Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wildwood]

Now here's one to feck with your head............. Tis a 1 ton plan

Spent some time on Pirate and anoraking every which way on this subject........and then thought I had it sussed............ NOT.

A 4 link can be done with lower links from outer axle to frame and upper links from diff housing to frame...... ie single triangulation.

seems this is the norm............ then came across a thread about double 4 link triangulation........ now THIS seems the dogs and correct.....

I have the room....... been and measured........... but what is right.......... if there is a right......

The idea is to use coil over shocks (spendy) and double triangulation with links going to near centre point of chassis........ this will give  best interpretation of roll axis anti tramp wind up and all stuff and monster articulation.

The idea is that this way anti roll bars torsion bars and track bars are not needed... also works for the front if ya got full hydro:icon_twisted:
Any opinions, experience would be useful
This is the winter plan................. but after difflocks............ so prob next winter............ no hurry then

[Nosebolt]

these hippy acid flash backs are getting worse mate

[isle of man]

Keep It Simple!!!

[Bubba]

leafs rock 

[Warthog]

http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/winter2007/4_link_tech.htm

May help?

[Tragic]

Keep It Simple!!!

 

Order the Poly Performance kit plus a 14B Axle truss, JJs each end and source the link material locally.

Job done.

Been there, done that on Apache's YJ, Dynatrac 60s and 16" coilovers. More useable flex than you'll ever need

[wildwood]

Thanks guys......... sorted and just when I thought I'd found paydirt.......... Warthogs is the one that 4 wheel drive and sport utility copied shamelessly............
Think I've got the ammunition to go forward from here...........graph paper, tape measure............ check........... money....no? bugger

More Merlot needed............... the horrors the horrors.................... here come the spiders.............

[bigjeepzj]

leafs rock  

and roll and jar

[Warthog]

Thanks guys......... sorted and just when I thought I'd found paydirt.......... Warthogs is the one that 4 wheel drive and sport utility copied shamelessly............

Yup, i could'nt find it on the 4 wheeler site, then that link came up.

Im asuming you be fabbing it all u yourself

Let me lnow if you need so thread intsert done, for the JJ's. Im sure i can knock some up for ya

[wildwood]

Thread inserts would be good  seeing as I'll need 16! .....thanks........................

Looks like I can use 48" upper and lowers............     BUT have ya seen the price of DOM arrrrgggghhhh

[Warthog]

Thread inserts would be good  seeing as I'll need 16! .....thanks........................

Looks like I can use 48" upper and lowers............     BUT have ya seen the price of DOM arrrrgggghhhh

Solid lowers is the way to go. You can straighten them in the field. Solid Bar is also cheaper

[wildwood]

Solid bar.mmmnnn....... That'll keep me greasy side down.

[Warthog]

Solid bar.mmmnnn....... That'll keep me greasy side down.

Gotta admit the lowers on Asylums Tj start at 40mm Dia stock, BUT.....was fooking heavy Soo i drilled it out, leaving it with 7mm wall. Should suffice

JJ wanted 2" Dia solid for his trucks lower arms

[isle of man]

Solid bar is weaker!!!!!!

[Dave The Sparky]

Solid bar is weaker!!!!!!

Ill have to consult a physicist but i dont think its actually weaker IomanKY, its just that the extra solid mass in a bar isn't actually gaining you much in strength and is just making you heavier.
Solid bar must resist crushing a lot better though 

Are you a pirateholic wildwood ? Do you need help

[Warthog]

Solid bar is weaker!!!!!!

GEEK MODE ON
In theory i would have to "Tend to Agree" The tensile strength of DOM can be. But like i mentioned, the reason/idea for solid lowers. Gave you the option to straighten in a "Field repair, situation"  due to it ductility and Malleability.

The extent to which a solid material can be plastically deformed without fracture, is far greater than tube.

Strength is pretty much independent of the direction of the load. However, in highly loaded areas, or in parts that are subject to high stresses in cyclic loading, the grain orientation may play a significant part in the selection process.  Generally, you want to keep the applied loads parallel to the grain.

I cant find the comparison figures in my "Geek" folder. But weight, is really the only factor

GEEK MODE OFF 

I know which one i can straighten and be happy to wheel with again.






 

[wildwood]

Pirateholic................          Yes find it good for ideas........... but have never felt the need to join................

Some great stuff and fab work on there but also an awful lot of dangerous crap.

[wildwood]

Ah Mr Warthog so it was you that made Double J's lower links so heavy

Have memories of lying under that rig holding those feckers up whilst we tried to dial them for the correct wheelbase........

Always wondered why they were so heavy???

[Warthog]

He went for twin wall tubing in the end.... I think?

The toothless one may pop on and enlighten us?

2" solid was gonna be way too heavy man    

[wildwood]

If strength is an issue can't you just sleeve one inside t'other?....... Still a BIT heavy.

Just been working thro the stuff you mentioned..........arggghhh what a way to spend sandwich time....... my head hurts...........
but think I'm beginning to understand

[Nosebolt]

for the boffins out there

Stiffness is proportional to the inertia moment of the section which is for a circular one J= ∏/32*(D^4-d^4) (for a compression loading in case of a bending 32 becomes 64). Area is A=∏/4*(D^2-d^2). For the same weight the two have same A.

If you note d/D=δ the area is A= ∏/4*D^2*(1-δ^2) from which D^2=4*A/(∏*(1-δ^2)) Now the J= ∏/32*D^4*(1-δ^4) = 0.5*A^2/∏*(1-δ^4)/(1-δ^2).

Because δ<1 the ratio (1-δ^4)/(1-δ^2) > 1 so that the bigger δ the bigger J for the same A i.e. for same linear weight. There is of course a limit set by the wall buckling.

This is the reason why structural tubing has a specific ratio wall/D evn if not under internal pressure.

and yes its a cut and paste so don't ask me to explain it 

[Tragic]

We used 2"x1/4" wall lowers on Apache's, seriously they are strong enough! You can bounce them on rocks, land the entire Jeep's weight on them, use them to re-colour your toes, club baby seals, whatever but they ARE strong enough. And a hell of a lot stronger than the chassis they are mounted to....
Uppers were not as heavy, they don't need to be.

Warthog, what would be the Birties rate for inserts? Just thinking out loud....

Also Jez, have you considered square links, Clayton stylee?

[wildwood]

All good stuff................. a plan is developing...............together with looking at pics of other 4 linky rigs..............

Tape measure and graph paper and calculator this week end and probably lots of swearing