Custom Trailer for Spressomon

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

I'll stay with my previous statement that Mr. Yota has used a similar mounting for over 40 years.

Here's a 32 year old OEM stock shock (148K miles). Bushings looked pretty nice to me. (pulled from my 1984- 60) Shock was completely shot, which means even more stress on the complete assy.

J


P1010873.webp



shock.webp
 
I don't want to belabor the point and detract from a great thread but you asked... The system you are showing just above is exactly what I was assuming earlier to be the case: The mounting studs are horizontal and parallel to the spring. When the axle goes up the shock compresses and simply rotates around the upper stud with little sideways torque on the bushing. In your system the top mounting stud is not parallel to the spring, it is slanted down. So if the axle goes up, the stud and bushings will be torqued. Now, there is some rearward axle motion if the spring flattens so the axle will not just go up, it will also go back a bit, and that would help you with the slanted stud but I suspect it is still not optimal. One way to check this would be to simply undo the lower mount and move the lower end of the shock up by hand and see what happens at the top mount. I think you will find the shock torquing the bushing on the stud.
It would be very easy to weld instead mounting studs that are parallel (like your 60 pic) or perpendicular to the springs (depending on the shock orientation, sideways or front/rear) that would avoid potential bushing binding.
While we're talking about all this, you might also want to think about the possibility that a strongly rear-slanted shock will work against the shackle movement under spring compression, reducing the axle freedom to move rearward, so to speak, and perhaps increasing the shock impact loading. Not sure if that part is a significant issue, though.

All the above intended to be helpful, not critical, it's a fantastic build and I can only dream of doing this level of work!
 
e9999 said:
I don't want to belabor the point and detract from a great thread but you asked... The system you are showing just above is exactly what I was assuming earlier to be the case: The mounting studs are horizontal and parallel to the spring. When the axle goes up the shock compresses and simply rotates around the upper stud with little sideways torque on the bushing. In your system the top mounting stud is not parallel to the spring, it is slanted down. So if the axle goes up, the stud and bushings will be torqued. Now, there is some rearward axle motion if the spring flattens so the axle will not just go up, it will also go back a bit, and that would help you with the slanted stud but I suspect it is still not optimal. One way to check this would be to simply undo the lower mount and move the lower end of the shock up by hand and see what happens at the top mount. I think you will find the shock torquing the bushing on the stud.
It would be very easy to weld instead mounting studs that are parallel (like your 60 pic) or perpendicular to the springs (depending on the shock orientation, sideways or front/rear) that would avoid potential bushing binding.
While we're talking about all this, you might also want to think about the possibility that a strongly rear-slanted shock will work against the shackle movement under spring compression, reducing the axle freedom to move rearward, so to speak, and perhaps increasing the shock impact loading. Not sure if that part is a significant issue, though.

All the above intended to be helpful, not critical, it's a fantastic build and I can only dream of doing this level of work!
Click to expand...


I understand what your are explaining. I did a similar test to set the angle of the shocks. I welded a rod to the lower mount and at the angle to where I wanted the upper mount to be. Jacked the trailer/axle up and the rod maybe moved 1/4" off the chalk lines. The spring and shackle moved considerably to the rear and only slightly upward during the test. The trailer is light in comparison to most typical spring/shock/vehicle weight configurations. With as light as this trailer is I could only get approx. 2-3/8" of flex before the tire was off the ground and my jack stroke to height ratio was the same. A loaded trailer will change these values, but the angle of travel on the shock will not change that much, if any, IMO. Shock mount angles are equal to each other and the upward/downward axle sweep looks good to me.

It is in my customers hands on what he wants to do now. I'm happy to keep it the same or change it drastically to his liking. Personally I'd run it as is, but its just my opinion.

J
 
OK.
Seems to me that the most straightforward approach is to have both mounting studs parallel to the axle, then there would be no uncertainty and no torquing issues, whether the axle goes up or back.
Whatever you decide, I'm sure it'll turn out good from what I've seen so far of the build. (Gotta go work on my welds now, dammit... :cheers:)
 
FWIW I can not ever recall seeing an OEM damper install with the pins 90° to each other. Both pins are always parallel and oriented so that the damper's eyelet rotates around the pin as the suspension cycles. On leaf springs when the dampers are "inboard" like the pic above both pins are parallel to the length of the springs. When they're "outboard" both pins are parallel to the axle center-line.
 
^ it really depends on the movement of the lower shock location (relative to the upper mount). If the lower mount moves rearward, typically at/near max compression on leaf spring setup, the "in phase" shock eyelets can induce bushing bind (relative to the amount of 'off-set'). I've had both eyelet orientations on the rear of my 100, apart of custom shock mounts, and both performed without bind (relative to my suspension articulation of course ;)).
 
on a different note, inquiring minds are waiting anxiously to know how you did the tire elevator!:cheers:
 
e9999 said:
on a different note, inquiring minds are waiting anxiously to know how you did the tire elevator!:cheers:
Click to expand...

OEM Toyota spare tire lift. I do like the way Jason oriented the lift so the rod could be inserted through the receiver to raise/lower.
 
Floor is welded in. Rear latch is inset.

Dan... Andrea said today she knew we had talked about generator dimensions but the work order shows NOTHING ABOUT AN ON-BOARD WELDER... HA!

Probably the most comfortable welding position I've been in for a few days..

J

SAM_1775.webp
SAM_1774.webp
SAM_1780.webp
IMG_20160620_102950_754.webp
 
spressomon said:
OEM Toyota spare tire lift. I do like the way Jason oriented the lift so the rod could be inserted through the receiver to raise/lower.
Click to expand...
MISF & I did that on the Cheep Utility Trailer too:
i-ZxQtQpH-L.jpg

Used a lug nut of the same size as those on the axle to drive an S-10 spare winch.
 
Looks like its paint & liner ready!
 
Have you thought about not painting it? Instead just go clear coat for a rugged look. Looks good as is!
 
e9999 said:
Have you thought about not painting it? Instead just go clear coat for a rugged look. Looks good as is!
Click to expand...

Wait until you see the final paint & coated version :). Unless there has been significant improvements in clear paint, I don't think clear would offer the durability I want.
 
Bravo! I do especially like the countertop space... but I feel there is potential there. In true, Spresso-gourmand fashion, perhaps a prep sink? :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OvrlndScrambler
M416B1 Tongue extension help
Replies
3
Views
1K
ntsqd
ntsqd
jonheld
New springs for the old 416
Replies
2
Views
1K
jonheld
jonheld

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom