OK, guess I’ll educate myself elsewhere. Who knows what that will result in
Come at it from the other way. If as he has suggested, he has the ability to do what he is saying, then it is not difficult or hard for him to explain his point of view with some suspension designs that illustrate his point and easily clarify his definitions for what he calls a 4 and 5 link set up.
Point- The Savvy short arm like most short arms is a 4 link front and rear with trackbars. That technically makes it a 5 link front and rear. See the problem now?
To drag the Bomber into any thread about suspension on a TJ or TJ Unlimited is ludicrous.
IMO Trackbars count as links, so 5 link is 4 control arms plus trackbar, 4 link is either 3 control arms and track bar, or 4 control arms triangulated. 3 link/4 link is IMO actually 4 link 4 link IMO... I have run all of the above, and perfer 3 link/4link but the 5 link factory style has saved my bacon when I snapped a control arm completely in half and could still drive home. I don't buy into the exact math for CG etc, as long as it's close and not off by a retarded amount there is plenty of wiggle room. There is much more variance on the types of terrains that I wheel on to put to much emphasis on 1 specific measurement.
What is this one specific measurement? And what is its variance for different types of terrains?
Doesn't matter anyway since you can't model it very well dynamically which is the only place it matters. The very best you can do is build it and go test it, the rest is a mere suggestion. You can fuck up a 5 link on the street just as easily as you can't so to state that a 5 link is inherently better is highly flawed logic.
Mumblewood
TJ Enthusiast
Ok, I’ve got a question on link’s IE 5/4/3
Are we counting them as how many bars/arms attached to axle, or frame, or in total.
So like a triangulated 3 link. Three mountain locations on axle but 4 on the frame.
Radius arm, five mounting points on axle but 3 to frame.
Honestly wondering how you all would categorize this, I would think by mounting points on the axle.
Are we counting them as how many bars/arms attached to axle, or frame, or in total.
So like a triangulated 3 link. Three mountain locations on axle but 4 on the frame.
Radius arm, five mounting points on axle but 3 to frame.
Honestly wondering how you all would categorize this, I would think by mounting points on the axle.
Who's stating that a 5 link is better? I prefer a 3 /4 link with front trackbar. I hear *read* that 3 link front and rear with trackbars is a pretty sweet set up but I haven't tried that out yet myself. I'll be more specific. The factory 5 link set up on my JK came in handy when my drivers side lower rear link snapped in half. I was still able to drive home using the other 3 links and the trackbar.
I think I get the 4 vs 5 link terminology (5 link uses a track bar for lateral stability vs triangulation for a 4 link). Arm length, angle and separation and all the impacts on instant center, pinion angle, anti-squat/anti-dive and how all that translates into the real world is gonna take some time.
But for starters, I’ve seen it said here more than once, that increasing separation by lowering the frame side lower link attachment is not really of value in a short arm TJ with 4” of lift. True? If so, why?
Isn't "Fucktards" is a term of endearment?
Yes it is but I really feel that it belongs to Mr Blaine and I shouldn’t have mentioned it
Any/none.. pick any "Have to have" Measurement. I'm not nay saying anyone who does the math and takes the time to dial in their rig. If they know what they are shooting for, and have that ability to take precision measurements and the fab skillz to move things out of the way and relocate to achieve said goals, that is really impressive. I don't have the money, the place to work, the tools, or the fab skillz or time for all of that myself. Plus I'm not trying to dial in my rig for any certain place like JV where 101" wheel base is considered the sweet spot for a TJ on 35's etc..
What I found on mine was that while it made the calculator have better numbers, it did not translate to real world performance very well on the trail. This is why Blaine mentioned the best simulation you can do for suspension is to build it and go test it.
What did you do, exactly? What were you trying to accomplish? Did your changes make no noticeable difference or make something worse?
The rear hopped on climbs before and it hopped on climbs after. That is the primary problem to be solved on short arms.
I agree Blaine, fuck those engineers and their fancy computer aid designs that the successful trophy truck, KoH Nascar, Indy, Formula 1 and OEM teams use to win. Just resort the old caveman dyno design system.