Link material

All of the EB guys that I know of that tried it in the rear years ago when coils were first getting popular have long since ditched the setup. Brake dive is problematic in the front, not the rear...in the back it's too much AS. Having used my rear suspension with somewhere around 150% as and now at ~70% I can agree with everyone else that too much AS and hopping tires sucks. I would have rather had leaves.

Anyway, a good read http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168577 .

And fwiw, 2.5x.5" tube and evo joints? You're looking at a pile of cash and insane overkill when RE joints, poly bushings and 2"x.25 DOM (if using a 4link) would work fine. If you just do mud with it then 1.75x.125 would work...

Anyway, good luck and do some more research first...you'll be glad you did. You know what they say about measuring twice/cutting once.
 
Thanks for the info guys, yea def get it now that you cleared it up for me, dont think it's gonna be a good idea to try that on the rear axle thanks for the info.

The more and more I learn about these coil suspension setups, the more and more they seem to be a bad idea, to me at least.

It seems if you want to build a coils suspension properly (very beefy) you will be spending alot of money. I could run 63" chevys in the rear with dual shackles (I'll build a lock down to keep em closed when I need em to be) and runnin the rear ford springs flipped around up front to extend the wheelbase I can get pretty damn good flex.

Not only that but the setup would be alot more durable and have alot less parts that could possibly fail.

I don't know it just seems in my opinion your paying out the butt for a suspension that flex's a little bit better and is much more prone to failure.
 
It's not about the "flex"
 
Not only that but the setup would be alot more durable and have alot less parts that could possibly fail.

I don't know it just seems in my opinion your paying out the butt for a suspension that flex's a little bit better and is much more prone to failure.
Click to expand...

have you ever been fourwheeling before? how often do you see bent/broken leaf springs? i know ive seen way more of those than decently built linked susupensions breaking out on the trail



anything will break, but i have a feeling yours will never see anything more than a little mud and maybe uwharrie, just do 63s and have some spare main leaves in case you bend them, and ditch the dual shackle idea, they blow and wont do a single thing for your rig except possibly make it look pretty on the RTI ramp and lead to some funny handling characteristics
 
I mean first place im gonna go with it after it drives is them bad boys new park they built right near my house over in lincolinton.

I mean I have seen leaves bent b4 but there so cheap and easy and simple to get and replace it's becoming more and more attractive than links and joints and threaded inserts, etc, etc
 
A well built link setup will get the power to the ground better than leaves. I watch leaves break on just about every run. I also watch them follow the linked rigs pretty damn well. Don't do anything fancy with shackels. Everyone I know that has run anything strange has hated it and pulled it out or welded it solid on the trail.

Flex isn't everything, predictability is. If you know what your rig will do in different situations then you can drive to maximize that. I won't run a leaf suspension on a trail rig, but that is a personal preference and I love the feel of a well built link setup. The ride is more friendly and I don't like having to source spares after every trip.

Edit: links aren't cheap though. I will probably have around $500 just on the front not including coilovers or limiting straps. And I got all of my link material at cost and the brackets for free.
 
Down&Dirty said:
I wouldn't expect any thing more from a state student.:flipoff2: After spending time there for my undergrad and masters I am glad to be heading some place else in Jan. At least you are asking. From the looks of the recent posts you have your hands full.
Click to expand...

hey i am a state student and i know what chamfer means. i am minoring in graphic design and chamfer is a tool you can use in the solid works program on stuff you are designing (you can chamfer things), but as far as ricky goes, you cant expect much from him :fuck-you:
 
highrollintj said:
hey i am a state student and i know what chamfer means. i am minoring in graphic design and chamfer is a tool you can use in the solid works program on stuff you are designing (you can chamfer things), but as far as ricky goes, you cant expect much from him :fuck-you:
Click to expand...

Hopefully this is a joke...
 
91oneton said:
why are u usig so many different joints ... keep it simple that way u dont have to pack the garage when u go wheeling . i run all 1 1/4 heims all right hand thread
i would also run that radius arm on both sides... i see those break when only using one
Click to expand...

this is the reason rock krawler had to change their first generation long arm kit. they were running radius on the driver side and single lower on the passenger side. they then went to that independent 3 link which to my knowledge hasnt had any real problems. i think it is a good setup.

and obviously a four link would be the best.

why not try a tri link upper and then the two long lowers.
 
highrollintj said:
hey i am a state student and i know what chamfer means. i am minoring in graphic design and chamfer is a tool you can use in the solid works program on stuff you are designing (you can chamfer things), but as far as ricky goes, you cant expect much from him :fuck-you:
Click to expand...


Yea well I guess you can't expect me to let you use my tools and help you install all your fancy RE long arm/trilink stuff . . . .

Told Son :fuck-you:
 
braxton357 said:
Don't use radius arms in the rear.
Click to expand...

some how i dont think that the radius arm rear is such a bad idea. i mean if you look at RE new long arm kit for the new JK's thats what they did and if it was a bad idea then it seems like it would hurt them down the road with law suits after people crash because it was a poorly designed kit.
 
I think this thread has fully convinced me for now at least. I say fawk coils, I'll go to pull a part pay $90 and come out with two pairs of 63" springs and call it a day

I mean if you're willing to spend the $$ and do all the frikin work power to ya, I'm sure it'll flex badass, but as of now I sure aint. I'm literally saving myself 1000 maybe more by doin leaves, aught to put that towards a blower or some 44" boggers w/ all the small lugs cut out :driver:
 
rockmafia said:
Your crazy! It's all about the flex, and how high you can pick it up with the fork lift.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING CRAZY FLEX!!!
Click to expand...

if you are being serious then i completely agree cus i love flex and without flex you lose traction and we all know that everyone loves traction.
 
braxton357 said:
Hopefully this is a joke...
Click to expand...

yeah it was a joke but i seriously am an ncsu student and i am majoring in engineering and minoring in graphic design and i do know what it means cus i have to use it a lot when i am designing things, but it was mostly to mess with ricky
 
jrraw23 said:
Wow, chris put it all in one post, makes it easier to read instead of 20 posts :flipoff2:
Click to expand...

well i kinda just started reading this thread and was quoting as i went along.

you know i like to make things difficult. :fuck-you:

but honestly did the guy that started this thread get any usefull knowledge from it or did we completely trash it?
 
braxton357 said:
It's a poor design front or rear but it's easy to use. It's especially poor in the rear because A, it's weak and B, the geometry is totally wrong. A 3 link with panhard (using 3 separate links) is not the same as a radius arm 3 link. Nor is a wishbone 3 link. I'd like to see the pbb thread that has anyone in agreeance with running rear ra's... Just not a good idea.
Click to expand...

x2. I can attest to the fact that the setup sucks. Antisquat is ridiculous with this setup. A buddy of mine that was running a radius arm rear suspension spun the tubes on his 14 bolt out in Moab. All the force on the upper links make bad things happen. I really think its a decent design for the front though.
 
highrollintj said:
hey i am a state student and i know what chamfer means. i am minoring in graphic design and chamfer is a tool you can use in the solid works program on stuff you are designing (you can chamfer things), but as far as ricky goes, you cant expect much from him :fuck-you:
Click to expand...


Actually I am a state grad. both undergrad and grad. in engineering. I just like to make fun of othe people that were dumb enough to go there. Now I am headed to clemson. what am I thinking?

I did get some out of this thread. I get something out of just about every thread. Some of it I wish I could block out, but at least I am learning. I have gotten almost everything I need for my new link setup. 2 inch 3/8s wall DOM lowers. 1.5 inch .25 wall DOM uppers. Flex joints all around.
 
highrollintj said:
actually i am all about flex. i am tryin to design a kit that i can get the best articulation out of, but i think i need another year or two in my engineering classes to get it perfect
Click to expand...

But after reading:

highrollintj said:
cus i love flex and without flex you lose traction and we all know that everyone loves traction.
Click to expand...

You'd be best served to take what you learn, and then, before you take welder to steel, go out on the trail more and watch the rigs that WORK and can climb.. not the ones on the RTI ramp.

Or, head to a racetrack and hang around the pits.. There's some good stuff to be learned there too.

It doesn't take much "engineering" to make a suspension that will max out a 18" shock.. Making one that can work while putting the power down well is the challenge... and a radius arm in the rear isn't really gonna do it as well as other designs.
 
Back
Top