Outboard Questions

L J said:
Not for smooth bodies. Fox, AccuTune, Kartek offer them as an "upgrade" service. The price has gone up since I had two DSCs added to two coil overs back during the shock shortage, though.
Click to expand...


jjvw said:
Since this is his first outboard, do you care to walk him through the specifics of squeezing coilovers into factory width axles?
Click to expand...
Damn I must of missed “stock axle” quote contained within OP’s thread. But then again assuming someone else’s vehicle specs isn’t one of my mystic powers and why my post was phrased as a “question”
But given your personal in-depth knowledge of OP’s vehicle suspension specs you’ve been more than gracious enough to answer the question for him.
So thank you
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jjvw
Havasu said:
Damn I must of missed “stock axle” quote contained within OP’s thread. But then again assuming someone else’s vehicle specs isn’t one of my mystic powers and why my post was phrased as a “question”
But given your personal in-depth knowledge of OP’s vehicle suspension specs you’ve been more than gracious enough to answer the question for him.
So thank you
Click to expand...

Don't assume what I don't know. 😉
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ir0nH3@d
jjvw said:
Don't assume what I don't know. 😉
Click to expand...

Its nothing fancy under the chassis, just a junk yard race motor that needs better suspension to keep up with it! I appreciate the advise you have given me throughout a lot of my suspension upgrades that I should have done at this stage. Ill probably do everything the first time when the LJ gets a similar treatment.

IMG_1239.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Havasu and jjvw
So bringing this back up. I am now debating on doing this after cycle testing. With the short arms I can maybe max out the bolt on Fox 8.6” travel shocks. Some kind of bind stops droop even with disconnecting the sway bar and shocks. Raising one side I do get more down travel on the other side, but there are more times where I need the down travel with both sides simultaneously. And also trying to retain the track bar looks like a PITA but it looks possible?

So now I am looking at the idea of a long arm, I was thinking of using a UCF bracket with some preferably used RC arms and get some Johnny Joints in there. Which I think this wouldn’t be such a bad idea since I can move the double adjustable Johnny Joint short arms to my LJ that is going to do more conventional Jeep stuff. Thoughts?

IMG_8758.jpeg


IMG_8759.jpeg
 
XCRN said:
So bringing this back up. I am now debating on doing this after cycle testing. With the short arms I can maybe max out the bolt on Fox 8.6” travel shocks. Some kind of bind stops droop even with disconnecting the sway bar and shocks. Raising one side I do get more down travel on the other side, but there are more times where I need the down travel with both sides simultaneously. And also trying to retain the track bar looks like a PITA but it looks possible?

So now I am looking at the idea of a long arm, I was thinking of using a UCF bracket with some preferably used RC arms and get some Johnny Joints in there. Which I think this wouldn’t be such a bad idea since I can move the double adjustable Johnny Joint short arms to my LJ that is going to do more conventional Jeep stuff. Thoughts?

View attachment 523835

View attachment 523836
Click to expand...

When is it so important to have both sides at full droop?

What is your full range of travel as it currently sits?

What is binding?

Doubt you will get much love for long arms, I would first figure out what is binding. More than likely the control arm mounts on axle side?
 
Superjay5 said:
When is it so important to have both sides at full droop?

What is your full range of travel as it currently sits?

What is binding?

Doubt you will get much love for long arms, I would first figure out what is binding. More than likely the control arm mounts on axle side?
Click to expand...

I do more higher speed stuff like in sand and have been airborne before. Its my wannabe pre runner that does pretty well over smaller washboards and bumps but could use some extra travel in the rear for the larger bumps I have hit.

As it sits, I can get about 5 to 5-1/2” up and like 3 down with the axle staying level through out the travel. Pushing one side down, I can get it to go 7-1/2” down from ride height which exceeds my springs free length by about 1” and would exceed the bolt on shock I am looking at but not by much, and with the LA making it a more straight travel I think it would fall within the shock travel a lot better since quite a bit of the shock travel is the axle moving forward.

I really wish there was a way of seeing where the binding is, but there’s nothing visibly apparent where it is binding. All the joints and arms are not rubbing on anything. I just know after I get to a certain point it really fights me I’m trying to push the axle further down..

I understand most of the people’s lack of love for long arms out West and thats why I am keeping my LJ short arm since that will be used on trips out that way, but I don’t do the crawling they do with this particular TJ. I just go 5hrs north into MI, go have fun out in the sand dunes for an extended weekend or 2hrs south and enjoy the many of the large dirt trails around KY and Appalachia.

IMG_8761.jpeg


IMG_8760.jpeg
 
XCRN said:
So bringing this back up. I am now debating on doing this after cycle testing. With the short arms I can maybe max out the bolt on Fox 8.6” travel shocks. Some kind of bind stops droop even with disconnecting the sway bar and shocks. Raising one side I do get more down travel on the other side, but there are more times where I need the down travel with both sides simultaneously. And also trying to retain the track bar looks like a PITA but it looks possible?

So now I am looking at the idea of a long arm, I was thinking of using a UCF bracket with some preferably used RC arms and get some Johnny Joints in there. Which I think this wouldn’t be such a bad idea since I can move the double adjustable Johnny Joint short arms to my LJ that is going to do more conventional Jeep stuff. Thoughts?

View attachment 523835

View attachment 523836
Click to expand...

12" shock travel on rear short arms is common. I've done a few.

The track bar is creating the bind. However, when 3500lbs of Jeep weight is reacting against the bind, things will move effortlessly.
 
XCRN said:
...

I really wish there was a way of seeing where the binding is, but there’s nothing visibly apparent where it is binding. All the joints and arms are not rubbing on anything. I just know after I get to a certain point it really fights me I’m trying to push the axle further down..

...
Click to expand...

Loosen the track bar and stand on the drooped side
 
jjvw said:
Loosen the track bar and stand on the drooped side
Click to expand...

Loosen as in just back the bolt a little or loosen as in completely remove the track bar from one end? My track bar has JJs on both ends, so they should be spinning freely as is.
 
XCRN said:
Loosen as in just back the bolt a little or loosen as in completely remove the track bar from one end? My track bar has JJs on both ends, so they should be spinning freely as is.
Click to expand...

Then stand on the drooped side.
 
XCRN said:
17.5ish” and a little extra force by jumping on it I can get it a bit more.
Click to expand...

Then you are in good shape. No need for a long arm because that has no bearing on what you are trying to achieve.
 
jjvw said:
Then you are in good shape. No need for a long arm because that has no bearing on what you are trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

So not much benefit to keeping the wheel travel more linear? I am basing the idea of a long arm by watching some of the Jeep-speed 1700 guys with TJs and what they use (which I know they got way more than a simple long arm that makes them fast) and some of the guys I have watched in person at Silver Lake and what they use.
 
You are now venturing into a totally different world of off roading. The go fast guys have different priorities and different criteria for building. They typically want much more than 12 inches of suspension travel which tends to push them towards coil overs (not because coil overs are mysteriously better, but it gets nearly impossible to make a coil spring that can support 14+ inches of suspension travel without the coil acting like a slinky and popping out) It gets difficult to make springs that work for a coil over at much past 16" of shock travel, so you get into trailing arms. cantilevers and other such designs. There is plenty of benefit to ... and i use this term with caution ... long arms, but a ton of compromise that goes with it.

Another consideration is the dreaded anti-squat. Pre runners typically go for AS numbers around 0-40, rock crawlers want closer to 80-100.

Do "long" arms make them fast? no, but can the drive that fast on "short" arms? Also no. but the reason isn't instantly obvious.
 
XCRN said:
So not much benefit to keeping the wheel travel more linear? I am basing the idea of a long arm by watching some of the Jeep-speed 1700 guys with TJs and what they use (which I know they got way more than a simple long arm that makes them fast) and some of the guys I have watched in person at Silver Lake and what they use.
Click to expand...

Arm length is a different discussion from a shock outboard and the work involved with either shocks or arms have no meaningful overlap. I have done multiple shock outboards and have moved one of those rigs from a short arm to a Savvy mid arm with no changes to the shock outboard.
 
kmas0n said:
You are now venturing into a totally different world of off roading. The go fast guys have different priorities and different criteria for building. They typically want much more than 12 inches of suspension travel which tends to push them towards coil overs (not because coil overs are mysteriously better, but it gets nearly impossible to make a coil spring that can support 14+ inches of suspension travel without the coil acting like a slinky and popping out) It gets difficult to make springs that work for a coil over at much past 16" of shock travel, so you get into trailing arms. cantilevers and other such designs. There is plenty of benefit to ... and i use this term with caution ... long arms, but a ton of compromise that goes with it.

Another consideration is the dreaded anti-squat. Pre runners typically go for AS numbers around 0-40, rock crawlers want closer to 80-100.

Do "long" arms make them fast? no, but can the drive that fast on "short" arms? Also no. but the reason isn't instantly obvious.
Click to expand...
That all makes sense and using the link calculator, eyeballing the dimensions, a long arm with UCF brakcets comes close to 100 while static. I think factory is close to that as well so no difference for AS.

I cite the 1700 Jeepspeed class specifically which they are limited on parts and lifts that are commonly available on the market and are limited to 10” front and 12” rear, so obtainable numbers. I think they can only run stock axles but I do not remember, and TJs can be stretched to a max of like 10” I believe which I do not feel like doing But at the same time they’re also running 2.50 to 3 inch shocks with bypasses so way more than what ill get.

I don’t think I will ever be as fast as they are but I want to go faster than I can now just farting around in a non-competitive form. I feel a major difference going to the Fox shocks upfront and hitting a railroad crossing that is essentially an asphalt ramp at 55 mph on this one back road near me.

I got a free 93 Ranger factory equipped front whoops-scissors in my backyard that I might turn into more of an actual pre-runner someday. Too many projects!
 
XCRN said:
That all makes sense and using the link calculator, eyeballing the dimensions, a long arm with UCF brakcets comes close to 100 while static. I think factory is close to that as well so no difference for AS.
...
Click to expand...

Reread that carefully are see why the link calculator is not useful information. Where and when antisquat makes a performance difference is not under static load, sitting flat and still on the driveway.
 
jjvw said:
Reread that carefully are see why the link calculator is not useful information. Where and when antisquat makes a performance difference is not under static load, sitting flat and still on the driveway.
Click to expand...

To say a link calculator is not useful information, is like saying a hammer is useless for removing screws. TRUE. but, Its a very narrow field of view.

If you are only using a calculator to calculate AS at static ride height, its like a picture of a 3 hour long movie. It just doesn't give you much.

If you also calculate AS at full bump, full droop, and in 1 inch increments between the two, you will get a slightly better representation of how it will change. Don't forget to adjust for wheelbase changes. its not the holy grail of suspension design, but if you get all of your geometry reasonably well packaged at ride height, and haven't done anything else weird, the geometry should still be reasonably well constrained at any point in your suspension travel. If you are fucked up at ride height, the situation is not going to improve when things get dynamic.

So you get a few stills from a movie. Still not the whole movie, but its not useless. Its just a tool.

Like any tool, you have to use it right, and at the right time.

https://www.harborfreight.com/6-bit...7CX6W8dOZvDdUJZBuz-qHlVtvIfGDizoaAsp1EALw_wcB
 
Top Bottom
Back