Good point on putting the kit design in it's historical context. 15 years later, has it stood the test of time? Given our options today, where would Nth be?
School me on mid-arm vs long-arm
- Thread starter Rock Toy
- Start date
Good point on putting the kit design in it's historical context. 15 years later, has it stood the test of time? Given our options today, where would Nth be?
Depends on the team. There are a few with capable tuners and rebuilders. Most avail themselves of the skill that is out there and not part of the team.
For trophy trucks, as far as I'm aware, all of the Fox teams utilize Wayne. Several of the podium finishing KOH teams also have Wayne tune for them. I'm not sure who's doing King.
Well some of of his concepts certainly have. I can remember all the flack Jim got over things like his rear track bar bracket because it used a ubolt to add bracing. Now look at a majority of all the JK track bar brackets and what do you see but a ubolt helping holding them on. Lots of coil relocation products and bent control arms have become more common place. His insistence of using forged track bars and rubber bushings still has a following with some.
What I do not know that has lasted the test of time is his use of a torque arm. I understand the theory behind it and why Jim used it but I do not think his implementation was the best. I know that people with the 6 inch lifts showed some hopping while climbing. Not sure the 4.5 inch kits showed the same behavior but I do not think there was as many 4.5 kits either long or short arm sold.
I still think that if Jim would have marketed his short arm products before releasing his long arm vs the all product blitz I think that things would have faired better. Things like the handling improvement kit that could be added to competitors product should have been a home run but hardly anyone knew it existed.
This was my main complaint with my Nth Degree system. My other was the universal axle bracket as I had a POPPING sound sometimes from under the Jeep. The first time it happened I really thought I had broken something and pulled over to the side of the road and was crawling around under the rig. Now did my AiRock system have something to do with all these issues I don't know.
I loved the bent lower arms and proved how well they worked on more than one occasion when wheeling in the rocks with friends. I was sad to see them go away and wish Jim had been able to make a go of it.
I was very unsure what made Savvy's brackets so grand and great until installing them. It is very clear most of the other aftermarket frame brackets do not offer the same vertical separation that Savvy does once you install the Savvy brackets. I have a 1.25" BL and anything less I cannot see you being able to fit the frame brackets. A bracket that required less BL or no BL will sacrifice a lot whether that be clearance under the frame or a compromise in geometry. To put into perspective my upper control arm brackets front and rear along with their corresponding joints are nearly touching the body. Front is literally in the fire wall and the rears are literally on the bottom of the floor.
You might want to let them know how many shocks you've tuned, how many coil overs you've set up springs for, a few of your affiliations with well regarded tuners, and why once you have your grade 8 bolt in hand, it really doesn't matter who stuck it in the machine that day, it's a fucking bolt, use it.
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
No dispute there, the question was asked because someone was swinging his big ole epeen around like he knew his shit. So I ask, why do those brackets suck. The best that could be mustered was not enough frame separation explained to me in several different ways. Well, yes. But there's more.
Without ever seeing a savvy midarm, much less measuring one, I'm going to estimate axle separation is around 10" and frame separation is about 8". I get these numbers because I know once you put a truss on top of an axle then mount some johnny joints on top of that, you are looking at about 10". 80% rule works pretty well so you are looking around 8" frame separation. I know this too because I've built these things from scratch and that's what fits. That configuration can handle 40's, but Blaine intended 35's.
Taking a stab in the dark, but you are probably required to run a min 1" bump stop extension to keep the axle from smashing into the tub, and the lower control arms smashing into the frame.
what was completely missed was Roll Axis and by association roll steer. I actually gave him the answer a few posts earlier, but I guess that was too hard to read.
Those brackets would have to be modified so heavily to make them work acceptably in our application, it's easier to start from scratch.
So, that response tells me everything I needed.
I know you swore you would never participate in this type of discussion again @mrblaine but if I missed something, let me know and I'll learn something, or respectfully bow out.
You are switching back and forth between them, they and it too much for me to know what you are talking about.
He worked with Wayne a bunch. I don't dislike Wayne enough to invite him to one of these shit fests.
You're welcome. Wondered if you'd catch that.
So, If I'm understanding correctly...You want as much frame separation for the links as possible, up to the axle separation, but try not to go below 50% because the force on the links gets too great and the mounts pay the price. If frame separation is greater than 100%, the instant center ends up behind the axle, right?
Ya'll are gonna make me draw a free body diagram to figure out how the forces change based on separation values.
open a calc and play.....moving those links and seeing what it does is a great help.
the force here is axle to chassis control. the separation effects anti dive and anti squat. and the location of instant center.
100% is parallel, over 100 is inverted...........50% is a guideline......once the lower link is placed, manipulating the upper link quickly shows how it's line effects these AD/AS results and the IC location.
without 1000's of hrs of exp behind our plotting and some true #'s, we're takin a shot in the dark here. there is no magic formula, most design is trial and error, as mrblaine already admitted. and design characteristics are not discovered until the trial period............there is no calc to load suspension other than static.
if you want a MA sys buy the Savvy or risk the trial and error.
i do not expect what i constructed to be perfect. i do expect it to perform better than what i had.....but until i begin my trial period..........IDK what i've produced really.
Last edited:
I'm not arguing with you. This is a Currie 4" unloaded. It seems to work well for a lot of people. I hope it works well for me for now. If you you plug this in the calculator it shouldn't work, but it seems to. Maybe it's spring tuning
.
it's a tool that can help you understand what manipulating the links alters.
without very specific, very accurate data the #'s it produces are not accurate.
it can teach you how to move the IC or change the AS or AD once you understand how they relate.
without very specific, very accurate data the #'s it produces are not accurate.
it can teach you how to move the IC or change the AS or AD once you understand how they relate.
When packaging really becomes an issue you can do things like this:
Have fun putting that into the calculator.