Metal Tech Sliders TC UCAs & Radflo Shocks

[Flyingdog5000]

Longer rail for future production runs

I spoke with Mark at MT today and discussed the concern about the rail terminating too far from the end of the slider. He mentioned that they originally did this to avoid the problem with having to cut too much off the mud flaps that some folks have on their rigs and thereby weakening them to the point of imminent failure. After considering the costs/benefits, it looks like future production runs will have the rail terminate closer to the end (about 3" longer).

The original production run was three sets, all of which are spoken for, so any orders will likely get the updated length.

Spresso,

 

[3D FJ]

NICE! I actually spoke to him this morning about this and when we talked, he wanted to leave the design as is. I'm glad that your call nudged him a bit to consider extending the rail.

 

[Flyingdog5000]

Down travel with TC UCAs

Okay, for those who were wanting to know how much down travel there is with the Total Chaos UCAs. I jacked up the front and measured it. In the interest of full disclosure, I ran the truck around a few times and each time it settled with a slightly different (.5" either way) level when stopped in the driveway. So the static measurement was anywhere from 19.875" and 21.00". When jacked up, the measurement from the fender lip to wheel center was 24.75" giving an average of 4.25" or so down travel.

The rear was a little more consistent with the down travel being 5.875". The rear shocks are the same length as the OME shocks. Somebody else will have to give the stock measurements as I never measured it until now.

Doug

 

[Radflo]

Thanks for the update on the travel.

Glenn

 

[NMuzj100]

The TC UCAs look nice but that uniball seems to be begging for a rubber boot or some other type of protection.

 

[sonk76]

Okay, for those who were wanting to know how much down travel there is with the Total Chaos UCAs. I jacked up the front and measured it. In the interest of full disclosure, I ran the truck around a few times and each time it settled with a slightly different (.5" either way) level when stopped in the driveway. So the static measurement was anywhere from 19.875" and 21.00". When jacked up, the measurement from the fender lip to wheel center was 24.75" giving an average of 4.25" or so down travel.

The rear was a little more consistent with the down travel being 5.875". The rear shocks are the same length as the OME shocks. Somebody else will have to give the stock measurements as I never measured it until now.

Doug

As a frame of reference, here are some numbers I just measured.

Setup: AHC with sensor lift, rear shock mount mod

All "rest" measurements are with my AHC in "Normal" height, and made from center of hub to fender lip (I believe same methodology as above)

Front:
Rest - 20.5"
Extended - 23.5"

Rear:
Rest - 22"
Extended - 29.5"

Based on this it looks like there is about 1.25" of extra droop in the front with the TC UCA + Radflo combo relative to AHC

In the rear, I suspect my shock mount mod is making the big difference, with me being able to utilize so much more of the down-stroke on the shock (top-side of the movement is limited by my Timbren SES bump stops.)

Pictures show 285/75R18 tire as a frame of reference

 

[spressomon]

The TC UCAs look nice but that uniball seems to be begging for a rubber boot or some other type of protection.

Yes: Begging!

 

[hoser]

Rear:
Rest - 22"
Extended - 29.5"

Keep in mind, the extended rear measurement is also dependent on the wheel position on the opposite side. If the DS shock is fully extended, the wheel can drop even further if the PS shock is compressed. If you wanted to make comparisons, it would be best to have both DS and PS fully extended. I'm not sure if that is the case. I can't really tell from the picture.

 

[OregonLC]

Could be, but with the bumper jack it's not compressing the opposite side even if there's a little weight on it. And with lifted springs there's more force to push it to full extension. So the anti-sway bar shouldn't be doing much.

Speaking of which, how come we don't see any sway disconnect kits for the 100? Is it because the bar will hit stuff if loose?

 

[3D FJ]

is anyone out there running with the rear sway bar? or even the front sway bar?

 

[OregonLC]

is anyone out there running with the rear sway bar? or even the front sway bar?

Running with or without? I think everyone is running with their swaybars. From what I've read pretty bad road manners without.

 

[3D FJ]

Running with or without? I think everyone is running with their swaybars. From what I've read pretty bad road manners without.

yeah. i meant without.

 

[2000UZJ]

yeah. i meant without.

I ran without a front for several months. I wouldn't suggest it in the twists, but off road it was a huge ride improvement. No added travel.

 

[OregonLC]

Might not be any more down travel, but there could be better traction if the lower wheel was allowed to have more weight on it before it hit the stop.

 

[Dwon]

I spoke with Mark at MT today and discussed the concern about the rail terminating too far from the end of the slider. He mentioned that they originally did this to avoid the problem with having to cut too much off the mud flaps that some folks have on their rigs and thereby weakening them to the point of imminent failure. After considering the costs/benefits, it looks like future production runs will have the rail terminate closer to the end (about 3" longer).

The original production run was three sets, all of which are spoken for, so any orders will likely get the updated length.

Spresso,

I did one of the first fittings for the prototypes of these. They are TOUGH. The mounting plate is hard core!

I got the first pair back in July and they're nice. Great look, feel and height.

At first I didn't like that space in the front either, but staring at it long enough the first day it dawned on me that it would make for a great bolt on accessory point.
Didn't think to mention it to Mark until I read this post. It would be a shame to lose a future accessory bolt on point.

I talked with Mark today and told him that little space would be a great place for a bolt on front fender guard rail. He doesn't have the time now to consider that type of accessory, but maybe in the future.

Can't bolt on a front fender rail to any slider I've seen on the market so far. It would have to be a cut, bend & weld install, not something everyone could do. MT's slider would accommodate a bolt on fender rail. Easy on, easy off and cheap to replace if damaged.

So I say keep that space for bolt-on accessories that may come in the future.

 

[petrotk40]

I'm not a fan of shock boots as they can cause as many issues as they solve. The main issue is when ("when" not "if") water/moisture gets trapped inside the boot it then goes about its devious deed .

The other negative with a shock boot is not being able to quickly/easily inspect your shock shafts/seals. Ditto for periodically looking at shock travel range.

might be a dumb question... but couldn't you just attach the rubber boot to the body and not secure it at the bottom?

edit:

just take this boot, and perhaps cut of the bottom inch or so?

http://stores.overlandwarehouse.com/-strse-49/Shock-Boots-for-2.5"/Detail.bok

 

[petrotk40]

bump for question above

 

[spressomon]

As long as moisture can freely drain then yes IMHO. But a better approach and what I would do, again IMHO, would be to take commercial belting of suitable thickness and stiffness (you don't want it to be too stiff) and secure it to the shock body using HD UV resistant zip ties (MMC has a great selection of these BTW) so that the belt material wraps around the shock body about 270 degrees and down far enough to protect the exposed shock shaft at or near max droop...and thus mud, water, etc. are free to escape but the belt protects the shock shaft from getting peened.

 

[petrotk40]

can you post an example of this commercial belting of which you speak?

and thus mud, water, etc. are free to escape but the belt protects the shock shaft from getting peened.

that's essentially what I was suggesting. cut off the entire lower connection so the boot is just hanging there attached to the shock body. it would protect the shaft from pings and not allow junk to stay trapped. I guess it depends on what the smallest dia of the boot is, but if the shaft is 7/8", it would have to be a good deal wider than that.

 

[spressomon]

Rubber Belting & Hose, Inc.

We have California Industrial Rubber here in the Reno area.

Here's just one such place in your area I pulled up at first search: Texas Rubber Supply Industrial Hydraulic Hose Dallas Fort Worth Conveyor belt duct hose

I'd prefer the flat/smooth, non "corrugated", surface of belting versus your shock boot. I'd guess 1/8"-3/16" thick belting would be about right but you need to go to a supplier in your area and feel the different thicknesses. Flexibility depends not only on thickness but # of belts within the respective thickness.

Usually these places have a scrap pile. Call them first and ask them if they #1 have ~1/8"-3/16" scrap belting...about 4" wide or whatever width makes sense...and #2 if they sell over the counter (in other words retail). If not then start searching...you'll find one that does!

To cut it: Use a brand new utility blade and keep scoring the line of cut until you cut through cleanly. The key to easier cutting of this material is using new sharp utility blades.

Now go get it done already Or send me fifty bucks and I'll make them for you .