Project: Albert 99 UZJ100 (1 Viewer)

[ShottsUZJ100]

ATS4X4dotcom I think there is a disconnect on this subject. The original question was how did it drive on pavement after the lift and bigger tires.

Original Question: "bull-- seriously, how does it drive on road with the lift and 315s?"

Not really sure how it got off topic I also think you and Shotts should screw in hopes to relieve all this sexual tension you have between eachother..

I just deleted it. What's the point? Sure T-bars are NOT progressive in and of themselves. You noticed your ride stiffen because you require much more uptravel now, which results in much more T-bar twist before bump stop. The more you twist the harder (stiffer) they get to twist. They don't just twist forever. (You know this)

Signed,
Sexual Tension

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

"Torsion-bar suspensions do have some drawbacks. The biggest problem we see is that it is almost impossible to have a progressive-rate torsion bar. Some OEMs have compensated for this by designing the suspension to ride on jounce bumpers (don't call them bumpstops!) to effectively get a progressive spring rate at the wheel. But this still leaves the problem torsion bars have of limiting the amount of compliance that can be designed into the suspension. Compliance is a term used by suspension engineers to describe the up-and-to-the-rear path the tire should ideally take as the suspension compresses. A torsion bar will not permit this complex suspension motion without buckling the bar."

They only twist SO FAR in one direction. This is why ride quality is effected. The bar is not twisting each way about the same amount. When you lift it you have little DOWN-TRAVEL twisting though you have an abundance of UP-TRAVEL twisting and the compliance of the bar fights or stops the motion.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

"Torsion-bar suspensions do have some drawbacks. The biggest problem we see is that it is almost impossible to have a progressive-rate torsion bar. Some OEMs have compensated for this by designing the suspension to ride on jounce bumpers (don't call them bumpstops!) to effectively get a progressive spring rate at the wheel. But this still leaves the problem torsion bars have of limiting the amount of compliance that can be designed into the suspension. Compliance is a term used by suspension engineers to describe the up-and-to-the-rear path the tire should ideally take as the suspension compresses. A torsion bar will not permit this complex suspension motion without buckling the bar."

They only twist SO FAR in one direction. This is why ride quality is effected. The bar is not twisting each way about the same amount. When you lift it you have little DOWN-TRAVEL twisting though you have an abundance of UP-TRAVEL twisting and the compliance of the bar fights or stops the motion.

Your wrong, and the first line you cut and pasted says "The biggest problem we see is that it is almost impossible to have a progressive-rate torsion bar" which is what your saying you have with your comments so far, so it looks like you need more study John.

The T bar is well within the limit, because the bump stops havent moved, and the shock is the same length, so the bar is designed to work fully within those 2 perameters, which it does, without being progressive.

Maybe we need to stamp the suspension for dummies manual on your forehead, backwards, so you can learn it every time you look in the mirror, and save trying to explain something you should understand already.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

ATS4X4dotcom I think there is a disconnect on this subject. The original question was how did it drive on pavement after the lift and bigger tires.

I think the thread is pretty self explanatory to here, without you posting your spin on what you think it was about.

You said winding up the t bars made it stiffer

I also noticed the ride is a bit stiffer from cranking the torsion bars.

I explained to you why this isnt possible, which you chose to try and explain by saying

I believe if you adjust your torsion bars too much it will affect the ride of the vehicle by limiting the droop of the front tires .

But given your bump stops havent moved, and your shocksa re the same length, you couldnt of adjusted the T bars to far, because you never said you did, you said you "believe" it could.......


I see no disconnect here other than your option of trying to run a diversion by mentioning something about sexual tension, which left me wondering if you were having trouble getting enough lift out of your own "T" bar........

 

[bull]

You have figured me out ATS, I'm running a diversion to your posts I have enjoyed working on my 100 Series and will continue working on it until I'm happy. I don't argue your knowledge of IFS, but on the same hand I'm not going to stroke your ego. Thanks for your input it was very informative and unwanted.

From what I have done so far in this thread OME T Bars, 315s, Sliders, Rear Bumper the ride is stiffer than OEM. I will report back once the bumper and winch are installed (hopefully the winch shows up tomorrow).

 

[wngrog]

From what I have done so far in this thread OME T Bars, 315s, Sliders, Rear Bumper the ride is stiffer than OEM. I will report back once the bumper and winch are installed (hopefully the winch shows up tomorrow).

My ride is a bit stiffer with the OME setup than the stck setup.

I attribute it to the tires (13.50 wide and running at full pressure) and possibly the Old Man Emu shocks having more dampening than the stock 100 series shocks.

That said, I have no idea how the OME v Stock shocks are valved so it may be all in the tires and the MUCH stiffer rear OME 863s that is making the ride more harsh.

On the torsion bars....isn't the reason that we add the OME versus the stock Torsion bar is that is has a higher spring rate? If that is the case, then it would be like adding a stiffer coil spring. Darren?

My only comment on this thread now is that Bull better get off his ass because I am about to pass him

 

[hoser]

T-bars, tires and shocks aside, I would guess that raising the front end via cranking the T-bars would increase ride harshness. At stock height, the suspension A-arms are near horizontal and when the suspension travels upwards (vertically) 1-2", there is little lateral movement.

When you raise the ride height, the A-arms get further from horizontal (_) and closer to the downward position (\). So now the suspension has to not only travel vertically but also laterally, against the tire's sidewall and the tire's grip on the road. This added resistance would make the vehicle ride harsher.

My logic flawed?

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

You have figured me out ATS, I'm running a diversion to your posts I have enjoyed working on my 100 Series and will continue working on it until I'm happy. I don't argue your knowledge of IFS, but on the same hand I'm not going to stroke your ego. Thanks for your input it was very informative and unwanted.

From what I have done so far in this thread OME T Bars, 315s, Sliders, Rear Bumper the ride is stiffer than OEM. I will report back once the bumper and winch are installed (hopefully the winch shows up tomorrow).

I see you started the diversion again in this post, trying to re explain what you said, which wasnt really what you said.

And get used to unwanted info on forums, thats the joy of it being "public" you never know what you will get, but at least it was factual and not misleading

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

My ride is a bit stiffer with the OME setup than the stck setup.

On the torsion bars....isn't the reason that we add the OME versus the stock Torsion bar is that is has a higher spring rate? If that is the case, then it would be like adding a stiffer coil spring. Darren?

My only comment on this thread now is that Bull better get off his ass because I am about to pass him

Your onto it, and your first sentence is a much better discription on the ride you feel by changing parts, vs bull saying

"I also noticed the ride is a bit stiffer from cranking the torsion bars"

Adding a stiffer T bar is like a heavier coil, because both work in the same way, just one is coiled to take up less space in mounting, and one is straight. I dont think anyone would expect a coil spring to chnage rate by adding a spacer, which is the same thing as adjusting a torsion bar adjuster.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

T-bars, tires and shocks aside, I would guess that raising the front end via cranking the T-bars would increase ride harshness. At stock height, the suspension A-arms are near horizontal and when the suspension travels upwards (vertically) 1-2", there is little lateral movement.

When you raise the ride height, the A-arms get further from horizontal (_) and closer to the downward position (\). So now the suspension has to not only travel vertically but also laterally, against the tire's sidewall and the tire's grip on the road. This added resistance would make the vehicle ride harsher.

My logic flawed?

Nope, there is some tyre movement to overcome, which would also change depending on tyre pressures, and generally you need a 5% + or - for "seat of the pants" diference to be noticed, and the wheel alignment on the ifs is critical to stop outer edge tyre wear with a lift because of this.

To measure this, you would measure the distance the wheel moves in and out as it goes up and down from its old position, to its new position [1/4 - 1/2" maybe] then measure the force it takes to move the car side to side that distance, and see if it factors into the spring rate.

A similar thing also happens with coil spring like 80 fronts, where the wheel has to go forward with a lift, to go up, making the front harsher on sharp bumps at speed [and before everyone says mine isnt harsher, its physics, you just havent noticed, if thats the case] because the front arms work in an arc from a fixed point.

The rear also does a similar thing, where the back wheel moves back and forth, as it swings up and down on the control arms, and over low speed big bumps in 1st low where the whole car goes fiull travel up and down, you can notice engine/vehicle surge, without moving throttle position, as the back wheels try and move backward and forward on the arc of the arms.

 

[hoser]

I guess on an 80, having the front control arms pivot in front of the axle (front of vehicle) would have been better for ride quality--but really screw up it's approach angle.

I did a rough measurement of my LX with the suspension set on Neutral height and again in Low height. The height difference between the two is a little less than 2". The track width changed by about 3/8" per side (or 3/4" total).

So it might be safe to say most lifted 100's (2-2.5" of lift in the front) are losing about 1" of track width over stock height.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

I guess on an 80, having the front control arms pivot in front of the axle (front of vehicle) would have been better for ride quality--but really screw up it's approach angle.

I did a rough measurement of my LX with the suspension set on Neutral height and again in Low height. The height difference between the two is a little less than 2". The track width changed by about 3/8" per side (or 3/4" total).

So it might be safe to say most lifted 100's (2-2.5" of lift in the front) are losing about 1" of track width over stock height.

Walker evans built a neat A frame front end for a live axle truck afew years ago, with a single pivot up near the winch, which i will look at one day in closer detail, because it would work well.

I have also been looking at an A arm set up for IFS that makes the right side pivot from the left, and the left side pivot from the right, but steering and driveshaft issues need to be overcome.

bit like this type of set up

Your measurements sound pretty close.

 

[bull]

Your onto it, and your first sentence is a much better discription on the ride you feel by changing parts, vs bull saying



Adding a stiffer T bar is like a heavier coil, because both work in the same way, just one is coiled to take up less space in mounting, and one is straight. I dont think anyone would expect a coil spring to chnage rate by adding a spacer, which is the same thing as adjusting a torsion bar adjuster.

Thanks for your input yet again..I recall installing OME T bars as well and adjusting them for 3" drop in the front.


Results: My lifted ride is more rigid than OEM just like everyone else's rig that has added updated T bars and have made adjustments to them. Are you seeing a theme here?

 

[macneill]

Is ATS a professional tech guy? Just wondering...

 

[dclee]

Is ATS a professional tech guy? Just wondering...

In a word... yes.

Also, Bull, I think the reason the ride is stiffer is because of the thickness of the bar (like a thicker coil spring of the same height and number of winds would have a stiffer ride than the identical coil made with thinner diameter steel). Not because of the adjustment itself.

Of course, I said "I think" as I'm not sure if this is fact or opinion...

 

[bull]

ok I'm done...you haven't even read what I have posted...

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

ok I'm done...you haven't even read what I have posted...

Me too Bull. Somebody ( ) on this thread misquoted me then attacked me. That's OK though.

He said I've said the T-Bar is "progressive". I never said that. In fact, I've said that the T-bar is NOT progressive.

The T-bar "system" is progressive however, especially at the bars twisting limits. The rate is non-progressive up to the point that the bar resists as it nears it's compliance. His opinion of the bar having plenty of twist within the 7.5" travel is noted, though in real life testing, I and others have discovered otherwise.

Example....take a garden hose who'se material is consistent and non-progressive...lay it out...then pull on it on both ends. It'll stretch for a bit, though for only so far. Then, it gets harder and harder to stretch and at some point it either stops stretching or it breaks.

Recent posts speak of some comparisons between OEM and OME bars. Yes, the ride is stiffer with the stiffer OME bars. Higher rate.

My comments come from various lift heights with the same high-rate bars:

At 2"...my ride was near stock, though with improved handling. F&R flexed pretty-much like stock. Tha last little bit took more force to stuff the wheel.

At 2.75"...my ride was near stock on the mild bumps and stiffer on the big ones. Front flex was good and smooth through the first half of up-travel. The last bit though takes a lot more force and rarely did the wheel ever bottom out. It's hard to believe that another 0.75" would make a diff but it does on my truck.

Adding the N74L shocks helps this "problem" as the added rear pressure on the rear wheel when flexed helped to put added pressure on the opposing front. This helped F&R in the articulation dept.

 

[dclee]

Me too Bull. Somebody ( ) on this thread misquoted me then attacked me. That's OK though.

He said I've said the T-Bar is "progressive". I never said that. In fact, I've said that the T-bar is NOT progressive.

John, in post #198 of this thread, you say (and I quote):

"A T-Bar is progressive."

 

[Mikesta]

Bull... get that bumper on man...

 

[dclee]

ok I'm done...you haven't even read what I have posted...

Read it all.

Just adding in my opinion that cranking the T-bars does nothing for "stiffness." If you guys want to talk about "real life" experiences, then here's mine:

I cranked my T-bars five turns to get the truck back to stock height after adding the front bumper. Absolutely zero change in ride quality in either case. And I wouldn't expect it to change, UNLESS I had swapped out the bar for one with a thicker diameter cross section. Now, when it was lowered by an inch because of the added weight, according to your theory (if I'm reading you correctly) I should have experienced a change in ride quality because I had a different amount of droop or lift available before hitting a travel limiter (bumpstop, shock extension, etc.). That did not happen, nor did anything change when I put it back to stock height.

Whether this opinion is wanted by you or not, I couldn't really care less.