I corrected my post
What?
Knuckle Cut & Turn (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Krazytoy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
What?
No restriction here
You got me.
None of my measurements were nearly as technical as a ditch.
AutoCraft Aus
Araco Master
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Threads
- 15
- Messages
- 918
- Location
- Central Victoria, desert region.
- Website
- 4xoaus.com.au
When spaced correctly, the sway bar will work with around 13" of travel on an 80, and can restrict the very last part on a lighter truck, but like changing your spring rate when a truck is lighter, which can restrict travel in a similar way.
But the sway bar, like the spring rate when right for the load should be no more of a restriction than the original.
We find around 40-50mm [1.5" - 2"] distance up the ramp is all the sway bar will make when spaced and weighted correctly.
Ideally, running the longest shock with the smallest bump spacer will give you the best travel, to work with the sway bar, and the amount of vehicle lift you need, and prevent tyre rub, and stop the sway bar needing to be spaced further also.
As an example, if you had 100mm bump spacers, and 14" stroke shocks, you would need to space down your sway bar about 160mm [6"+] in the rear, which is a killer for arm angles and rear geometry if you go that far, and your ride height has to be 100mm higher to keep the same up travel.
Use a 12.5" travel rear shock and a 40mm [1.5"] bump spacer, and you can run 60mm [2.5"] less ride height for same up travel, and only lose 40mm of droop over the 14" unit, everything is spaced less, and the droop wont effect rear steer, etc as much either, but the car can be 50mm [2.5"] lower for same up travel.
The further down you space everything then looks like more travel, but becomes a trade off as the unequal arms introduce rear steer, wont squat in the rear, to help get the tyre to transmit the drive to the ground either.
Then the only way to fix those issues is cut everything off and move it down, or bolt on bits like the Man a Fre stuff to space it all down, but it doesn't fix the higher roll centre when the ride height has to be more.
With 12" and 12.5" stroke shocks and the correct sway bar links etc, I find when loaded and wheeling, the sway bars don't impede the travel either Phil.
Last edited:
With all that said most 80 are running 12" travel shocks. Based on all that^^^ there is not restriction to the average truck. The black 80 pictured is running 14" shocks with 2" bump stop and a rear sway bar and uses all available travel.
Real life
An inch and a half matters in real life......
Rear sway bar contacts 1.25"/1.5" before the maximum extension of the 5 linked rear end.
Not only that, but it limits the lateral ability of the axle to move, as depicted, in the ditch shot.
I didn't say pull it, didn't say your chit sucks with it on, as mine is on and it limits the overall extension of the rear by 1.25"&1.5" respectively.
The maximum shock length on the shorter of the two sides, at full extension with the sway bar on and the sway bar arms oriented level, as they should be, is 29.25" ( longer side ~.25" more).
The maximum shock length with no sway bar is 30.75", being 1.5" longer than the 29.25" that the sway bar contact limits the rear axle with the arms level, as they are intended to be, further validating the fact that the sway bar limits.
None of which was relevant to the question I asked, nor the ensuing replies
AutoCraft Aus
Araco Master
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Threads
- 15
- Messages
- 918
- Location
- Central Victoria, desert region.
- Website
- 4xoaus.com.au
Whats your comp and open length of those 14"s Phil ?
well.... sort of. i dont know what you mean by null and void. if the axle is free to drop under its own weight, it at least doesnt pull the body with it. that can make a huge difference when teetering around. plus, having further free travel (even if the coils are unseated) allows the other side to stuff.
i get what youre saying and i agree that it is a good solution to flip the arms, but for some, the extra freedom afforded by links are worth it, even if at the expense of on-road handling.
i also think most people dont realize that anti-dive is not really good with the axle rotating solely about the factory frame mounts. that geometry doesnt change in your setup, either. but that may be a characteristic that most arent considering. it mattered to me.
If your coils leaving its perch = loss of downward pressure and traction. That in itself can cause you alot of tricky situations. No matter what suspension anyone has, they still pick the best lines. Why not just get longer coils? Travel is still all governed by shock length. If you have the correct/largest size shock for your up/down travel - for your chosen lift height. And your maxing them out. Then there is no difference. But I agree with you on extra rotational force/pivot points magnify stuff.
And the anti-dive does change in this suspension system. They aren't factory mounts either. I've noticed you haven't addressed your roll centre. That will help alot with the teetering.
Last edited:
This was my point. Coils out of the buckets mean the body isn't supported at that point, but there is still unsprung weight (the axle/tire/suspension components) to take into account. It may only be 100-200 lbs, but if that weight is supported by the *ground* rather than *pulling* down on the body (the equivalent of negative 100 or 200 lbs) then that can make a significant difference.
What?
We're already approaching the maximum length for uncaptured coils for the front. You really don't want coils to be 6x longer than their diameter if you can avoid it. But people run coilovers (js93cruiser, for example) I would imagine precisely for this reason.
In the case of the radius arms, running 14" shocks is stupid because the bushings will bind before you max out your shocks.
I thought you were using the factory frame mounts? If so, anti-dive is the same.
I mean teetering on two wheels because my axles can't droop/stuff any more, not rolling in corners.
I've heard you say the same things in other threads but it doesn't address my points.
i'm commenting on the mechanical engineering, not the subjective ride quality. Even if we were, there are a ton of different implementations of radius arms, 4-links, 3-links, y-links, leaf springs, etc. You can't aggregate them together and say you're an expert
I've pm'd you.
You think your the first guy to build a 4 link, rag on flipped and modified arms due to not understanding them. And try and apply link calculators and technology to a radius arm set up?
Link suspension is NOT a radius arm dude. Nor is leaf springs. It's a singular arm, from a singular point of origin that locates, holds and controls all relative forces.
You think your the first guy to build a 4 link, rag on flipped and modified arms due to not understanding them. And try and apply link calculators and technology to a radius arm set up?
Link suspension is NOT a radius arm dude. Nor is leaf springs. It's a singular arm, from a singular point of origin that locates, holds and controls all relative forces.
Last edited:
I've pm'd you.
You think your the first guy to build a 4 link, rag on flipped and modified arms due to not understanding them. And try and apply link calculators and technology to a radius arm set up?
Link suspension is NOT a radius arm dude. Nor is leaf springs. It's a singular arm, from a singular point of origin that locates, holds and controls all relative forces.
I don't need a calculator to say that regardless of how the arms are shaped and where they mount on the axle, the whole assembly is still rotating about the axis created by drawing a line through the factory frame mounts.
