Dave Kishpaugh's (Jeep West) geometry correction brackets are now available

Status
Not open for further replies.
NashvilleTJ said:
That's actually not how it works at all. The hop is caused by how effectively the power is being transferred to the ground, and that is almost entirely controlled by the geometry. With an anti-squat higher then 100%, that means that as power is applied the suspension lifts the rear of the rig. It then tends to lift it beyond a point of equilibrium, and then it comes back down and starts all over again. This happens even on flat ground, but it is exacerbated on a climb. The higher the anti-squat, the worse the bounce. As we have seen from the calculators earlier in the thread, the anti-squat % is higher on the bracket relocation relative to the mid-arm. That is why the bracket approach bounces more. The anti-squat on the mid-arm is better, but still likely above 100%. That is why JJ's does better, but still bounces just a bit.

To your point on traction, is does change, but it is a consequence of the bounce, not the cause.

But...l've been wrong before...
Click to expand...

One thing to add to this is that the shorter arms will allow the AS to rise at a higher rate as the suspension unloads further compounding the effect. If you want to see this in comical form you should see any long arm that keeps the stock length upper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The shuggs, Rick Flair, Wildman and 1 other person
jjvw said:
Not to pick on you because I was under the very same impression, but you know there is a contingency here who claim this is and always was a street modification.
Click to expand...
Well one of us has said ad nauseam even before Dave started selling these brackets that relocating the stock arms will provide some improvement for those that are NOT to the level of needing something like the Savvy mid arm and because of the limited architecture there is only so much improvement you can make. But that does not mean they have no value. 4 inch and taller lifted TJs drive like shit and we know this by all the products out there trying to fix those issues. So there is a place for them if someone does the research and understands what they can and cannot do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The shuggs, Rick Flair, Wildman and 4 others
it's like a wreck i can't look away from.

maybe i'm off here but i'm seeing this sys the opposite of a tummy tuck.
a TT will raise your drive line and make a 4" lift act like a 6".
the brackets take your 4" lift and try to make it act like a 2" lift.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Flair, D M, Wildman and 1 other person
someguysjeep said:
it's like a wreck i can't look away from.

maybe i'm off here but i'm seeing this sys the opposite of a tummy tuck.
a TT will raise your drive line and make a 4" lift act like a 6".
the brackets take your 4" lift and try to make it act like a 2" lift.
Click to expand...

Aren't practically all TJs bound by the same rules? Tummy tuck and lift are a given for a TJ built for challenging trails. It has little to do with what suspension is used. They all bind at about the same amount of droop. The only real difference is adding wheelbase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Flair and Wildman
Brianj5600 said:
Would that add another bracket? What are the numbers?
Click to expand...
And it would have to be lower, not desirable... There's a compromise here. Get the geometry notably better for $160. Or spend $3000 and make it quite a bit better. Even if the off road improvement is 10%, it's worth it, right? I get fine tuning it too... I tinker a lot.

It takes a little perspective for it to make sense... Also, we need to overlook the agenda's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Flair and Blackjack
Pressurized said:
And it would have to be lower, not desirable... There's a compromise here. Get the geometry notably better for $160. Or spend $3000 and make it quite a bit better. Even if the off road improvement is 10%, it's worth it, right? I get fine tuning it too... I tinker a lot.

It takes a little perspective for it to make sense... Also, we need to overlook the agenda's.
Click to expand...
10% not so much..... but at close to 50% yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Flair
JMT said:
I give you too much credit. Sorry about that. Your character is the problem, and that defaces everything you say. I like the TJKini though! 😉
Click to expand...
Because what you are really saying is that if you don't know what you are looking at, know one knows what they are looking at. Because you are a scientist.
 
Last edited:
Apparition said:
So is it fair to say both of these are true? In both performance and cost?

Offroad -
Short arms < Short arms w/geo correction < mid arms

Onroad -
Short arms < Short arms w/geo correction < mid arms
Click to expand...

I have never seen anyone make a case for mid arms being better on the road. In fact my understanding is the exact opposite. My understanding is that most mid arms are a 4 link system with no tracbar and will actually have more body roll on the road than short arms. I thought jjvw said something earlier in the thread about this. (I'm just talking geometry here. Body roll can also be mitigated somewhat with dual rate springs and shocks.)

jjvw, can you give your input on how a midarm changes handling characteristics on the road. In particular body roll and handling dynamics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apparition
Brianj5600 said:
Would that add another bracket? What are the numbers?
Click to expand...
Using the numbers posted by Starkey the AS would be 91%. Yes you would have to add material to the frame mount.
Pressurized said:
And it would have to be lower, not desirable... There's a compromise here. Get the geometry notably better for $160. Or spend $3000 and make it quite a bit better. Even if the off road improvement is 10%, it's worth it, right? I get fine tuning it too... I tinker a lot.

It takes a little perspective for it to make sense... Also, we need to overlook the agenda's.
Click to expand...
Not desireable for some for sure, but if you take Starkeys numbers and lower the frame side to 1.75 inch lower than stock you get 86%. Ironically there was a product on the market that did this and I remember on several different forums saying the guy who designed it was an idiot. The same idiot shortly after that released a long arm kit that the same forums gushed over.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Rick Flair, Pressurized, Wildman and 2 others
Blackjack said:
Using the numbers posted by Starkey the AS would be 91%. Yes you would have to add material to the frame mount.

Not desireable for some for sure, but if you take Starkeys numbers and lower the frame side to 1.75 inch lower than stock you get 86%. Ironically there was a product on the market that did this and I remember on several different forums saying the guy who designed it was an idiot. The same idiot shortly after that released a long arm kit that the same forums gushed over.
Click to expand...
And there was nothing wrong with the product. It did what it intended to do. Was it the right choice for everyone? No. And that’s ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Flair, Blackjack and Wildman
Apparition said:
So is it fair to say both of these are true? In both performance and cost?

Offroad -
Short arms < Short arms w/geo correction < mid arms

Onroad -
Short arms < Short arms w/geo correction < mid arms
Click to expand...
Exactly, but it's taken 759 posts (and counting) to beat this shit to death. It's like a bunch of hens who absolutely must get the last word in.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Mike_H, Rick Flair, Farmergreg and 4 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back