Brianj5600
TJ Expert
The Nth drill jig leaves enough. Barely
My joints are 2.8125' OD. What joints are you using?
The Nth drill jig leaves enough. Barely
Long arm kits in general suffer from bad geometry due to packaging. The average owner doesn't weld but he can cut and grind. They attached the arms to the belly skid so it could be installed. There was little thought given to geometry, just installation.Not looking for a fight!
Why is a mid-arm so wonderful yet a long arm is condemned completely?
If the long arm calculator is only good as a starting point (which it obviously is) then so would any length control arm calculations. But I haven't seen any criticism for mid- or short-arm geometry.
Looking for explanations not expletives
Not looking for a fight!
Why is a mid-arm so wonderful yet a long arm is condemned completely?
If the long arm calculator is only good as a starting point (which it obviously is) then so would any length control arm calculations. But I haven't seen any criticism for mid- or short-arm geometry.
Looking for explanations not expletives
Synergy DDB with custom Core4X4 arms for my short arm, I have not decided on what to do with my mid arm I may install in the front.My joints are 2.8125' OD. What joints are you using?
the mid arm incorporates all the benefits that longer arms claim to provide, but "stopping at mid arm" keeps you from sliding on the arms ie: better clearance. longer arms generally have a shallower angle and run further toward the center of the jeep where breakover angle is most critical.K. Got it. It isn't the arm length that is the problem, it's the lack of proper engineering that is. The frame side mounts are designed for ease of install and not located to maintain ideal axle location.
Thanks for the info.
Short of Ultra4 or similar, does anyone make a long arm kit with correct geometry, or is that the reason Savvy stopped at a mid arm?
Exactly, geometry is what is being corrected in the good setups like savvy mid. Arm length has absolutely nothing to do with it - that’s simply a byproduct of correcting the geometry and packaging.K. Got it. It isn't the arm length that is the problem, it's the lack of proper engineering that is. The frame side mounts are designed for ease of install and not located to maintain ideal axle location.
Thanks for the info.
Short of Ultra4 or similar, does anyone make a long arm kit with correct geometry, or is that the reason Savvy stopped at a mid arm?
Geometry is compromised for packaging. That means they had to lower the forward end of the upper rear arms to get them to attach to the skid plate and to clear the cargo step for uptravel. If you want to correct the geometry, you need to hack some holes in the tub for the upper arms and mounts.K. Got it. It isn't the arm length that is the problem, it's the lack of proper engineering that is. The frame side mounts are designed for ease of install and not located to maintain ideal axle location.
Thanks for the info.
Short of Ultra4 or similar, does anyone make a long arm kit with correct geometry, or is that the reason Savvy stopped at a mid arm?
the mid arm incorporates all the benefits that longer arms claim to provide, but "stopping at mid arm" keeps you from sliding on the arms ie: better clearance. longer arms generally have a shallower angle and run further toward the center of the jeep where breakover angle is most critical.
What’s going to go over a lot of heads in this video is his discussion of how geometry is the important part and not arm length. He states that - and it holds true. I’ll let the experts break down the other stuff.Watched this today. Can guys you break down what he's trying to say and what is wrong. I trust the knowledge on this sight but would like to see your arguments to help me understand both sides.
Watched this today. Can guys you break down what he's trying to say and what is wrong. I trust the knowledge on this sight but would like to see your arguments to help me understand both sides.
What’s going to go over a lot of heads in this video is his discussion of how geometry is the important part and not arm length. He states that - and it holds true. I’ll let the experts break down the other stuff.
I agree. I enjoy watching his fabrication but even the fact that he used the laser to show how much the axle doesn’t move when going down (which although true has little to no relevance when actually discussing pros and cons). He also falls short is saying that “long arms” (what does that phrase even mean) “ride better” - compared to what? Not a well setup “short arm” suspension (also a bad label)As is typical in these things, Nate is placing emphasis on the wrong geometry.
Also - I knew he had no idea what he was talking about as soon as he said that tire size isn’t a factor.............you’re kidding. Tire size, wheelbase, and belly height are the three factors you build a suspension around.
Large is an understatement. We have tested short and mid arm side x side on the same rig with no discernible difference in ride quality and that was two folks who are very sensitive to such things. For someone trying to explain stuff to folks, his front geometry is fucked. Caster is about 3.5 degrees, the arms are too close together at the frame simply due to length and he's running more money in that bypass shock than most will spend in a lifetime on shocks.I saw that last night. He has a point in some areas like climbing an undercut. He specifically built his front to maintain pinion angle over caster, if that hints at anything. Also notice that he never once addressed the rear. Beyond that, I am clearly among the crowd he criticizes in the beginning. One thing I notice in nearly every TJ long arm YouTube video is that they never discuss instant centers and antisquat. They never discuss the importance of shocks. They never cycle the axles and explain setup. Nate is slightly better than most on YT, but there are large gaps in his understanding.