Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Superior Engineering Trailing Arms

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,107
    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    id suggest anyone go to Rampt Customs facebook page again...and spend 2mins scrolling down...and then come to the conclusion that this bloke dosnt know a thing or two about chassis strength...and where forces are at play and attention is required when modifying your truck for HEAVIER offroad use. ( WHY on earth would someone be considering Gigglepin or other long arms, if they were not asking something more serious of their truck??)



    100's of thousands of std chassis mounts have been tested and tried I agree. But this is not constant heavy heavy offroad use (some would say abuse)..which NO std defender is set up for! And when we are talking long arms were typically talking some sort of heavy offroad use...something they just are not designed for in std form.

    I also agree with what you're saying though...they are being asked to do something in which they are not designed for to break or be damaged. In my relatively small circle, I have known 5 to be damaged in somewhat that needs repair, and that's just people I personally know. These are road-going trucks..not dedicated crawlers or comp trucks.

    Im lost as to what sort of advantage long arms will provide you for a touring rig..the changes in rear suspension geometry with a lower anti-squat will make no noticeable difference on road..and unless your truck is really built for offroad will provide little benifit. A lower roll axis will not really provide too much benefit until things get really interesting offroad... the Gigglepin arms are not even going to lower your anti squat by anything worth mentioning...so the only advantage is strength and almost eliminating your flex steer under suspension drrop if your running long shocks.

    IMHO youd be FAR better to invest your money in a DFI or Currie offroad torsion bar swaybar and have it custom fitted if saftey is the goal...as well as the benefit of improving the offroad handling and predictability of your truck.
    You see rovers everywhere flexing like crazy at the rear..but nothing happening up the front...this really is no good in terms of your trucks ability and handling offroad.

    The problem is obviously the front of any radius arm'ed truck is the front axle housing is acting as a big torsion bar, and the rear has no torsion effect to deal with.
    By adding torsion effect to the rear via an offroad swaybar that CAN still flex like the best of them, whilst introducing some torsion effect to the rear will force the front end to actually start working.

    Running a rear offroad swaybar was the BEST thing i did to my trucks suspension setup when I was running std Rover radius arms, the difference both on and offroad was amazing.
    Rick, ive spent a few minutes or more reading his fb page and looking at his many pictures. You clearly are a fan and thats cool. I personally dont agree with some of his comments, and again, how his mount attaches to a LR chassis.

    Claiming he is probably Aus best 4x4 builder/fabricator is a bit of a reach. Im not knocking him at all. BTW guys have been plating chassis rails in the 4x4 world for decades, hes certainly not the first. Not everyone is strong on social media or advertising etc. Popular doesnt always = best practice either....Like you said, we dont all have to agree.

    If you cant see the advantages of lowering raised AS and axle roll axis in on road driving and driving dirt tracks at speed, then I suggest you do a little more reading yourself.

    Have you run the numbers on the 4 link calc to see the stock vs rasied difference and then thrown in some Gigglepin arm numbers to see the difference?

    Lets say the Gigglepin numbers dont decrease the AS by much at all, do you think that in the real world that the new geometry they provide transmits the acceleration forces more smoothly forward with less tendancy for the axle to drive under the vehicle? And even if the axle roll axis hasnt lowered much on paper, what about the length of the arm.....

    BTW the 4 link calc wont give the true AS numbers as its 2wd input...

    I agree getting the roll stiffness balanced front and rear is important.

    And yes, engineering cert is important on any modified road going vehicle.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    BTW guys have been plating chassis rails in the 4x4 world for decades, hes certainly not the first. Not everyone is strong on social media or advertising etc. Popular doesnt always = best practice either....Like you said, we dont all have to agree.
    Yeah, i do advocate his work....but I also like the work of a few other blokes here in Aus too! BUT Nowhere did I stipulate that Benji was a pioneer in chassis plating in offroad fab...many have done it well before his time, and many do it in this time alongside him here and abroad. My point was.. it's clear to see its something he understands and usues OFTEN...where as there are many fab shops just dont understand where points of stress are going to be and then fail to adopt their use in their work/builds. But agree as mentioned above...he is certainly not he only one.

    He def is ONE of the best in aust. He is well respected in the circles of fab guys/competitors in Tuff Truck and associated offroad motorsport circles...and hes the guy who holds the clipboard signing rollcages off at TTC. You dont get that position unless you know a thing or 2.

    He does have a big social media presence indeed! but there are even a few back yarders that have built rigs that look like they have come from a top-level fab shop. Definitely agree there...top level talent is often hidden from public eye/knowledge!

    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    If you cant see the advantages of lowering raised AS and axle roll axis in on-road driving and driving dirt tracks at speed, then I suggest you do a little more reading yourself.
    I can see the advantages..BUT if that's your point..why not go with the long arm kit (Benji's) that gives you a higher anti-squat number than the Gigglepins? Or are you planing to wheel that hard where you think his chassis mount is going to be ripped off your chassis? I really doubt youl be putting your truck thru that much punishment as a tough tourer that it would be of concern to you

    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    Have you run the numbers on the 4 link calc to see the stock vs rasied difference and then thrown in some Gigglepin arm numbers to see the difference?

    Lets say the Gigglepin numbers dont decrease the AS by much at all, do you think that in the real world that the new geometry they provide transmits the acceleration forces more smoothly forward with less tendancy for the axle to drive under the vehicle? And even if the axle roll axis hasnt lowered much on paper, what about the length of the arm.....
    I'll be honest no I haven't specifically obtained a Gigglepin chassis mount measurements to play with in the calc ( though I've had a good in person visual inspection of these arms on the truck). They would raise anti squat figure im guessing because of the length reducing the angle of the arms. To get the maximum benefit improvement in anti squat you need to lower that mount abit. I guess different people want different things though, and your preference of chassis mount is overcome by the desire for a better anti squat figure.

    I think real world raised anti-squat figure in the rear isn't going to be of much advantage unless your in the kind of situation where your rear wheels are scrambling for traction..this will be amplified on climbs etc

    The other thing to consider with that 4 link calc..is that is formulated for a 4 link configuration. Obviously, A-rame and Trailing arm setup is going to be close to what it's spitting out...but not ideal as well. So many factors hey as you know

    Either way you go...long arms FTW! They are ALOT better than ANY std legnth arm setup...and we dont have to agree on which is a better design...lets not be the same..thats boring!
    www.kingpindesignandfab.com
    www.facebook.com/KINGPINDESIGNandFab

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,107
    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    I can see the advantages..BUT if that's your point..why not go with the long arm kit (Benji's) that gives you a higher anti-squat number than the Gigglepins? Or are you planing to wheel that hard where you think his chassis mount is going to be ripped off your chassis? I really doubt youl be putting your truck thru that much punishment as a tough tourer that it would be of concern to you
    I think youve had a brain fart lol, it reduces AS not increases.

    The attachment of any mount, especially those connecting suspension links is very important, and not just for single high point loads. The many thousand/millions of stress cycles that go through those points are what can cause crack proergation and problems begin.

    having a guess at Benji's plate thickness here, but im guessing 4~6mm thick for his chassis mounts? The LR chassis is only 2.5mm thick, it is not good engineering practice to weld such different thickness components together like this. Abrupt change in stiffness causes stress risers. Also the corners of the chassis are not ideal to weld to, and not good practice to weld across the top or bottom flanges in general (I see he has his ends of plate at an angle I think, this somewhat helps.)


    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    I'll be honest no I haven't specifically obtained a Gigglepin chassis mount measurements to play with in the calc ( though I've had a good in person visual inspection of these arms on the truck). They would raise anti squat figure im guessing because of the length reducing the angle of the arms. To get the maximum benefit improvement in anti squat you need to lower that mount abit. I guess different people want different things though, and your preference of chassis mount is overcome by the desire for a better anti squat figure.

    I think real world raised anti-squat figure in the rear isn't going to be of much advantage unless your in the kind of situation where your rear wheels are scrambling for traction..this will be amplified on climbs etc
    Again, both Gigglepin and Benji's kit LOWER the AS ;-) Lower AS lends itself to a less harsher ride and more supple suspension in general. We dont want to go so low that the rear end starts to squat under acceleration (though watch a Trophy Truck launch and see how much they squat...)
    I know we think of ride quality and suppleness etc a direct result of spring rate and shock valving, but you can only tune so far, especially if the geometry is no good.

    The other thing, which you havent touched on much, is the axle roll axis. You stated it of only real benefit in hardcore off roading/crawling. This is quite incorrect. Its extremely importand on road going vehicles of any kind. In fact the faster you go the more important it is. Back in the day crawlers had some pretty funky axle roll axis, but could get away with it due to the slower speeds they opperate at. Not ideal, no but not as big an issue as on road or off road at speed. In fact there are some occasions were the axle steer due to link geometry was an advantage...

    All this stuff has come from road and race cars and been adapted to 4x4s. There is a lot of cross over. Sure some is different based on track racing vs crawling but for the most part 4x4s have moved closer to road/race going numbers than they started.

    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    The other thing to consider with that 4 link calc..is that is formulated for a 4 link configuration. Obviously, A-rame and Trailing arm setup is going to be close to what it's spitting out...but not ideal as well. So many factors hey as you know
    A frame + trailing arm may be 3 actual links, but it is a 4 link by design. If you input the numbers accurately for any 4 link the results will be accurate, whether that be a double triangulated 4 link, singe or wishbone. The wishbone simpley has the upper convergance point at the centre of the ball of the ball joint.

    As far as Antisquat numbers though the calculator is based off road car, so rear wheel drive only. This is not correct for AWD on road or locked centre diff off road. BUT, it does give you a base to see changes quite clearly from.

    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    Either way you go...long arms FTW! They are ALOT better than ANY std legnth arm setup...and we dont have to agree on which is a better design...lets not be the same..thats boring!
    abso-bloody-lutely!



    Ill throw a little more here for consideration.

    All the RRC, Disco 1 , and all coil sprung LRs use the basic radius arm front end and A frame + trailing arm rear. The only real change in that, over the years was, the widening of the radius arms and its bushes (reduced articulation, increased bush life, firmer on road) and whether the rear had a load leveler or not.

    This was all origianlly designed for the 100 in wheel base RRC. Designed around its COG, its wheel base etc. Now just change ONE component and you change the geometry. Change the COG, geometry changes. Change the wheel base, geometry changes. Change the tyre height, the geometry changes and so on.

    Take a stock 90, 110 and 130. Lets say the are all identical except their wheel base. The 90 will have the lowest AS and the 130 the highest.

    Most defenders, especially 110's and 130's have more "spring" in the rear. whether its rate or height, and im talking stock from factory compared to a new old stock RRC. This means they have a higher axle roll axis angle (oversteer) than the RRC. it also mean higher AS again, over the RRC (plus the increase from longer wheel base..

    I have owned a 81 RRC on stock springs and stock height tyres. It hands down drove better than my stock and then lifted 110!

    and Rick, im very interested to hear more about your front end and sway bar set up. Do you have a memebers ride thread or any info on them

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    I think youve had a brain fart lol, it reduces AS not increases.

    The attachment of any mount, especially those connecting suspension links is very important, and not just for single high point loads. The many thousand/millions of stress cycles that go through those points are what can cause crack proergation and problems begin.

    having a guess at Benji's plate thickness here, but im guessing 4~6mm thick for his chassis mounts? The LR chassis is only 2.5mm thick, it is not good engineering practice to weld such different thickness components together like this. Abrupt change in stiffness causes stress risers. Also the corners of the chassis are not ideal to weld to, and not good practice to weld across the top or bottom flanges in general (I see he has his ends of plate at an angle I think, this somewhat helps.)




    Again, both Gigglepin and Benji's kit LOWER the AS ;-) Lower AS lends itself to a less harsher ride and more supple suspension in general. We dont want to go so low that the rear end starts to squat under acceleration (though watch a Trophy Truck launch and see how much they squat...)
    I know we think of ride quality and suppleness etc a direct result of spring rate and shock valving, but you can only tune so far, especially if the geometry is no good.

    The other thing, which you havent touched on much, is the axle roll axis. You stated it of only real benefit in hardcore off roading/crawling. This is quite incorrect. Its extremely importand on road going vehicles of any kind. In fact the faster you go the more important it is. Back in the day crawlers had some pretty funky axle roll axis, but could get away with it due to the slower speeds they opperate at. Not ideal, no but not as big an issue as on road or off road at speed. In fact there are some occasions were the axle steer due to link geometry was an advantage...

    All this stuff has come from road and race cars and been adapted to 4x4s. There is a lot of cross over. Sure some is different based on track racing vs crawling but for the most part 4x4s have moved closer to road/race going numbers than they started.



    A frame + trailing arm may be 3 actual links, but it is a 4 link by design. If you input the numbers accurately for any 4 link the results will be accurate, whether that be a double triangulated 4 link, singe or wishbone. The wishbone simpley has the upper convergance point at the centre of the ball of the ball joint.

    As far as Antisquat numbers though the calculator is based off road car, so rear wheel drive only. This is not correct for AWD on road or locked centre diff off road. BUT, it does give you a base to see changes quite clearly from.



    abso-bloody-lutely!



    Ill throw a little more here for consideration.

    All the RRC, Disco 1 , and all coil sprung LRs use the basic radius arm front end and A frame + trailing arm rear. The only real change in that, over the years was, the widening of the radius arms and its bushes (reduced articulation, increased bush life, firmer on road) and whether the rear had a load leveler or not.

    This was all origianlly designed for the 100 in wheel base RRC. Designed around its COG, its wheel base etc. Now just change ONE component and you change the geometry. Change the COG, geometry changes. Change the wheel base, geometry changes. Change the tyre height, the geometry changes and so on.

    Take a stock 90, 110 and 130. Lets say the are all identical except their wheel base. The 90 will have the lowest AS and the 130 the highest.

    Most defenders, especially 110's and 130's have more "spring" in the rear. whether its rate or height, and im talking stock from factory compared to a new old stock RRC. This means they have a higher axle roll axis angle (oversteer) than the RRC. it also mean higher AS again, over the RRC (plus the increase from longer wheel base..

    I have owned a 81 RRC on stock springs and stock height tyres. It hands down drove better than my stock and then lifted 110!

    and Rick, im very interested to hear more about your front end and sway bar set up. Do you have a memebers ride thread or any info on them
    Well I've come to the conclusion that we basically agree on everything..apart from which long arm chassis mount we prefer..and the design merits of the std LR chassis mount if the truck is used for anything other than a road going or mild offroad use, on a stock to mildly modified truck.

    ,,,oh and that the LR rear is not and does/will not behave in the same manner as a triangulated 4 link rear

    I currently dont have my rear offroad sway bar in..as i have been testing running a superflex arm on both sides up front with 15" shocks and retained coils at 1" lift and 180Lb linear spring rate. Rear coils retained.
    The suspension is balanced even without the rear swaybar setup now...but im not sold on it even though its far better than most.

    Toying wether put the rear swaybar system back in and still run 2 flex arms. OR run regular superflex arm setup (1 flex arm) and again run the swaybar in the rear.

    Also considering to just be done with staying semi-legal...and chop the truck up and just have it a trailer rig/social wheeler. Im torn atm.

    Before the suerflex arms...I was actually running a superflex arm of sorts I had made myself from a std wide rover arm. I milled it down to the same width as a narrow arm after moving the 2 bushes considerably closer together and welding new brackets on the diff. Was also running the rear swaybar setup. Looking back it was better than running one superior Superflex arm and no rear swaybar every day of the week.

    The rear swaybar I also made..too broke at the time to get a proper DFI or Currie kit.
    Made from a std LR def1110 swaybar.
    Moved the chassis mounts back 3" so the swaybar could freely swing up and down where ever it wanted without hitting the springs or anything else.
    Made some long lings from an old std rover trackrod and tie rod ends. Took quite some testing to find the ideal length though.
    to the suprise of many..and some will still argue this if they havnt seen my truck offroad on wombat holes etc..that it didn't lose any flex in the rear...it was more like the front...harder to get it to its maximum
    If i go back to runing this permanently which id say I will...I'll be making some proper liks with heims etc
    I can find some pics somwhere if your interested.

    I do have a memebrs ride thread but haven't really updated it much...most things (everything suspension as well) is missing.
    www.kingpindesignandfab.com
    www.facebook.com/KINGPINDESIGNandFab

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,107
    Good stuff Rick,

    one thing though. The LR rear a frame and trailing arms are still a 4 link and the 4 link calc will give you accurate info if imputed accurately. Sans 2wd vs 4wd

    I never said it behaves the exact same as a double triangulated 4 link...it does closely though. And AFAIK is still considered a (single) triangulated 4 link by design. By nature, a double triangulated 4 link "should" have a lower axle roll axis and the convergence of the links is going to be rearward compared to the A frame/ball joint. The 4 link calc doesnt care whether the lowers are triangulated or not, or where the convergance points are, it just calcs the imputed info, so not sure how the 4 link calc isnt going to be accurate for the LR rear end if the imput is?

    can you please explain more what you feel is the differences between the 2?

    Im guessing your shock and spring set up was the limiting factor to your rear end as any sway bar added to a link set up will limit articulation at some point compared to no sway bar at all on the same link set up.

    A couple of guys over in the USA did exactly what you did with their radius arm and had some good success. I think they moved on to a custom 3 link after that. Was 10 or so years ago

    Are you still running your front shocks inside the coil spring?

    Everything is a compromise as you know. Less front end torsion, more body roll. Closer bush spacing, more bush wear through acceleration/braking forces. Packaging and physical limitations are the biggest hurdle

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    one thing though. The LR rear a frame and trailing arms are still a 4 link.... (INCORRECT)
    A-frames are for people who don't know how to build a 4 link.
    Single tri 4link is still just called a 4link. Double tri 4link is still called a 4link. Just with geometry chang
    es
    .


    I never said it behaves the exact same as a double triangulated 4 link...it does closely though (DISAGREE). And AFAIK is still considered a (single) triangulated 4 link by design....(INCORRECT)
    An A-frame behaves very different to a 4link of any kind. The main being that the roll centre in an A-frame can and will only ever move VERTICALLY!
    This is going to affect roll axis and weight distribution as the suspension unloads.
    Rover rear end
    have the set up dialed in quite well, but if you want to speak nitty gritty on figures, cannot and will not ever compare to a properly set up 4link.

    Im guessing your shock and spring set up was the limiting factor to your rear end A-FRAM (NO IT WAS THE A-FRAME BALLJOINT)
    ...as any sway bar added to a link set up will limit articulation at some point compared to no sway bar at all on the same link set up. (PARTITALLY AGREE...AND WILL ADD MOST PEOPLE FORGET FLEX IS FAR FROM EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO HOW CAPABLE YOUR TRUCK IS)
    An offroad swaybar like DFI or Currie's can actually be
    setup and adjusted in such a way (if you wanted)that you could even max out 16" shocks as can bee seen of Tuff Truck Challenge. ..so in this case the above assumption of limiting flex is NOT TRUE.
    Im not limited by spring or shock OR SWAYBAR in my rear flex..its the a-frame balljoint for me. (except for tuck of course) But I can open the spring perches apart to 610mm on full rear flex so I obviously also retain my rear coils even thought hey are 590mm in free height. At the spring perches on full flex open side minus closed side is givng me 15.4" travel (AT THE SPRINGS - WITH A MODIFIED SWAYBAR)
    My rear has to work harder to get full flex limited by the A-frame balljoint with the swaybar however.


    A couple of guys over in the USA did exactly what you did with their radius arm and had some good success. I think they moved on to a custom 3 link after that. Was 10 or so years ago (YES BUCK IS WHERE I GOT MY INSPIRATION FROM


    Are you still running your front shocks inside the coil spring? (YES BUT IS AWEFULL BY DESIGN FOR MORE SERIOUS OFFROADING. iTS ALL GETTING RIPPED OUT SOON FOR COILOVERS AND A FULL MAKEOVER AND BE DONE WITH IT)

    Everything is a compromise as you know. Less front end torsion, more body roll. Closer bush spacing, more bush wear through (COULDNT AGREE MORE
    ........
    www.kingpindesignandfab.com
    www.facebook.com/KINGPINDESIGNandFab

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    127
    Exhibit A.
    The tucking tire is so far under the guard. (To the passenger.)
    Put that in a very off camber situation and you now have bulk weight leveraging on the roll centre.
    Yucky.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    www.kingpindesignandfab.com
    www.facebook.com/KINGPINDESIGNandFab

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,107



    An A-frame behaves very different to a 4link of any kind. The main being that the roll centre in an A-frame can and will only ever move VERTICALLY!

    This is going to affect roll axis and weight distribution as the suspension unloads.

    Rover rear end have the set up dialed in quite well, but if you want to speak nitty gritty on figures, cannot and will not ever compare to a properly set up 4link.

    Rick, Can you explain more on how a four links roll centre doesnt just move vertically? And how the roll axis and weight distribution is affected, and the difference between it and the A frame?


    Quote Originally Posted by rick79 View Post
    Exhibit A.
    The tucking tire is so far under the guard. (To the passenger.)
    Put that in a very off camber situation and you now have bulk weight leveraging on the roll centre.
    Yucky.
    I dont understand this either ??

    cheers
    Serg

  9. #39
    MLD's Avatar
    MLD is offline Wizard Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stanwell Park, NSW
    Posts
    1,258
    I fitted a set of SE arms over the weekend. I had to cut about 7mm of material from the axle mount to clear the larger bush housing. Someone with less lift might get away with no trimming. The bush can be manipulated by hand easily and allows a lot of lateral flex for a bush of that design. On a static flex test the bushes at both ends of the arm were very close to binding (11.5" shocks). On the road there is no noticeable harshness. There is a small amount of rear steer at 100km/h when you come off the gas. Exaggerated by my lift and soft coil rate.

    Heading the VHC this weekend so will give them a test. The real test will come when i am full flex with lockers and a tyre bites on a rock and the torque is absorbed by the bush.

    For what is worth, i'm come to the realisation that the 130 wheelbase is contributing to my problems. The chassis is a big lever, add lockers and 35" rubber to the torque vectoring and the forces generated by the 130 on bushes is considerable compared to a 90 which most of the comp parts are designed for.
    MLD

    Current: (Diggy) MY10 D130 ute, locked F&R, long travel suspension and rolling on 35's.
    Current: (Steed) MY11 Audi RS5 phantom black (no need for mods as it left the factory touched by God himself)
    Gone: (Dorothy) MY99 TD5 D110

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bracken Ridge - Brisbane - QLD
    Posts
    13,032
    Thanks for the update.....look forward to see how it perform on your trip

    2000 110 Hardtop

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!