LCoG and long arm lifts

Jerry Bransford said:
Do you keep at it like that, repeatedly pushing back, just to piss people off? Blaine built that rig from scratch, I saw it while it was being built many years ago. He already told you the axle lengths are not 70". Once again, per Blaine.... "Front is 65 and rear is 64 on Walker Evans bead locks with 4" of back spacing and 37's".
Click to expand...

That and the widest front axle I have ever installed is 68" for 40" tires on 4" back spaced rims. I've done many of those.
Jon's rig has a back half we built (never again) to get the coil over springs to clear. The outer face of the back half is the old inner face of the frame and we had to notch into that by nearly an inch at full articulation. I no longer listen to what they want and instead lean the coil over back just enough to get it out of the way of the tire apex. Don't have to notch quite as much that way.

This is 68" front, 67" rear, with 40's and 4" of BS.

1667831081623.png


1667831168607.png
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Reactions: Longwhitejeep, DB04RedJeep, DropTopDon and 6 others
mrblaine said:
That and the widest front axle I have ever installed is 68" for 40" tires on 4" back spaced rims. I've done many of those.
Jon's rig has a back half we built (never again) to get the coil over springs to clear. The outer face of the back half is the old inner face of the frame and we had to notch into that by nearly an inch at full articulation. I no longer listen to what they want and instead lean the coil over back just enough to get it out of the way of the tire apex. Don't have to notch quite as much that way.

This is 68" front, 67" rear, with 40's and 4" of BS.

View attachment 374478

View attachment 374479
Click to expand...

What was the thought or the advantage behind not leaning it back?
 
The why of some of the wider track widths is turning angle.

edit- We pull the rims in as far as is reasonable based on what is available. If you look at the vertical bolt on the left side steering knuckle, you can tell we've got the rim inward just about as far as is reasonable. That is done to keep the steering working as well as we can get it. We would build around a wider axle and run 5" or so backspacing if we could always be sure we'd clear the steering arm on the knuckle. Only slightly wider but we'd move from 65ish for 37's up to something a bit more.
1667831695991.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Longwhitejeep, Necro, rasband and 3 others
starkey480 said:
Is this why the front is an inch wider than the rear on the rigs you’ve mentioned so far? If 68” width is needed up front for turning, what is the reason behind making the rear 67 and not 68 as well?
Click to expand...

I try to maintain the factory track width relationship. The rear is narrower and I keep that to help offroad some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psrivats and starkey480
jjvw said:
Just so we can all see what Bill is referring to. Once again, the answer is a tube frame.
View attachment 374266
Click to expand...

Here is what I am referencing to. See how flat the links are and how low the belly is. I would define the Bomber as a long arm low CG design.

198254937_4244878438866280_6126381553380098888_n.jpeg

P.S. At least get my name right, it is John not Bill, but you can address me as "Sir". Thanks 😎
 
  • Face Palm
Reactions: psrivats and jjvw
Lightning said:
Here is what I am referencing to. See how flat the links are and how low the belly is. I would define the Bomber as a long arm low CG design.

View attachment 374493
P.S. At least get my name right, it is John not Bill, but you can address me as "Sir". Thanks 😎
Click to expand...

Those are beautiful machines... but I don't see any jeeps in that picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 707kevin, DB04RedJeep, Necro and 3 others
kmas0n said:
Those are beautiful machines... but I don't see any jeeps in that picture.
Click to expand...

some of us are interested in offroad suspension in general, knowledge that translates outside of that specific to the TJ, and would like to see some of these ideas discussed instead of just shouted down because it's not a Jeep.

If we really need to keep it TJ related, then I suggest specifics of why a certain philosophy that works in a buggy doesn't work in a TJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodrow, Sancho and Apparition
kmas0n said:
Those are beautiful machines... but I don't see any jeeps in that picture.
Click to expand...

If you spent any time on trail with them you'd learn a few things, they don't crawl very well at all. They haul ass very well. They have full hydro steering and they aren't as much fun in the rocks as you would like unless you like to bomb through stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kmas0n
mrblaine said:
If you spent any time on trail with them you'd learn a few things, they don't crawl very well at all. They haul ass very well. They have full hydro steering and they aren't as much fun in the rocks as you would like unless you like to bomb through stuff.
Click to expand...

They look like they'd be really good at this

 
  • Like
Reactions: Lightning
mrblaine said:
If you spent any time on trail with them you'd learn a few things, they don't crawl very well at all. They haul ass very well. They have full hydro steering and they aren't as much fun in the rocks as you would like unless you like to bomb through stuff.
Click to expand...

how would you change one to shift the balance more toward crawling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lightning
Lightning said:
Here is what I am referencing to. See how flat the links are and how low the belly is. I would define the Bomber as a long arm low CG design.

View attachment 374493
P.S. At least get my name right, it is John not Bill, but you can address me as "Sir". Thanks 😎
Click to expand...

Interesting. But still not relevant to what the thing we are building here. Also, I don't know or care if the Bomber builds are LCoG or not. What I see are people building within the constraints of the platform.
 
Top Bottom
Back