Rocker panels replaced by sliders

[hoser]

I think the 100 is now just old enough where folks don't mind major hacking away of the body panels. I've always disliked the idea of lifting the hundy 2", just to lose 2" of clearance at the rocker panels to sliders.

I'm sure there will be some debate on body supported sliders vs frame supported sliders. I don't know the answer but I do know there are plenty of Jeeps/LR's that run body supported sliders. I also know my current sliders are only supported by two outriggers to the relatively thin-walled frame... with U-bolts (small surface area).

The best compromise I can think of would be body mounted sliders and then one outrigger in the middle so the frame could torsionally flex as it normally does. That outrigger could have a two bolt disconnect so that it's not adding road noise during normal driving.

I don't have the welding skills to do this but maybe somebody out there does =)

Some examples....

Kevin Rowland:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/rusty-wagon-rebuild.552977/page-4#post-7366526

Boston Manglers:
http://www.yankeetoys.org/mangler/sliders.htm

 

[phsycle]

Cool idea. So this is like the HD version of what LCPhil is selling.

 

[yotasavg]

Very cool idea, I'm interested to hear what others think.

 

[jgray]

I really like this. I'm close to hacking mine up already anyway... Might have to look more into this one...

 

[MtnAddict]

Mo clearance: I like.

 

[mcgaskins]

I think it's a good idea in theory, and it's exactly what I did to a Jeep I owned in the past. I just don't see the 100 series as being a serious enough rock crawler to hack it up for them though. If I'm ever truly caught up by my sliders, it's normally hitting somewhere else it shouldn't be as well and could make more important stuff more vulnerable. I like the concept, I just don't see many owners willing to permantly alter their trucks to that extent.

 

[hoser]

Yes, definitely not for everyone. But there is a fair number of 100 owners with 35's and 2" of lift that want more capability... this is more. Whether they are willing/able to perform this mod is the question. 98-99's are $10k SUV's. Resale value is not as much a concern anymore.

Just look underneath your 100 and see what gets gouged up more, the sliders or the skid plates. If sliders, then this mod would be a benefit.

 

[Manhattan]

I did exactly this to a Grand Wagoneer BEFORE it was a beat up trail rig to keep it straight and presentable as a DD...
- Cut out the rockers (rust and dent free rockers)
- Replaced with box steel welded to frame on outriggers

 

[Hayes]

I'm pretty keen on the concept for light-duty protection, but I do question the stress being transferred to the body mounts with any big hit or long term repeated bashing. What are there, 5 bolts holding each side of the body on the frame? You can make the slider as strong as you like, but when you mount it to the body you (might) have a very safety critical weak link in the body mount bolts. A UZJ100 is a lot heavier than a Cherokee.

Still like the idea for light duty, though.

 

[Manhattan]

I don't think you'd get any argument there Hayes - if they're going to be built, they'd have to be tied to the frame. That's what I did with that GC - removed the outer face of the rocker pane, notched the inner face and welded the outriggers to the frame...



The goal with the sliders was to make them basically invisible to the untrained eye. If I'd painted them brown, they would have been completely unnoticeable.

 

[hoser]

Nice looking Grand Wagoneer there!

Great clearance and probably worked well but likely some compromise in the body strength if the rocker isn't replaced/resleeved, right? The rocker panels in the 100 are more reinforced than the LC60 and other older vehicles. I would prefer to preserve that. See below.

 

[hoser]

Perusing the Jeep Wrangler threads, they seem to favor the body mounted sliders 3 or 4:1 over frame mounted for reasons of clearance and strength. Lots of opinions though. Frame mounted sliders are tried and true but I can see a good amount of leverage on ONE side of the frame (~15" lever on the 100). With the body mounted sliders, the force is applied to both sides of the frame and over 10 body mounts.

I've also included pictures of jonharis' frame in this thread since he such great shots of the frame and body mounts.

 

[hoser]

So I'm looking at these Poison Spyder sliders that encapsulate the existing rocker panel and made of 3/16" steel. And importantly, they tie into the existing body mounts.

http://www.wranglerforum.com/f123/poison-spyder-brawler-rockers-68645.html

 

[hoser]

How about a similar design for the 100 and have the bottom tie into the 3 body mounts (per side).

 

[hoser]

Similar product out there but maybe lighter duty than I want. Sleekster Rockers, made of .120 and attached with rivets on top and not attached to the body/frame mounts.

http://randyellisdesign.com/?page_id=2668

 

[LimaBravo]

From a safety perspective, do you think body or frame mounted sliders would offer better protection of the occupant compartment?

Also, strictly thinking of side impact protection (being hit by another vehicle) would you want a more solid slider, or something that would crush to absorb the impact? If crushable, what size steel would you go with?

 

[hoser]

It is my understanding that crush-zones mostly pertain to front and rear areas. Most manufactures try to maintain a rigid "cage" around the passenger compartment to reduce intrusion/penetration. Modern vehicles focus on side/curtain airbags to absorb energy.

Interestingly though, the new ARB, TJM, etc side steps (not really sliders) are rated "side airbag compatible." I'm not sure what kind of design would not be side airbag compatible. Maybe a bunch of hoopla?

As far as which slider (frame or body) would reduce intrusion, I could only guess the frame mounted slider would, more often, provide greater protection because it braced by the frame for 'twice' the protection. But in the case where the other vehicle or object rides up and over the slider, I'd imagine a body mounted slider might add some reinforcement to the side pillars.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

Cool idea. So this is like the HD version of what LCPhil is selling.

I would agree with you.
A couple of notable differences, with my design they can be removed and returned to stock. I would not give them anymore strength point only because of how much more the 100 frame hangs down from the body now. With the negative feedback I received because my design required drilling holes in the pinch weld I dont see many 100 owners cutting into the body. The above design shows outriggers or steps, the attachment to the body would be critical to take the force generated by the leverage of the step or side pressure for real wheeling.

I did Hole in the Road this past weekend with a 100 series It needed every bit of protection given by the heavy duty step sliders that are secured to the frame to prevent damage. I know my design and I dont thing the above design would of permitted damage on the Hole in the Rock trail to the 100 series. The vehicle and armor took a hard beating but it did make it with lots of deduction for style point.

Only 2 of my design still available if you are on the fence.

 

[hoser]

Rusted Rocker Redo

To start with, my Cruiser (or Big Blue) is a 2000 that has spent its entire life in south east/central Michigan. So needless to say she’s rusty, particularly the rockers are - were - ish. That said, southerners and west coasters, mind your eyes. It’s flaky. Since my rig is crusted but super...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[Trapper50cal]

I like the idea. Might be able to tie it into the frame as well.