suspension

[4x4junkie]

If the alignment is already set at 'perfect', and you push the beams forward, you're just re-adjusting the toe angle at the tie rods to compensate for the toe-in you caused.

Again, there's 'aligned' and 'not aligned'. There is no 'better than perfect' alignment caused by pushing the beams forward.

Well, it's obvious there is something that prevents you from seeing that I am not saying it is to correct a "perfect" alignment, as I've tried multiple times in 4 different posts now to explain what it's exact purpose is yet you're still stuck on this thing about toe-in and wheel alignment.

The lower coil mount isn't really 'moved' sideways when a spacer or slightly longer coil is used, it's just forcing the beam down more, within its arc of downward travel.

The suspension, by design, doesn't arc forward that one inch offset you wind up with if you push the beams forward.

The spring still sits crooked. Doesn't matter whether it's "inline" or not. But it doesn't matter, the spring doesn't care about this small amount.

I understand what Ackerman is, but it's designed into the steering of the system. There is no 'improving' it by forcing the TTB/TIB beams forward.

You wouldn't know. You've never done it

Perhaps you're mistaking pushing the beams foward for an 'improvement', when all you're getting is faster turn-in - the same thing caused by simply adding toe via any other method. You might also be getting easier steering from a smaller caster angle, or better camber during cornering if you've caused a larger caster angle. It's a common alignment setting on high-performance vehicles, especially those used in racing, since the additional toe and outside shoulder tire wear caused by it actually offsets the inner shoulder tire wear caused by negative camber, and tire pressures are usually ran high enough that it all works together to get some pretty evenly wearing tires on the street, though the ride quality isn't that great.

No, definitely not mistaken (you must think this is my very first rodeo lolol)
I've been doing this stuff for some 25 years now (35 years if you want to include dialing in the steering on my R/C cars before messing around with real cars). The tire marks left on parking lot surfaces and concrete driveways being 1/3 as dark after having moved the axle forward don't lie.
But whatever. I think my point about moving the beams forward is pretty clear here so I'm finished with this as it's doing nothing but going around in circles here. Carry on.

 

[Anime]

Well, it's obvious there is something that prevents you from seeing that I am not saying it is to correct a "perfect" alignment, as I've tried multiple times in 4 different posts now to explain what it's exact purpose is yet you're still stuck on this thing about toe-in and wheel alignment.

What is it's exact purpose then?

It can't make an already aligned front end more aligned, it can't improve the Ackerman steering geometry to more than perfect steering geometry.

It seems to me to be nothing more than something done for the sake of doing it - and despite the other available (and easier) methods for achiving the same end result.

You wouldn't know. You've never done it.

I haven't done a lot of things. That doesn't mean I need to do them to know what the result is, or that I don't want to do them.

It's pretty obvious what pushing the beams forward does, anyway, without having to do it and observe the wear and tear that results and pay for the parts involved in having done it.

No, definitely not mistaken (you must think this is my very first rodeo lolol)
I've been doing this stuff for some 25 years now (35 years if you want to include dialing in the steering on my R/C cars before messing around with real cars). The tire marks left on parking lot surfaces and concrete driveways being 1/3 as dark after having moved the axle forward don't lie.
But whatever. I think my point about moving the beams forward is pretty clear here so I'm finished with this as it's doing nothing but going around in circles here. Carry on.

Your point is far from clear. It's so vague I can't even tell if you're really pitching something you actually believe but just can't articulate well, or if you're just trolling for responses.

 

[FR-425]

that is what exactly what im lookin for and wanting to do. where can I find that particular part?

After all that.. .. .. I need to ask.... ..which part?

The James duff stuff is at www.jamesduff.com

 

[2Js]

the lime green one that was posted earlier. with the ballistic joint and stock shock mount

 

[2Js]

and I have read it all and honestly im after the suspension flex/travel play. and its not like I cant make modifications. im always building and making slight mods. either way ill make it work. im also been making mods to set up a turbo.

 

[FR-425]

I think [MENTION=62]Maniak[/MENTION] made those himself,

They look like stockers that have been cut, wristed and welded up with a new rod.

 

[2Js]

now since that was said and took a closer look. they do look home made. I jus figured that if I were to make them that it would be weaker and perhaps I would jus by the aftermarket ones that are built for it but looks like there wouldn't be much of a difference. I think ill jus build mine and see how it goes. id jus hate if I were trail driving and have on to break on me. that would be my only concern.

 

[2Js]

what would the rod end measurements be on the end of the radius arm be?

 

[FR-425]

I too have been looking for a way to have the best of both worlds.

The freedom of movement of the Heim joint, but still have the vibration and noise dampening of a urethane bushing.

Here's the idea.

These are "Rock Krawler" isolated urethane mounts for the Dana 30.

The center slug is floated on the urethane. The Hiem joint is attached using a stud through the isolator.

I plan to use these on both sides of the radius arm Heim joint. (custom bracket will be reqiured) But I think this would achieve the desired result.

"Long arm with both a bushing and a Heim joint"

A less expensive way to go would be to use some old school shouldered chassis bushings.

Something like this but with the bushings on either side of the Heim.

 

[2Js]

right. like both routs but I think im going to try the ballistic joint first with the 1.25" -12tpi tube adapter.

 

[2Js]

http://www.ballisticfabrication.com/thumbnail.asp?file=assets/images/ballisticjoint/bj-676-1x 30bjassemb_thumbnail.jpg&maxx=150&maxy=0

id go this route just simply I can grease it. the ones with the bushing and grease sert wouldn't last as long as the bearing type. plus would have worrie abt noise

 

[Travisfab]

Don't push your beams forward, it will never work! lol

 

[FR-425]

:frustrate instert

:Fist -fight emoticon here:

 

[2Js]

nice truck. and I don't really plan on pushing the beams forward. if anything when I make my brackets ill move them back.

 

[FR-425]

Travisfab is making fun of them for the long drawn-out e-fight.

You can see the Bronco front axle is about 4" farther forward.

 

[2Js]

ya I was woundering abt that

 

[FR-425]

:frustrate:frustrate:frustrate

 

[Maniak]

now since that was said and took a closer look. they do look home made. I jus figured that if I were to make them that it would be weaker and perhaps I would jus by the aftermarket ones that are built for it but looks like there wouldn't be much of a difference. I think ill jus build mine and see how it goes. id jus hate if I were trail driving and have on to break on me. that would be my only concern.

I didn't modify the orig. Radius arms. I modified the modified radius arms. When I got them they were using Heim joints.

I always forgot who I got them from but when they modified them they added DOM tube AND plated them to help in the strength. On top of that, the way they were made puts a bunch of caster back in to help the alignment.

Here is the thread from when I modified/built them.

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246044

Also, just so you know, those aren't stock shock mounts.. They are f-250 shock mounts which allow me to run 32" long shocks to I can use all the travel the suspension gives me.

Here is an old shot of the f-250 mount but BEFORE the extended arms or cut&turned beams.. (that was a while ago).

~Mark

 

[Travisfab]

Travisfab is making fun of them for the long drawn-out e-fight.

You can see the Bronco front axle is about 4" farther forward.

Exactly! But it's only 2" forward.


On my Bronco all of the suspension pivots are non bushing. Radius arms pivot on heims, beams pivot on uniballs, and the same deal with the coilover shocks.

Dont push beams forward or back on stock rubber pivots, they will prematurely explode.

 

[Travisfab]

As far as the original question goes...

I have heim joints on my Bronco and Explorer Radius arm pivots, they have their pros and cons.

Pros:
massive articulation
no restriction in up/down travel
insane strength

Cons:
wear out faster than rubber
can be noisy - metal on metal clacking
1.25" heims are expensive!


On my Bronco, with the stock set of beams, and heim radius arms, I could cycle over 20" of wheel travel. I upgraded to 4" over beams, and it will now cycle about 26" of wheel travel. These are not real world numbers though. The suspension is limited by bump stops and limit straps & of course steering and axles. I guess my point is, is that I'd rather have a limit strap limit my down travel instead of a smashed piece of rubber.