Rear lower control arm bracket protection

[SmoothLC]

Please remove me from the list.

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

List is updated.

@savirc does it match yours?

J

1. Savirc
2. CreasyBear
3. Captramrod01
4. staggrlee
5. TheForger
6. kelly saad
7. Hayes
8. abuck99
9. crimsonaudio
10. jimmyeatsworld
11. Newps
12. SHREDwagon
13. bakjak
14. Jeepster09
15. cmck
16. slacker24-7
17. reznunt
18. @WillW

 

[savirc]

@reevesci yep

 

[savirc]

Don't know how that pic posted sorry didn't mean to post the pic

 

[savirc]

Hope everyone knows that's not the end product the laser cut/bent ones will look much prettier if that's what you are worried about.

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

Good reason to install the skids.

Not as bad as this one I found (non-100)

J

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

Hope everyone knows that's not the end product the laser cut/bent ones will look much prettier if that's what you are worried about.

Yeah, I've said rough prototype a few times and mentioned the laser/cnc. They will be as clean as the TC skids for the FJC.

 

[savirc]

Guys dropping off were you looking for something like this?

 

[Hayes]

A thought about the "bent tips" of the bracket:
Are we sure Uncle T didn't design them this way? Are they flared out to accomodate twist at the eye of the arm? Imagine a fully articulated rear axle.

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

A thought about the "bent tips" of the bracket:
Are we sure Uncle T didn't design them this way? Are they flared out to accomodate twist at the eye of the arm? Imagine a fully articulated rear axle.

I'm thinking maybe so. My rig was never used as anything but a doctors wife grocery getter and one side of mine are flared pretty evenly, and the other is more straight/flat. I designed for the flared width as 4 pic requests came back looking almost identical.

 

[Hayes]

77mm wide at the flare on mine.

View attachment 20170310_223936.jpg

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

77mm wide at the flare on mine.

View attachment 1418197

I made them 75mm/3"

I've gotten ranges from 2.75" to 3.032"

J

 

[abuck99]

I think the protection should be slightly wider than the LCA bracket to protect the corners. It's possible that you won't always hit an obstical straight on.

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

I think the protection should be slightly wider than the LCA bracket to protect the corners. It's possible that you won't always hit an obstical straight on.

They sit approx +3/16" inside currently. Are you guys wanting them all the way to the edges of the bracket. IMO, going out past the bracket increases the chance to hang that edge on something. Wider sounds good moving forward over an obstacle, but becomes a huge issue going in reverse. Almost guaranteed to hang there. I would say stay the same width as the bracket at the widest. There is a reason almost every design out there is made slightly to the inside.

From what I've seen and experienced the main damage and hang ups occurs at the lower front edge of the brackets. So for me I want this area reinforced and slimmer to alleviate both issues.

J

 

[abuck99]

Fair enough- understand your point. But maybe Maybe flush with the edge.

Optimally the thing I like about the other "Lotus" design is that it encapsulates the bracket. It appears that it's more effective. The JT design has open edges where it folds around the bracket, those corners are an exposed hang up point-potentially.

Might cost more $ but I would prefer that open section braced for impact.

I'm still interested but I think it needs some tweeking-

 

[Jeepster09]

I think what you have looks good, not over kill. Anyone needing more strength just weld in addition to bolting. The steel you are using should take a hit without issue. [Remember this is for a Land Cruiser and not a rock buggy]. On my Jeep I used simple Skid Row Offroad bolt ons on my front control arms without issue.

 

[spressomon]

Simple, effective and wouldn't be without them ...

#271

 

[abuck99]

Fwiw - since this is being designed ground up around our needs why not improve upon the other design- rather than copy it.

 

[SmoothLC]

Hope everyone knows that's not the end product the laser cut/bent ones will look much prettier if that's what you are worried about.

Definitely not telling you how to do it, but i think it needs to be constructed so that as much of the protector as possible is directly supported by the frame, rather than the factory bracket. I see the biggest damage risk as distorting the whole bracket--I've seen this on a 3rd gen 4Runner, where the whole mount has been partially crushed. This has to have an effect on rear axle alignment. I don't think putting a small cap on the bracket would help prevent this.

$0.02

Not really worried about "pretty" as much as @Hayes' comment above about having the protector supported by the frame. Just my 2 cents too, but it seems reasonable. I may jump back in depending on the final product and maybe those of you with engineering/fab skills can allay any unfounded concerns, etc.

 

[TRAIL TAILOR]

Fair enough- understand your point. But maybe Maybe flush with the edge.

Optimally the thing I like about the other "Lotus" design is that it encapsulates the bracket. It appears that it's more effective. The JT design has open edges where it folds around the bracket, those corners are an exposed hang up point-potentially.

Might cost more $ but I would prefer that open section braced for impact.

I'm still interested but I think it needs some tweeking-

View attachment 1418330

The gap you point out will be reduced significantly on the final product. Sure a little wedge can be added to enclose the front, but then that requires welding and the price goes up. That little wedge up front will more than likely put these out of the price range for most coming out of my shop. Then if I try and "copy" the Lotus look, I go higher up on the bracket to enclose more, but the "bulge" at the top of the bracket makes the design change further (making it wider) which then require larger/custom inner spacers and more welding, leading to even more cost.

These may not be for everyone and believe me I'm fine with that.

J