New Motobilt 4-Link Suspension

Status
Not open for further replies.
What? More direct and relevant questions that get ignored?

Pay better attention.

If you're the expert and you feel so strongly about it, make your case and back it up. On paper we have fabricator and R&D guy for a major player in the offroad aftermarket who's made a life around motorsport, and his design being criticized by a hobbyist who has the experience of installing someone else's suspension design and chopping up some frames on a few TJs. I'm gonna regret starting this pissing match but you don't have the resume to expect everybody else to do the work of reading between your lines or take you at face value.
 
@Bender what is the link separation at the axles and typical link lengths?

That’s completely up to the end user. all of those change with axle type, which truss you choose as well as wheel base and even what type of wheeling the user does. I know that’s not the answer you we’re looking for, but again this isn’t a one size fits all kit. This kit is geared towards a person who is familiar with not only fabrication but suspension design.
 
Absolutely! Let’s make sure we are talking the same thing. This is slow technical crawling. In essence what you are doing is nonce the shock bottoms out, that shock location becomes the new roll center.

We can call this slow technical rock crawling. I'm talking about allowing the tire to rise up and over things without upsetting the frame more than is necessary. To create two ends of a spectrum, imagine two otherwise comparable rigs with 14" coilovers, one has an inch of up travel, the other has 7" of up.
 
Last edited:
Is more travel (up+ down) always better?

To piggyback that question, and this is for anyone, is there any draw back to having link mounts as high as possible when it comes to a tummy tucked TJ/LJ with a body lift?

Are there no compromises when choosing a mid arm? It is my understanding that a mid arm is a better solution than short arms once you go over 33's

When @Bender was asked about the skid being in the stock location, he stated, "because by doing that it gives better link angles than a “flat belly”.

There didn't seem to be anyone from the first page debating it or objecting to it, unless I missed it. Or are we waiting for the possibilities of the overlays?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freedom_in_4low
...

Are there no compromises when choosing a short arm vs a mid arm? It is my understanding that a mid arm is needed once you go over 33's
...

Whether or not it is needed has everything to do with what problem is to be solved by changing the geometry.
 
Whether or not it is needed has everything to do with what problem is to be solved by changing the geometry.

I edited my post before you posted.

What problems are solved by going to mid arms from short arms? And with enough stretch, at what point does a mid arm become a long arm?

Its my understanding that link separation, antisquat, and roll center are changed and would be a go-to if trying to get a 50/50 bias out of long travels all while adding stability to the rig while in various angles out on the trail.

Can one build a short arm on 35's with 50/50 bias while using long travel shocks?
 
Interesting. Do you disagree that increasing up travel improves stability in high articulation events like rock crawling by reducing how often the chassis is upset when the upper limit of travel is reached?
Absolutely! What you are describing as “upsetting the chassis” can be looked at this way. Now to be clear we are talking slow speed crawling. When the shock bottoms out it essentially changes the suspension roll center to the shock location which would help stability. (Very simply put)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fouledplugs
I edited my post before you posted.

What problems are solved by going to mid arms from short arms? And with enough stretch, at what point does a mid arm become a long arm?

...

Typically it's the hops during a climb created by high AS after enough spring lift.

..

Its my understanding that link separation, antisquat, and roll center are changed and would be a go-to if trying to get a 50/50 bias out of long travels all while adding stability to the rig while in various angles out on the trail.
...

All of it works together.

...

Can one build a short arm on 35's with 50/50 bias while using long travel shocks?

One can with short arms. I have done it with front 11s and rear 12s. And then added the mid arm later.
 
Absolutely! What you are describing as “upsetting the chassis” can be looked at this way. Now to be clear we are talking slow speed crawling. When the shock bottoms out it essentially changes the suspension roll center to the shock location which would help stability. (Very simply put)

We can call this slow technical rock crawling. I'm talking about allowing the tire to rise up and over things without upsetting the frame more than is necessary. To create two ends of a spectrum, imagine two otherwise comparable rigs with 14" coilovers, one has an inch of up travel, the other has 7" of up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
We can call this slow technical rock crawling. I'm talking about allowing the tire to rise up and over things without upsetting the frame more than is necessary. To create two ends of a spectrum, imagine two otherwise comparable rigs with 14" coilovers, one has an inch of up travel, the other has 7" of up.

1 guy has a 14" CO the other has a 13" stilt.

to me it looks like they are trying to fit a buggy belly on a jeep.
 
We can call this slow technical rock crawling. I'm talking about allowing the tire to rise up and over things without upsetting the frame more than is necessary. To create two ends of a spectrum, imagine two otherwise comparable rigs with 14" coilovers, one has an inch of up travel, the other has 7" of up.
I hear what you are saying, but 1” is really stretching it. But for arguments sake we’ll go along. The lower the CG better and if can have the same car 6” lower it’s then ABSOLUTELY
 
  • Like
Reactions: srimes
1664321209170.gif
 
I hear what you are saying, but 1” is really stretching it. But for arguments sake we’ll go along. The lower the CG better and if can have the same car 6” lower it’s then ABSOLUTELY

These hypothetical rigs are otherwise fairly comparable. That includes tire size, ride height, belly height, etc.

Which one would you expect to be more stable in the rocks? The one with a small amount of up travel, or the one with a lot of up travel?
 
I hear what you are saying, but 1” is really stretching it. But for arguments sake we’ll go along. The lower the CG better and if can have the same car 6” lower it’s then ABSOLUTELY

I'll tell you what. Let's have a rock crawling competition to showcase this kit and your build philosophy.

I'll bring my best TJ build, you bring your best using this kit and 4" or less of up travel.

Does mid-November work for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.