Panhard drop bracket option? (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

I was under the impression that for something with a fair amount of travel you’d actually want the bar slightly below level so that normal compression during driving still keeps it close to level, vs all compression movement being in the direction of the arc.. and more importantly, the further from horizontal we get the rate of lateral displacement increases dramatically.

Also this allows for things to be loaded into the vehicle and not pull us above vertical. I get that level is “ideal” but there are always compromises in the real world.

Now if we are talking a track car with stiff suspension, yeah, level. But Toyota’s decision to have it angled at stock ride height wasn’t on accident, this bracket simply allows us to easily reset some geometry back closer to stock in spite of additional ride height.
Definitely good points, I am no expert in vehicle dynamics, that is for sure.

My thoughts are that there is less compression travel than droop (or extension) travel from static ride height.

I started to down a rabbit hole with roll-center, etc. To understand in detail, becomes very complicated. If I have time, I may investigate more before I order a riser bracket.
 
Definitely good points, I am no expert in vehicle dynamics, that is for sure.

My thoughts are that there is less compression travel than droop (or extension) travel from static ride height.

I started to down a rabbit hole with roll-center, etc. To understand in detail, becomes very complicated. If I have time, I may investigate more before I order a riser bracket.
We have more droop travel but it isn’t as often used during normal driving, and when it is used near its limits it is more likely to be one wheel at a time at much lower speeds.

There is a lot to learn on this.. and I’m definitely still learning too. Either way we now have a good option to tinker and see what the effects are.
 
ordered! Can't wait to lose that ass wobble on hiway speed bumps / dips!
 
Just ordered mine. It won't get installed until my Dissent front bumper comes in and my shop can do it all at once. Will report back in a month or so.
 
I dig the idea. Will be interested to see if those who get a wobble going over speed bumps can confirm it’s gone. I felt like mine just about went away when I first swapped springs, but then I added a 10mm trim packer to one side and it feels worse after that. My suspicion was unequal spring length causes that but I’ll be interested to see if this fixes it.
 
How much pressure is placed on that bracket? Any chance of the weld failing at some point?
High speed cornering and large lateral impacts will create high loads on the panhard bar and mounts. The new bracket will create higher moment forces on the OEM bracket where welded to the axle housing. Take a look at the photos for the new desert racing Lexus 600 and you can see they added additional reinforcing to the frame mount and an extra tube to the frame mount to make it survive. Now desert racing will have many situations where high-lateral loads will be present, likely much more so than a typically road or off-road vehicle.

This question comes up from time to time, and it's entirely reasonable. However, the contouring of my part to the factory bracket creates a situation where the welds are never 100% in shear at any given direction of force and has a lot of mechanical advantage (not that that would be a concern with good weld penetration, regardless). So, the next question (and probably the better one) is will the factory mount structure take the additional leverage from a 1-2" increase in lever arm length?

Yeah, it does. I started making these for the 3rd gen T4R back in 2016 - and the 3rd gen is definitely an underbuilt axle design compared to the LC axles - and have had zero issues with the factory mount structures. Same for the versions for the 4th and 5th gen T4Rs, FJCs, GX 470/460, 1st gen Sequoias, and the 80-series LC. As of today, there are almost 10K of my PCKs out in the wild among all the aforementioned platforms, so I feel pretty good about it. ;)

Now, I'm not saying someone couldn't royally goof up the installation - but it's unlikely; unless possibly it's the first time one has ever operated a welder, I suppose. (it's always up to the consumer to evaluate their skill level when modifying an offroad vehicle - there's never any shame in hiring a professional if one isn't comfortable!)
 
I was under the impression that for something with a fair amount of travel you’d actually want the bar slightly below level so that normal compression during driving still keeps it close to level, vs all compression movement being in the direction of the arc.. and more importantly, the further from horizontal we get the rate of lateral displacement increases dramatically.

Also this allows for things to be loaded into the vehicle and not pull us above vertical. I get that level is “ideal” but there are always compromises in the real world.

Now if we are talking a track car with stiff suspension, yeah, level. But Toyota’s decision to have it angled at stock ride height wasn’t on accident, this bracket simply allows us to easily reset some geometry back closer to stock in spite of additional ride height.

I advise folks to set it up so that it is as close to level as possible without the axle side being higher than the frame side at their typical ride height and load level to start - and tune from there. Toyota has to compensate for many use cases and can't really predict what the typical load level is going to be (and probably never expected the armor and gear that this community often has) and set the bar angle conservatively, which is great. (until we lift them) If one never loads the stock vehicle at all, the handling could be improved by flattening that bar a bit over the factory position.

In my mind, you're really trying to reduce sagitta over the range of travel that occurs the majority of the time - so if one had a lot of droop travel and used it frequently (desert?) then the bar should be set to minimize it over the full range, perhaps? For the majority of folks I've talked to, close to horizontal at typical load works well. I also advise figuring out your best setting for unladen - if it's your commuter during the week, etc. (it's adjustable, after all)
 
Definitely good points, I am no expert in vehicle dynamics, that is for sure.

My thoughts are that there is less compression travel than droop (or extension) travel from static ride height.

I started to down a rabbit hole with roll-center, etc. To understand in detail, becomes very complicated. If I have time, I may investigate more before I order a riser bracket.

I've done some measuring when modifying my suspension and have numbers to support.

At stock ride height for both LC and LX:
- Front 9" total travel, split 3.5" compression to 5.5" droop travel
- Rear 10" total travel, split 4.125" compression to 5.875" droop
 
Are people stil running stock bars with this mod, or is an adjustable one desirable?
 
In my mind, you're really trying to reduce sagitta over the range of travel that occurs the majority of the time - so if one had a lot of droop travel and used it frequently (desert?) then the bar should be set to minimize it over the full range, perhaps? For the majority of folks I've talked to, close to horizontal at typical load works well. I also advise figuring out your best setting for unladen - if it's your commuter during the week, etc. (it's adjustable, after all)
The bold part is what I was getting at, considering in normal use we will typically see more compression travel than extension.. but it sounds like it’s the same thing with your detail of “without the axle side being higher than the frame side.”

I meant a very slight inclination.. but definitely not with the frame end lower. Goal being to keep it very close to level during the more frequent compression travel than extension.

Are people stil running stock bars with this mod, or is an adjustable one desirable?

This should reduce the need for an adjustable bar to center the axle at ride height by reducing the sagitta that results from having the axle end of the bar lower than the frame end. And, the bracket does it a much better way.
 
So I won't need this Dobinson's adjustable pan hard bar that I have lying here waiting to go on with the lift?
 
Thank you @eimkeith ! Truck finally tracks straight
PXL_20220918_154334171.jpg
 
Sorry for not digging through the thread but how much lift do the two bolt options adjust for?
Im only 1" sensor lifted but have 3/4" axle shift at neutral ride height. I can both see it and feel it.

This goes back to one of my newly found "beliefs".
ANY amount of lift needs corrections front and rear. Thats been my experience anyway.
I was told multiple times I didn't need UCAs, but I really did.
The LX actually calls for more caster than the LC and all the underpinnings are the same.
You will not get optimal specs without UCAs, even with just 1" of lift without throwing out camber.
Specially not enough to be able to play with cross camber when your dialed.
LX calls for 0 camber, which i thought incorrectly for a while was supposed to be slightly positive. Not sure on the LC anymore.
 
Are you guys getting a good weld on the front/ coil side as well? I have yet to install mine. I was going to weld it myself, but decided that was a bad idea when just doing a exhaust leak was a bit challenging 😅🤣
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom