my 62 uni build

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 14, 2008, 4:12 pm

yes i plan on extending the bars so that i can use both u bolts.
the wall is 2x2 3/16 square.
there should be only a slight few degrees of flexion but i still haven't added the 7 degree shim to the front of the bars yet either so i cant really get an accurate reading until that gets made.

insane1 · Post by **insane1** » February 16, 2008, 5:52 pm

Hey, I was looking at your setup, and realize the straight axle can be challenging to get it low enough, but was wondering if you took into account what the front end is going to do when you hit hard bumps?

The reason I say this is because this setup would work ok if the bars were in front of the axle, not behind it.

I do 4-link setups everyday, and have been for over 15 years. With having the bars behind the axle there is a potential for the axle to want to swing down insted of up.

Down would be bad, very bad.

Not trying to talk shit, just thought i should bring that to your attention.

insane1 · Post by **insane1** » February 16, 2008, 6:03 pm

I just reread the post, Still scratching my head on how well it will work. I completly understand were you are comming from on a wishbone and the hairpin type setup , just keep us updated, and good luck.

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 16, 2008, 11:41 pm

how would changing the bars to the front help or hurt me any help will help dont want to have to do anything twice. i just think that if they were in the front because i looked at that first it would run into the same problems

insane1 · Post by **insane1** » February 17, 2008, 12:11 am

By having the bars on the front side of the axle there is no potinetial way of the axle wanting to, wrap under. The way I'm looking at this is; I would never 4-link the rear of a car w/all bars behind the rearend.

So in another words; If the bars are in the front of the axle when you hit bumps the wheels will be pulled over the bumps, where as w/the bars behind the axle the wheels are being pushed over the bumps.

Dose that make any sense? Or I'm I just confusing the matter? Again It might work out the way you have it, but if the bars could be placed at the front of the axle I think it would be a better choice. Then again I could be all wrong!

Also incase your wondering from what experience I'm getting my way of thought you can check out my websight.

www.insanedesigns.com

MrEvil · Post by **MrEvil** » February 17, 2008, 6:39 am

Very nice suspension setup there. But HOLY COW your wheels have some positive offset. Or is that the camera playing tricks? Can't wait to see it finished, looks like it'll ride nice and look even nicer.

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 17, 2008, 10:08 am

which pick are you thinking has the offset? i think its just the camera angle because they have none

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 17, 2008, 10:13 am

insane1 wrote:By having the bars on the front side of the axle there is no potinetial way of the axle wanting to, wrap under. The way I'm looking at this is; I would never 4-link the rear of a car w/all bars behind the rearend.

So in another words; If the bars are in the front of the axle when you hit bumps the wheels will be pulled over the bumps, where as w/the bars behind the axle the wheels are being pushed over the bumps.

Dose that make any sense? Or I'm I just confusing the matter? Again It might work out the way you have it, but if the bars could be placed at the front of the axle I think it would be a better choice. Then again I could be all wrong!

Also incase your wondering from what experience I'm getting my way of thought you can check out my websight.
www.insanedesigns.com

im not saying no, but i think its just personal preference to how you run a setup. because some people like forward vs reversed links and some prefer parallel vs triangulated. its going to move in the same basic direction weather or not it is pushed or pulled, its moving up.

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 17, 2008, 10:21 am

heres a couple picks of some other stuff that i have built, i just wish that i had a better shot of the rear suspension of my s10 that i built so you could see the set-up on it its a wishbone 3-link

i also put a forward 2-link on a dually that work the same as anything else that i have done or looked at so im not really sure where your coming from i just think we could argue this till we are blue in the face because it all in the way different people look at things

bluebolt · Post by **bluebolt** » February 17, 2008, 1:15 pm

insane1 wrote:By having the bars on the front side of the axle there is no potinetial way of the axle wanting to, wrap under. The way I'm looking at this is; I would never 4-link the rear of a car w/all bars behind the rearend.

So in another words; If the bars are in the front of the axle when you hit bumps the wheels will be pulled over the bumps, where as w/the bars behind the axle the wheels are being pushed over the bumps.

Dose that make any sense? Or I'm I just confusing the matter? Again It might work out the way you have it, but if the bars could be placed at the front of the axle I think it would be a better choice. Then again I could be all wrong!

Also incase your wondering from what experience I'm getting my way of thought you can check out my websight.

www.insanedesigns.com

The bars behind the axle should be fine in my opinion. Some off road racing trucks run 4 link rear axles with the bars BEHIND the axle to give them better front to rear weight balance. When you spend half the time flying ABOVE the ground you don't want a nose heavy truck! The main issue I see is bind with those polyurethane bushings, a Johnny joint would be better.

insane1 · Post by **insane1** » February 17, 2008, 2:45 pm

Again, I not trying to argue any point on this setup, and I never was trying to say what you are doing is wrong. I'm interested in seeing how it comes out. I was just trying to make a friendly obsevation. I like seeing things on suspension that are done diffrent than most, as long as it is safe and works well. Hopefully you did not take me the wrong way!

Now, dont get me started on rear 2 links though, a very diffrent subject altogether.

Garbz · Post by **Garbz** » February 17, 2008, 3:29 pm

Rear suspensions reactions using 2, 3 or 4 links are a world of difference than on on a active front suspension that has to handle torsional load and also do lateral loading, typically each at the same time. I would have alleviated the torsional issues by using a heim or tie rod joint as the mounting point to handle torsional twist. Just like a wishbone on a rod. Polys will wear quickly under those conditions.

With less than three inches of travel you will need to c notch the front rails to clearance for the tie rod or a steering issue will develop where you wish to turn and the suspension will be loaded and Walah.. no turn....and it gets worse once you use a dropped axle as the tie rod get closer to the frame.

Not to say your system wont work, possibly or likely it will, but its not a mini truck. It is a four thousand pound brick. I think insane is spot on in his concerns in that area. Are you actually building the truck to enjoy and actually drive further than the trailer to the grass parking spot? or just to show off talent..

GARBZ

FORDMANLCRACKEL · Post by **FORDMANLCRACKEL** » February 17, 2008, 5:52 pm

I think it will work with one minor change, and thats where it attaches to the frame. Like Garbz said, using the spring hangers a hemi rod end would solve the torsion problem. http://store.summitracing.com/largeimag ... -tsmx8.jpg (it would help to have a grees fitting on it) or the same way Ford did it on the 65 and later trucks, after all Ford started using this type of system in 1965 on there trucks using radius arms. This will solve the one wheel up and one wheel down torison.

Lonnie

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 17, 2008, 8:22 pm

ok now thats explained a little differently and i see now what everyone is saying. i do need to maybe change the way its attached to the frame so that it is more independent from one to another. thanks for the help and no one was offending me in anyway.

bluebolt · Post by **bluebolt** » February 18, 2008, 12:53 am

Check out the johnny joints. They have a few advantages over a heim http://www.currieenterprises.com/CEStor ... oints.aspx

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 18, 2008, 11:24 am

just bought 2 of them and they will fit perfectly direct replacement no re fabricating required.

FORDMANLCRACKEL · Post by **FORDMANLCRACKEL** » February 18, 2008, 3:17 pm

Dont ya just love it when a plan comes together!

Lonnie

FORDMANLCRACKEL · Post by **FORDMANLCRACKEL** » February 18, 2008, 6:03 pm

bluebolt wrote:Check out the johnny joints. They have a few advantages over a heim http://www.currieenterprises.com/CEStor ... oints.aspx

At first i thought it might be a Canuck roll your own cigarette.

Lonnie

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 28, 2008, 8:25 pm

well i got some more work done on the old snake charmer 62 uni.
i made some drop bars to drop the tie rod so it will clear the suspension travel and function right.
looks great just need to return the 48" in bar to speedway and get my 49" one.

twistedfreak · Post by **twistedfreak** » February 28, 2008, 8:27 pm

and threw the hood and the fenders back on to get some more picks. this is about ride height its probably going to be 1 in lower in the front and i still have to link the rear, so those picks will be up when i get the body off and the rear started.

my 62 uni build

Suspension

Johnny joints

Re: Johnny joints