Contemplating that further...more up travel would have helped. The front levered the back off the ground.
Usable Articulation
- Thread starter StG58
- Start date
The softer spring may droop more before unseating, but will it actually give more down force pressure to the axle?
What if you had more droop in the rear, keeping the back still on the ground in which the rear still had traction and stability to continue propelling your forward?
And that is why many of us will recommend using the longest and softest coil that provides the ride height you are after.
For example...
Currie 4" front is 22.6" free
Rubicon Express 4.5" front is 19.75" free
Both springs provide very similar lift heights, but the Currie is nearly 3" longer.
2003 Rubicon
Last edited:
A softer longer spring that is still seated would provide more down force than just the weight of the axle alone. The longer the reach, the less "push" until there is none and the spring is free.
2003 Rubicon
If we all agree where the usuable travel is, what might be wrong with this super cool flex pic?
2003 Rubicon
2003 Rubicon
a 200 in. lb. spring will give more down force to the axle than a 140 in. lb. spring will, until the spring is at an unloaded state, in which case you've reached maximum usable articulation. So, the softer spring will let the axle droop further before it reaches an unloaded state, but how much additional traction did it provide you just because the tire is still hitting the ground?
Good discussion...I've just finished bolting up my rear suspension for the final time, after bumpstopping it. I'm not super happy with my shocks or more precisely, their position relative to my ride height....I'll post more of my musings in my build thread but suffice to say, my track bar hits the cross member before the shock bottoms out, and because of their position being "higher" than they should (factory location) they limit my droop. Pretty happy with how the front works...everything seems good there...the springs are about unloaded when I fully extend the shocks. The rear is pretty bad.
At the outer reaches of their respective droops, the lighter Currie 4" spring is still pushing for three more inches after the heavier Rubicon Express spring has been exhausted. Conversely, at the point that the RE has given up, the lighter Currie is still pushing 3x it's rate against the ground. IMO, the Currie wins.
2003 Rubicon
Last edited:
This fits nicely into the discussion!
What can you do about the rear track bar hitting the gas tank cross member? Can you cut anything to get more up?
Or...
The dreaded body lift?
Or...
If the rear springs don't unseat, could you be better off adding some bump stop to allow for a longer shock?
Or...
Some or all of the above?
2003 Rubicon
Last edited:
It boils down to the environment in which you are wheeling. If I were wheeling in snow, that extra 3" of droop may have allowed me to hit ground which would have given me more traction, where climbing some slick rock would have given the droop wheel more down force, provided I didn't need that extra 3" of droop to still be touching the slick rock. BTW, I'm not arguing with you. I agree, a longer, softer spring is preferred in most situations.
One detriment to a long soft spring is that it takes less weight to compress it. That can matter when you are loading up the kids and camping gear. Rubicon Express won't sag as much as Currie will. RE wins that battle!
In the end, there is always a compromise based on your needs.
2003 Rubicon
This fits nicely into the discussion!
What can you do about the rear track bar hitting the gas tank cross member? Can you cut anything to get more up?
Or...
The dreaded body lift?
Or...
If the rear springs don't unseat, could you be better off adding some bump stop to allow for a longer shock?
Or...
Some or all of the above?
2003 Rubicon
At the risk of stealing the thunder from my build thread....My first instinct is use bar pin eliminators to lower the upper mount of the rear shock. That should move me more toward the middle of their travel and allow me to pick up an equivalent amount of droop. I already HAVE the body lift...that doesn't affect the position of the frame crossmember. My trackbar is hitting that thing...the member where the shocks bolt up, the front of the fuel tank skid, and two body mounts. I could also trim the offending flange to allow more uptravel. Since the trackbar is a straight rod though, trimming has its limits...I'd basically have to clear the WHOLE flange as the trackbar moves through its range of motion, so that doesn't seem like the best course of action.
I will say, I'm running the factory rear trackbar, with a relocation bracket. The body lift DID prevent that bracket from contacting the tub, so I did gain some amount of uptravel with the BL, just not much.
Seems like your thinking in the right directions. Teraflex has a clever upper mount extension the lifts the upper shock mount 1" higher. Maybe it would be helpful. The bar pin idea can work well in some cases. I did something similar to my fronts in an earlier version of the build.
Adding some bump stop for a longer shock is not necessarily a bad thing if it gets you more overall usable travel. ~50/50 up/down travel a good place to be.
2003 Rubicon
Since the usuable travel exists between the bump stops and the free length of the coils, how do you select a shock based on its compressed and extended lengths?
2003 Rubicon
2003 Rubicon
This is a fascinating read, guys. Please...go on... :icon_popcorn:
We need to address the TB before selecting the shock, unless we are going to make the TB the limiter.
I don't have a rear track bar anymore, so I can't help much there.
I know the gas tank cross member can be trimmed to clear the bracket. Even with a relocation bracket, mine wasn't an issue when I had it. Stock arms, stock bar, body lift and 1" of rear bump stop all factored into that. My rear was bump stopped for the shocks.
2003 Rubicon
Similar threads
