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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, i think... the sinking rear would take more weight off the front hence giving the front less traction/weight being insignificant to the pull. Having a stable rear causes the front to remain steady to have a somewhat even distribution of weight since no end is sinking or raising, thus being efficient in the pull.

Is this correct?
Correct. This is weight shift.

More weight on the front results in more traction up front. At the same time less weight on the front results in more traction in the rear. It's all about balance and balancing the entire system.

In the case of lifted short arms and high antisquat and hops, the rear is lifting (axle pushing down into the ground) until it can't anymore, then it loses track traction causing the rear to fall, creating a cycle of hops. This results in instability and upredictability. The system is out of balance.

The same is true with the long arms and low AS described earlier. The system is out of balance.
 
Are you saying that your front mid arm was a waste of money? I’m confused.
If I were expecting it to somehow apply force to the ground during a climb, then yes, it would be a waste of money. But that should not be the expectation of the front Savvy mid arm or any front arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D M
Did you ever bother with explaining anything?
Quite a bit.

Has anyone looked into brake dive yet? Because once that is understood, it becomes clear why the front arms won't direct forces to the ground during a climb the way the rear arms can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D M
If I were expecting it to somehow apply force to the ground during a climb, then yes, it would be a waste of money. But that should not be the expectation of the front Savvy mid arm or any front arms.
Are you saying front geometry has no bearing on how the front reacts on a climb?
 
Didn't we just do this earlier today?
Did we? I was seriously asking a question.
if the rear benefits from better AS and IC. Then wouldn’t the front also react differently when operating under the same improved parameters? I have seen rigs that unload badly when going up or down an incline. While others didn’t seem to react poorly at all. When discussed folks who are a lot smarter than me attribute good characteristics to a balanced rig with good geometry.
Did you notice any improvement with brake dive after installing the mid arm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSS and D M
Did we? I was seriously asking a question.
if the rear benefits from better AS and IC. Then wouldn’t the front also react differently when operating under the same improved parameters? I have seen rigs that unload badly when going up or down an incline. While others didn’t seem to react poorly at all. When discussed folks who are a lot smarter than me attribute good characteristics to a balanced rig with good geometry.
Did you notice any improvement with brake dive after installing the mid arm?
Brake dive/antidive is the same behavior as rear squat/antisquat. Except that it occurs during braking, not acceleration. Hit the brakes hard and the front suspension can rise or fall based on the front suspension geometry. In both cases, the suspension is being loaded as force is being transferred between the tires and the ground

Hypothetically, on a TJ that hops on a climb, would one expect the rear end to hop if the Jeep were to make the same climb backwards?
 
Hypothetically, on a TJ that hops on a climb, would one expect the rear end to hop if the Jeep were to make the same climb backwards?
hypothetically, if it all came out of the same box it's gonna jack up both ends equally. so why would it act different in reverse? if it's raised the AS to high it also raised the AD. turn the rig around and your AS is now your AD.

actually ya i think there would be a difference if you put your engine weight on the low end. the rear will become super light on the same climb in reverse, cause the front links have no better angles than the rears. but without the weight of the engine up front holding it down, a hop then becomes a flip potentially.
 
hypothetically, if it all came out of the same box it's gonna jack up both ends equally. so why would it act different in reverse? if it's raised the AS to high it also raised the AD. turn the rig around and your AS is now your AD.

actually ya i think there would be a difference if you put your engine weight on the low end. the rear will become super light on the same climb in reverse, cause the front links have no better angles than the rears. but without the weight of the engine up front holding it down, a hop then becomes a flip potentially.
These geometry related hops and squats come from the rear where the tires are pushing the rig up the hill via the control arms. The hops and squats aren't happening to the front where the front tires are dragging the rig up the hill via the control arms.

The reason the front isn't hopping or squatting during a climb, regardless of the arm design, is because the arms are being pulled. The dynamics are entirely different. That is why we use the term brake dive/antidive for the front suspension geometry, because these phenomena of rising or falling only occur during braking when the front arms are loaded and the weight of the rig is shifting forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D M and rasband
and in reverse the front arms then push the rig up the hill and the rears then drag and if the front sys is out of balance the same effect happens, no?

particularly with an SA, even though rigs differ changes come paired front and back and change relations equally at both ends front and back, no?
then compound adding the weight of the motor. it would aid the rear ( bottom end) in squating due to it's mass involved any weight shift.

just to pitch a # the calc guesstimates my front AD at 49.7% at static ride height. even though well below 100% i suffer no obvious increased front end dive during braking. but in my instance this could also mean my suspension needs tuned down a bit also.

i don't know it all either, still searchin.
 
Last edited:
and in reverse the front arms then push the rig up the hill and the rears then drag and if the front sys is out of balance the same effect happens, no?
then compound adding the weight of the motor. it would aid the rear ( bottom end) in squating due to it's mass involved any weight shift.

just to pitch a # the calc guesstimates my front AD at 49.7% at static ride height. even though well below 100% i suffer no obvious increased front end dive during braking. but in my instance this could also mean my suspension needs tuned down a bit also.
A rear suspension that hops won't be what hops (or sinks) when the rig is climbing backwards with the rear suspension in the front. The dynamics are entirely different. That is all. Push vs pull. Once it is understood why the front doesn't hop or sink during a climb like the rear the rear can, regardless of the suspension design, then we can discuss what we want the front suspension to do.
 
my eyes are old and i'm trying to stay focused on the skipping stones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.