upside down or right side up.

Is there any gain from the one Y of the link going toward the center of the axle, or is is just most of them that are for Jeeps keep the stock brackets and that's how it ended up being for the radius arm?

 

[Mace]

There is a slight difference in binding potential by relocating the "y" to the center of the axle. However, that is minor at best.

 

[Walking Eagle]

There is a slight difference in binding potential by relocating the "y" to the center of the axle. However, that is minor at best.

Thanks. It's been my experience that it's best to understand why things are the way they are before changing them. Gotta think, that engineer did this for some reason - even if that reason has nothing to do with performance and it's just assembly or cost driven.

 

[Chop Shop]

Thanks. It's been my experience that it's best to understand why things are the way they are before changing them. Gotta think, that engineer did this for some reason - even if that reason has nothing to do with performance and it's just assembly or cost driven.

An engineer would never design a suspension system like the radius arm to flex allot and drive good and not rip off bracketry.

The whole design sucks for wheeling.

For 5 percent wheeling and 95 road duty (what engineers designed the radius arm for) they kick ass.

Then the aftermarket comes along and makes them in beefier longer versions to help folks install a kit in their driveway with a drill and a cresent wrench.

If you are exploring exteme options for a radius arm, then please realize the radius arm is not for extreme wheeling.

Please stop tying to make a cherokee out of a toyota.

Why are you trying so hard to not just build an upper link and have a three link that actually works and can use real joints instead of sloppy bushing to compensate for crapppy bind issues?

I just dont get it?

 

[Chop Shop]

I like that - looks beefy. 2nd arms short enough to not be real subsebtable to rocks - wonder how it works?

Have you ever looked at the bottom of links on a wheeler?

They are gonna be all ground up. Those arms in the pics look like trail anchors.

The mounts are anchors hanging below the axle tube.

The short arms look like great spots to get hung up on while trashing a joint that could have been hidden on top to protect it.

I just dont see a bennefit at all. I think the only reason you want to do it is to be different.


But it more than likely works perfect for the truck in the pics and he probably doesnt have the problems I listed (cuz I see NO evidence of wheeling or rash anywhere on the bottom of that truck) and is happy with being different.

 

[Walking Eagle]

I just dont get it?

Nope, you don't.

You also didn't answer any questions I asked. Don't know why people bother with responses like yours, they do get to be tiresome as they're really not helpfull at all.