Cranking torsion bars

[Yukon LX]

if one comes to the US, i would for sure say slee. He has the resources to qualitatively testing ability to see the potential.

However, if you want to send to everyone, we can do a "group test" much like a "group buy"

 

[Tamerlan]

if one comes to the US, i would for sure say slee. He has the resources to qualitatively test to potential.

I can send to US somehow, I think no big deal.
Question is - Does Mr Slee interested in that? Two years ago he dismissed this idea. So it would be great to make sure if he is interested or not.

 

[jgray]

I would agree that Slee would be the best place to send these since they have been modding 100 Series vehicles long before some of the people posting in this thread have even owned a 100. They have the most products on the market for 100 Series vehicles including their new high end remote reservoir shocks which have been in testing and development for a long time.

I remember when this thread originally started a couple years ago and I'm glad to see some updated information here. Since this thread started there have been lots of improvements and offerings from high end shock manufacturers which may provide similar ride characteristics to what you have engineered. The biggest limitation of the 100 platform, in my opinion, is the limited range of motion from the IFS that was designed for 100's. There are many other IFS solutions with waaaay more travel out there; just not for 100's.

It seems from earlier posts that other factors will limit or prevent more front suspension travel even with this new setup you have developed. I understand you have something that rides nicer on poor back country roads. I think most people have been looking for a solution that increases total range of motion or front suspension travel. Any chance you have data showing what differences you have found with this setup? I saw some other pictures you have posted with a 100 running 36" tires and it looked like you were tearing up the wheel wells... Wasn't sure if you had this new suspension on the 100 running the 36's...

 

[bluecruiser]

Not sure if its the language barrier, but this seems like a silly thread for a potential vendor to take part in. If you want to sell something, get a decent website with decent data and pictures, tell people how much you want for them and when people ask questions answer them. The Profender rep failed big time on this and I'm pretty sure he is not getting much of the 100 series guys money, at least from this forum. My .02, thanks.

 

[pfran42]

I think that Tamerlan is in line for what he is trying to accomplish. If I were in his shoes, I would do it exactly as he is doing. Get a US Based 100 Series guru to validate and champion the design, get an approval and then work out a partnership/licensing/distribution agreement where Slee shares in the profits.

Here are the issues I have with this:

1. It appears that the needs/wants of the Russian users is different than the US market.
A. Russian users want better ride characteristics over roads that are in poor condition.
B. American users want a way to achive greater articulation and travel for more recreational technical challenges (rock crawling comes to mind).

2. The American market has not focused on engineering a way to significantly increase the travel of the front-end, instead they have chosen to tune the travel that exists. There are now high-quality nitrogen charged, oversized remote reservoir shocks that allow for a slightly more travel but when combined with aftermarket bump stops, provide a much improved off-road ride.

3. If the coil-over shocks do not significantly increase the front-end travel (and since the CV's do not appear to be any different, I assume they do not), then it appears that both the Russian and American designs are a means to the same end.

4. Since the US has great shocks available, these users will be reluctant to give up their Slee, Radflo, Fox, ProFender, Kings and switch to an unknown strut wrapped in a coil.

5. Most of the 100 owners on this forum do not drive on rough roads every day. They either own the 100 as a recreational vehicle that is taken out a couple times a month, or use it as a daily driver and venture offroad on weekend excursions. I beleive this is the primary difference in the customer base for what they are looking for in a modified front-end design.

This is in no way saying that the Russian design is without merit. It might be exactly what a niche market (of a niche market) of 100 Series owners is looking for. To me it looks like something the Aussies would be interested in as they typically cover much greater distances over broken terrain. Oz 100 owners are also known to break the lower A-arms where the torsion bar meets the A-arm (Ironman sells a reinforcement bracket to prevent this).

I would like Slee to test these but if he is not interested, I will still take them, document everything I can and make sure they end up on a vehicle that will see a lot of action and whose owner is competent enough to provide productive feedback.

I think the ideal situation would be for someone to send over a set of King/Radflo/Fox/Slee shocks and some Timbren bump stops and see what feedback Tamelin provides.

 

[bamabrock]

This isn't breaking new ground. The 100 series uses ancient suspension tech.

 

[no-pistons]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I can not see Slee being interested in this.

These just do not make sense to me. You are just replacing one style of spring with another. I've been to Russia many times and I'll agree that the roads are pure crap, but that doesn't explain why the coilovers will be any better than the torsion bars. The only positive I can see is having more choice of spring rates to fine tune it, but i can't imagine many people caring about that. These are not race cars.

Coilovers will make more sense if they would be combined with wider long travel upper and lower control arms, along with longer CV axles of course. But a coil spring with everything else stock? Don't see the benefit...

 

[bluecruiser]

Mistyped

 

[Tamerlan]

Guys, we are there not after US market or US money. We have plenty of market in Russia and have a several que of users awaiting for. US sales is not our primary task. We always engineer something new and fancy, so that is the goal there to confirm we are on right way in R&D. Research never stops. True, Ozzy mates are better marketplace, they are just far away from us.

Ok answering to what is the design goal device vs. torsion. Starting this project, we wanna to make very heavy loaded TLC100 driving fast over poor road. Yes we avoid lower A-arms cracks where TB is attached. We think torsion is not the best solution, its resilence is linear only on little travel. Adding travel, TB lose its linear resilence, thats why we getting rid of them. Also our goal was to increase draft suspension gear capacity.

About 36" wheels. General practice to handle 36" is to install powerful torsion bar, change angles or lower arms and install longer upper arms. We are pretty sure this is not the best way. When you make lower arms down among with tuned heavy TB (suspension lift), you get extra load to the place where TB is attached to lower arm, lose comfort driving, and limit suspension travel up on low speed off-road.

Better way for 36" is:
1. Body-lift 2". TLC100 design of points (where body is attached to frame) allows to make that correctly.
2. Sping has progressive resistance rate, so diff. coils work on low suspension travel and on big bumps different turns come to work.
3. Shock absober wrap design increases 2" down travel compared to stock, that allows to keep comfort driving and articulation.
4. It is easy to increase down travel to 4", though we didn't place this task in out todo list yet.
5. It is much easier to tweak height with our device, than select proper torsion for custom loading.
6. We think that stock absorbers are pretty reliable and cheap in comparing to custom shock, just due to less absorber load. We have a vehicle that run about 100K miles and absorbers feel good. Only problem thing was lower silent block, we changed them to polyuretane, so should run better now.

Guys, what increase in travel distance do you feel right?

To jgray:
Front suspension tarvel increased by 2"-2,5", though we don't think this is significant. That was not our goal to increase vertical travel. Below is a photo of 100VX, with our engineered 150 liters extra fuel tank, own design bumpers, sliders, and 2,5" original body lift. Stock 16x8" disk, 36x13,5" SuperSwamper tyres, 4,2l TD. We did install 35 mm washers under the wheel disk, and done minor body changes.

 

[Tamerlan]

Ok guys, game never ends. After several hard tests, we found that shock absorbers failed. We guess counterfeit absorbers. The inner cylinder grid got detached from axis. Sadly truth.

Our excuses to Paul that we didn't send yet. The promise to send something for tests, is still valid, details are below.

So we decided to make next version of 4" lift, using rotary shaft enlargement. Also we done dual spring to make suspension working fine on small bumps, as well as on heavy shocks. We used TLC-200 absorbers this time, to make sure no failures at that part anymore. As always, a few pics and video describing our TLC-100 game. Once tests complete, we make a kit and send to Pfran42 as agreed before.

Welcome to comment the new beta-version tweak of TLC-100VX - a 4" 37 wheel lift:

More detail you can see on this video, engine details at 11:00, true speed tests at 5:10 and 6:40:

 

[2000UZJ]

Nice work!

 

[Tamerlan]

Sure thing, a drop box has been added. Here you go:

 

[2000UZJ]

Sure thing, a drop box has been added. Here you go:

That is truly outstanding. You have done the impossible! I never thought I would see anything like that under a 100. The bracket looks like it drops the front differential, steering rack, and CV's. How far is the drop bracket?


PS- I see a HID retrofit, any details on that?

 

[Tamerlan]

A few more photos:

What is HID retrofit you mentioned?

 

[petrotk40]

bump bc this is awesome and mentioned in another thread.

 

[bluecruiser]

so now the diff is lower and so are the arms...that will add more travel? how is that? looks like if it actually can do what is supposed to, it would be pretty much plug and play if they were selling that drop box contraption...

 

[jonharis]

Drop Box. Nice ring to it.

This looks like a 4" drop to add 2" of tire size, (35" to 37") am I missing something?

 

[petrotk40]

I would think with the drop box, you could increase up travel? With different shock of course

 

[bamabrock]

Ok folks,

Let me introduce you V2 on photos below.
I would like to response some of you as well:



Yes, this is stock shocks. Guys, our goal is to have a vehicle that fits a deep mud and 500 miles asphalt driving at the same time. Russian roads are dam long and different quality. For example, user did pull off ARB torsion and replaced with our springs and now enjoying his 100. So we are going to tweak original Toyota design to make that lovely 100 even better under any condition.

Well, for the sake of real engineering spirit, I have an offer for you.

I am going to send test kit to Slee or anybody who you all folks decide. I just need shipping address. No charge from anybody, I just wish the tester to install kit and to publish his impressions there, if we really beat everybody in this area.

So, who dares to install and post real words about out stuff right there?


I can offer you Youtube only
S60 - YouTube

Ok and photos. Welcome to browse other galleries at Tamerlan Gallery

The coilover would ride and handle much better than the torsion bar setups even if it doesn't make a difference in wheel travel due to the IFS limitations, but I wonder about that upper mount. One would be better off using an aftermarket mount by ballistic fab and a nice set of aftermarket coilovers properly valved for the weight of the truck.

 

[petrotk40]

why would this be much stronger than oem?

https://www.ballisticfabrication.com/Coilover-Shock-tower_p_1492.html

I guess there is this option as well
http://www.ballisticfabrication.com/Shock-Hoops_p_1879.html