What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

progressive rate coils?

Stom, I am referring to the Instant Center, the closer the instant center is to the driven/suspended axle, the more of an effect it will have on the vehicle under load. With the radius arms, the IC is the point where they attach to the frame, so where you mount it is important.

With the 3 or 4 link, it's the imaginary point where the upper/lower arms would meet if they were extended until they touched. You may be familair with that because of the excel sheet Greg and his friend made. And as you can imagine, the closer that point is to the axle, the more leverage the axle has to exert on the vehicle when it twists because of ring/pinion or braking forces.

Fred, thank you, and I don't have a build thread for it. I may start a thread once I get the camera back. I have already did the suspension once back in '03, now a redid the front with the coilovers this summer. I have also built or rebuilt pretty much everything on the truck except the rear window. But I may redo the back suspension next spring with a triangulated 4 link and dump the leaves. This summer is the longest it's ever been down at one time though, over a couple months.
 
Ahh ok I new I was missing some sort of term lol.

So the IC wil be determined based on where the upper control arm is mounted on the lower control arm then?

If so essentially when I design my setup I should be placing my upper control arm on the axle end as close to dead center on the axle as clearance will allow.

And the "frame" end as far up the lower control arm as I can get it?
 
If it's a radius arm, the IC is the exact point where the main (usually lower) arm attaches to the frame when looking at the vehicle from the side. Just like a ladder bar in the back. Where the short arm attaches to the long arm doesn't affect the IC. And with the main arm, the shorter and higher it attaches to the frame, the more it will act on the vehicle under load.

However, if you are going to do a 3 link or 4 link, you should probably use the calcultors that have been written in excel. But try to study and understand why the numbers effect the suspension, and not just make the numbers fit a given range, it'll help you in the long run.
 
folkenheath said:
If it's a radius arm, the IC is the exact point where the main (usually lower) arm attaches to the frame when looking at the vehicle from the side. Just like a ladder bar in the back. Where the short arm attaches to the long arm doesn't affect the IC. And with the main arm, the shorter and higher it attaches to the frame, the more it will act on the vehicle under load.

However, if you are going to do a 3 link or 4 link, you should probably use the calcultors that have been written in excel. But try to study and understand why the numbers effect the suspension, and not just make the numbers fit a given range, it'll help you in the long run.
Click to expand...


The calculator had my head spinning lol. Mostly because I dont have any reference measurements from a trooper to plug in as far as distance from rear axle, ground, etc.

Basically your saying in theory the long the radius arm is the better?
 
Stomis said:
The calculator had my head spinning lol. Mostly because I dont have any reference measurements from a trooper to plug in as far as distance from rear axle, ground, etc.

Basically your saying in theory the long the radius arm is the better?
Click to expand...

Yes, you want it long, and low, and most of the time, ground clearance, space constraints, and strength issues are a problem before the radius arms could become too long or too low as far as IC goes.
 
Stomis said:
I was gonna shoot for like 45-50" eye to eye. Too little?
Click to expand...

Should be plenty, mine are under 44". I think if you try to keep it 40 or over is a good ballpark, but it also depends on the vehicle, and the angle of the arm.
 
Awesome build on the front setup :waytogo:. This is what I'm planning to do with my stepside, think I'm going to be using your photos for some ideas . I'm running a 6.5TD so I'll have some clearance issues on the passenger side. Do you have a close up pictures of the shock towers? I know you're running a gasser but can give me a general idea of what room I'll have.
 
odin said:
Here is mine
http://coloradok5.com/forums/album.php?albumid=102


FWIW I recommend going with a 3 link.
Minimal additional fab work for impressive results over a radius arm suspension.
Click to expand...


Odin not that I'm taking shots but what was it that the pirate guys were taking shots at you about with that setup?

Btw did you move? For some reason I thought you were like way west in NJ. Elizabeth isnt that far maybe we can meet at ikeaand discuss suspension theory lol.
 
You're right. I live in Trenton now.
Guys on pirate bashed this suspension because there is a single lower link. Which could be more prone to failure than a traditional three link with two lowers.

Makes sense in theory...but it's been a few years and it works pretty well.
 
KirsL said:
Awesome build on the front setup :waytogo:. This is what I'm planning to do with my stepside, think I'm going to be using your photos for some ideas . I'm running a 6.5TD so I'll have some clearance issues on the passenger side. Do you have a close up pictures of the shock towers? I know you're running a gasser but can give me a general idea of what room I'll have.
Click to expand...

I don't have any better pictures right now, because my good camera is broke. Once I get it back (or get a new one), I'll start a seperate thread for this so you guys can see it if you want too. As far as clearance goes, I dont think you'll have a problem, most of my shock tower is well outside of the frame rail, especially on the passenger side where the steering shaft and steering box aren't there, so you should be able to make it work. The most challenging part is getting everything to clear on the passenger side, where it seems like everything attaches at the same spot right by hte pumpkin. It looks like it clears fine just sitting there, but when you cycle the suspension, the steering, and articulate it, everything ends up pretty close at one point or another.

Odin, how is it going? Glad to hear your setup is still holding up well for you. Did you use ballistic joints? How have they been? I haven't had mine long enough for a long term test. Thanks.
 
It's going well, thanks.
Nice work on your rig by the way!

I used Johnny joints on my 3 link front and 4 link rear from Currie and they've held up very well.
 
Folken I did some reading into the whole ballistics joint thing after Adventurous warned me about them. From everything I've read on pirate theres 3 bushing materials and they only recommend 2 of them for anything beyond like a wrangler on 31s.

I'll be using either them or currie JJs at the frame end. Not sure which yet.
 
Stomis said:
Folken I did some reading into the whole ballistics joint thing after Adventurous warned me about them. From everything I've read on pirate theres 3 bushing materials and they only recommend 2 of them for anything beyond like a wrangler on 31s.

I'll be using either them or currie JJs at the frame end. Not sure which yet.
Click to expand...

OK, well I have 3 ballastics, 2 are the 3.0 with the billet races. Those are probably fine then, the other is the frame end of the track bar, and if I have a problem, I can buy a billet race for that for $15, no big deal. The thing I liked about the ballistic joints is they are threaded and adjustable for the bushing play. So if it's loose you can make it tighter by turning the ring.
 
Im planning on ballistic joints at the frame end. How important is it to have soft joints (poly) in the links? heim joints would fit better to my brackets, but I have been told that they cause a lot of harshness. Im guessing that the binding that would be caused in the arms without some sort of soft joint would really limit suspension and put a lot of stress on everything?
 
72k5mike said:
Im planning on ballistic joints at the frame end. How important is it to have soft joints (poly) in the links? heim joints would fit better to my brackets, but I have been told that they cause a lot of harshness. Im guessing that the binding that would be caused in the arms without some sort of soft joint would really limit suspension and put a lot of stress on everything?
Click to expand...


From what I've read 90% of people say that radius arms requires poly bushings in the axle end to help alleviate binding.

3 link it doesnt matter.
 
If you are using radius arms with both upper arms, you HAVE to use bushings at the axle end. (imagine if you attach both arms to the axle in two places, with heim joints, it's then near impossible for one arm to travel up and one arm to travel down) If you are using one upper arm, or a 3-4 link, then you could use heims at the axle end no problem.

If you want to turn your entire axle into one giant sway bar (with a radius arm), then you could potentially use heims at the axle end, but articulation will be pretty much nill then. I guess it depends on what you are trying to do. All out straight mud racer could use that, it's like pure drag race ladder bars, but flipped around for the front.
 
Im looking for a better ride both on the street and off road. flex is a must also, so ill go poly. thanks for all the help guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom