- Thread starter
- #101
If anyone one else was interested in the different options on the 4XInnovations latch. If my credit card hadn't just been skimmed I'd probably be ordering one. I'd save a lot of money of that happened more often.
Tube/Hybrid Stretched 40 Frame and Suspension Design - Advice/Comments?
- Thread starter DirtSniffer
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Thread starter
- #102
@DangerNoodle got a question on your suspension. Are you still having unloading issues on the front on big climbs like you mentioned on the numbers thread before doing the 4 link? I've been doing more research and thinking about antis and watching videos of rigs unloading in the front and tipping over, and I'm starting to think it is due to having a positive anti (>50%) in the front and also having a lower anti in the rear than in the front. This would cause the front to push down and unload under traction and the rear to squat and shift more weight to the rear wheels and kill front wheel traction. It would probably be worse if your rear anti was <50%, causing it to squat more. Seems to me we would want >50% anti in the rear, so traction will unload the rear and push the back end up to transfer weight to the front, and <50% in the front to make the front more compliant to compressing to take advantage of up travel and move up and over rocks as well as keeping the better road driving characteristics of having less anti in the front. That, or at least having a higher anti in the rear than in the front like Treefrog suggests.
I know coilovers will also play a big role in this, and also the CG changes when on an incline which changes the antis, but this is the logic that is making sense to me. But I don't think I've seen it recommended having >50% rear and <50% front, usually it's one or the other for both. This is making me consider building more adjustability into the upper link brackets.
I know coilovers will also play a big role in this, and also the CG changes when on an incline which changes the antis, but this is the logic that is making sense to me. But I don't think I've seen it recommended having >50% rear and <50% front, usually it's one or the other for both. This is making me consider building more adjustability into the upper link brackets.
Mike Shull
Let’s go…
I am curious to see these videos if you have links, @DirtSniffer. Your theory seems to be opposite of what is suggested on Crawlpedia: “Suspension systems with anti-dive values under 100% will cause the front suspension to compress under breaking, often called nose-dive. Under acceleration, a low anti-dive geometry will cause the front end to lift and the suspension to extend which also shifts weight to the rear of the vehicle.”
Do you mind posting your sources? I’d love to read more about this.
4-Link Suspension Guide | Anti -Squat, Anti-Dirve, and Roll Center Explained
Crawlpedia is an off-road encyclopedia featuring a complete guide to 4-link and 3-link suspension characteristics.
www.crawlpedia.com
Do you mind posting your sources? I’d love to read more about this.
Mike Shull
Let’s go…
Do you happen to also have a link for o this latch? I can’t seem to find it on their website and I’d like to take a closer look.
I was also looking at this latch, which I see that you posted a picture of it in this thread: Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch Assembly-1410061 - https://www.4xinnovations.com/Swing-Out-Tire-Carrier-Latch-Assembly_p_110.html
I purchased the following latch from Ruffstuff and I’m not a huge fan of the design. It seems like it will work though I haven’t installed it yet.
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com
I was also looking at this latch, which I see that you posted a picture of it in this thread: Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch Assembly-1410061 - https://www.4xinnovations.com/Swing-Out-Tire-Carrier-Latch-Assembly_p_110.html
I purchased the following latch from Ruffstuff and I’m not a huge fan of the design. It seems like it will work though I haven’t installed it yet.
Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch
Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch This heavy duty tire carrier latch is rated up to 2,000 lbs. The arm length is adjustable and the handle has a vinyl cover. We see a lot of people building their bumpers the wrong way. When you use a swingout you must have a rest for the end or you will have an...
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com
- Thread starter
- #105
The brain rot algorithm had me nailed last night, here is a vid that shows off a high positive antisquat.
You are right, I was backwards on the front. I had a late night last night lol. Here is a timestamped link explaining it better.
That being said, I think I am still right about maybe wanting >50% rear AS, or at the very least more lift in the rear than the front as I think we would want to rear to be pushing up more than the front on inclines to give the front tires traction. If the fronts are pushing up more, that is shifting weight off the front and onto the rear. And even if the front has a >50% AD like DJ's and isn't pushing and is instead compressing under traction, I would think we still want the rear having a high enough AS to push the back end up to put weight on the front. If the front compresses under traction with a >50% AD, I would think that is what we might want to make the most out of up travel and allow the suspension to work and keep the body from getting tipped over instead when crawling up stuff, especially when one side is crawling up more than the other.
Just to throw some numbers out, my theoretical AS/AD numbers would be something like, idk 50-60% each. In this setup, the rear tires will push down and the front tires will push up under traction. In my mind, the front compressing under traction seems more desirable for climbing up stuff.
However, this isn't far off from DJs setup with 53% AS/ 76% AD. His unloading problem was mentioned back when he still had leaves in the rear. It's possible with the 4 link with a positive AS has helped that, I am curious to know. An even higher AS may help with that even more.
Again, I am now temped to build a lot of adjustability into my frame mounts to allow me to play with this when the thing is driving and see how things work in the real world.
- Thread starter
- #106
Sure thing, here it is. Heavy Duty Body Latches - https://www.intercon1978.com/baer-hardware/heavy-duty-body-latches/Do you happen to also have a link for o this latch? I can’t seem to find it on their website and I’d like to take a closer look.
I was also looking at this latch, which I see that you posted a picture of it in this thread: Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch Assembly-1410061 - https://www.4xinnovations.com/Swing-Out-Tire-Carrier-Latch-Assembly_p_110.html
I purchased the following latch from Ruffstuff and I’m not a huge fan of the design. It seems like it will work though I haven’t installed it yet.
Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch
Swing Out Tire Carrier Latch This heavy duty tire carrier latch is rated up to 2,000 lbs. The arm length is adjustable and the handle has a vinyl cover. We see a lot of people building their bumpers the wrong way. When you use a swingout you must have a rest for the end or you will have an...
I did order the 4XInnovations latch, should be here today. I think it will be a good fit for me. I like the Baer latch, I'm just not finding a mounting solution I like. I'm sure I can find another use for it.
Mike Shull
Let’s go…
That is a pretty cool video though I am with you and I would be suspicious about how well that would perform Off-road.
I had something similar going on with my cruiser when I first took it for a test drive. I didn’t have nitrogen in my shocks and the preload was not set.
My anti dive and anti-squat figures are around 92 to 93% and with nitrogen in the shocks and the preload set this thing is pretty solid. When I hit the throttle it doesn’t move up or down. I have not had the cruiser Off-road yet, but I did drive it straight up a 10 foot tall snow drift a few weeks ago and I was pretty happy with the stability, although I was also pretty buried in the snow and that might have helped to keep my front end planted. I will get it out on a real trail here in a month or so and be able to report back my findings. I am also curious to see what DJ says since he’s done his for link.
- Thread starter
- #108
Just to clarify things so we are all on the same page, your ~93% AS is calculated using 100% rear drive bias (correct?), and would be about 46% calculating using a 50/50 drive bias. Just to compare to the numbers I was throwing out, which are using the 50/50 drive bias. Being that close to the neutral 100/50% anti, definitely seems reasonable that you don't get much if any squat/lift under acceleration.
- Thread starter
- #109
And another thought I had. If we do want over 50% AS on the rear, I would think we want to adjust the top link length such that as the suspension approaches max droop, AS drops just below 50% and isn't trying to push down as much to push the rig over. And likewise such that as the suspension approaches max compression, AS increases to resist squatting more. The latter half aligns with Treefrog's advice to have AS increase under compression. But, this behavior probably more tunable with coilovers than with messing with the links. This behavior is achieved with the uppers about 75% long as the lowers like most recommend, but then you don't get as much pinion rotation on the rear as you would with longer uppers.
Something like this.
Something like this.
Not as much now. I'm still planning on using my winch as a suckdown to fully eliminate that. A lot of it has been wheelbase as well I feel.
- Thread starter
- #111
Here is another video that got me thinking. Having higher AS under full compression than under full droop on the rear suspension may cause it to want to unload and keel over the side. No idea what this rig's numbers look like, but gives me that impression. Basically, the tire that is stuffed up will want to unload downwards under traction with high AS, and the other side drooped out will want to compress and come up, theoretically leading to the body rolling over like in this video.
www.facebook.com
In this situation, I feel it may be better to have more AS under droop VS compression. At least in the rear. This is easier to set up when you have more down travel vs up travel like this.
This way, the tire that is at full droop will be pushing down more than the stuffed tire on the other side, keeping it from tipping over and staying stable. The drooped wheel will continue to overpower the compressed wheel until they reach the same travel point (level). If the stuffed side had more AS and was pushing down more, it would force the dropped side to compress to compensate. This is probably an issue that coilovers can be tuned for and also be dealt with by using an antirock bar.
Whereas a curve like this would potentially cause the problem I outlined above. Especially if it goes below 50% near full droop.
Anyways, the conclusion I am coming to is that I will want a good bit of adjustability in the brackets to play around with and see what kind of behaviors I like.
38K views · 3.6K reactions | Jajaja 🤣🤣🤘🔥 Espíritu Jeepero si cae caemos todos jaja #jeep #cherokee #4x4 #aventura4x4 #offroad #jeepcherokee #4x4trucks #4x4offroad | Rafaela Burgos Castellano
Jajaja 🤣🤣🤘🔥 Espíritu Jeepero si cae caemos todos jaja #jeep #cherokee #4x4 #aventura4x4 #offroad #jeepcherokee #4x4trucks #4x4offroad.
www.facebook.com
In this situation, I feel it may be better to have more AS under droop VS compression. At least in the rear. This is easier to set up when you have more down travel vs up travel like this.
This way, the tire that is at full droop will be pushing down more than the stuffed tire on the other side, keeping it from tipping over and staying stable. The drooped wheel will continue to overpower the compressed wheel until they reach the same travel point (level). If the stuffed side had more AS and was pushing down more, it would force the dropped side to compress to compensate. This is probably an issue that coilovers can be tuned for and also be dealt with by using an antirock bar.
Whereas a curve like this would potentially cause the problem I outlined above. Especially if it goes below 50% near full droop.
Anyways, the conclusion I am coming to is that I will want a good bit of adjustability in the brackets to play around with and see what kind of behaviors I like.
Mike Shull
Let’s go…
I believe that you are correct as the calculator that I am using is quite old and it doesn’t have anywhere to adjust the drive biases.
- Thread starter
- #113
All this suspension tech is hurting my brain. Let's look at something shiny. I like this thing.
Ditcherman
SILVER Star
Digging this conversation and just trying to keep up.
I can’t remember if you already have coilovers or not, but as a newb I know I’m going to be way ahead by working with someone like Accutune to help me tune stuff up in the end, as opposed to buying something off the shelf. Lots of support there so far.
I think when it comes down to it, packaging really dictates what you can do in the real world and most people start compromising. Some just compromise sooner, some just don’t let perfect get in the way of good, sooner.
Excited to see where you land and how you get there.
My impression is that you are talking some really low antisquat numbers, when you are talking low 50’s. I also assume all conversations are at 50/50 drive bias.
Someone told me after I posted my numbers that 65% AS was too low, I wanted more like 80+. I totally respect their opinion but I was welded in at that point, so I just hope mine doesn’t behave like your first video!
(ETA: I guess we covered this on the last page, it’s possible they were thinking 100% rear drive.)
I’m assuming you’re using a calculator that allows you to see pinion angle changes as you change your links? I choose to let pinion/U joints be a point of compromise to achieve understeer and everything else, and a double cardon off the rear t case solves everything.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #115
I also asked these questions on the irate numbers thread and treefrog said he was going to put some information together to add to the Bible so we'll see what he thinks. I'm kinda thinking a more vertical curve like this:
Will help keep opposite sides from fighting each other when one is stuffed and other is dropped as the AS values will be similar at all points of travel. I do not have coilovers yet, that will be another rabbit hole to go down. But I think the main thing is I will want plenty of adjustability in my setup to play around with. When treefrog recommended 30-40%, that was based off 50/50 drive bias and is the same as 60-80% using 100% rear drive bias. I was just using low 50s as a starting point because too high pro-rise in the rear can cause hopping, but I was wanting the pro-rise in the rear to get the behavior I was describing of having the rear lift up. 80% AS would probably be too high and cause that hopping problem. He did also say it's not best to design the suspension too close to 50% because having the curve cross over will cause it to cycle between anti squat and pro-rise and could cause hopping. Will be interesting to see what he comes back with.
The new calculator does have the pinion change curve, but I'll also be running a DC in the rear so not too concerned about that. But would like to have it tip up more under droop to keep it higher and away from rocks more if I can.
Ditcherman
SILVER Star
I’m on 6.0 something on the calculator, I should take time to upgrade to the latest and put my numbers in. It looks like a lot more good info.
Treefrog is an amazing person!
I’m probably some kind of weirdo thinking link spreadsheets are fun, but I’m looking forward to doing a link again, I’m just not sure the 240z up next should be it though.
On another note, have you paid much attention to the link strength page? I had mine built and then decided to go with 2.5 x .5 wall dom for my lowers because they were so exposed and my stuffs so heavy.
- Thread starter
- #117
Not particularly, but probably should make sure it won't be trying to snap my 9/16 joint bolts. I think more energy is transferred to the links with >50% AS when hitting stuff vs putting more energy into the shocks.
Ditcherman
SILVER Star
Just plain bending was my concern, just simply coming down on a rock in the middle of a link, with 2” x .375.
There is a space there for your actual rod end choice, and bolt size. I went as big as practical at 5/8.
- Thread starter
- #119
I am planning on running 7075 aluminum lowers, they will bend the same when hit but will snap right back and can do that over and over again without getting fatigued
I'll be interested to see how the geometry works out. I'm still planning on turning my winch into a suckdown, which basically negates all of the front geometry anyways. I know the good moon buggies and KOH trucks usually have the geometry to work extreme well, but a lot of them still run one anyways for the control. The only guys that I have never really seen not running a suckdown are the bouncers, and they seem to prefer horsepower and wheel spin to send it.
