preference on 4 link brackets? - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Talk > General Tech
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 22nd, 2010, 09:23 AM   #1
kj kyle
Senior Member
 
kj kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-06-09
Location: SWMI
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default preference on 4 link brackets?

what is everyones opinion of these style brackets?



I am in the planning stages of a rear double triangulated for the CJ7. I like the packaging and simplicity of this design, as well as the fact that I dont need a crossmember, but from everything I have read about 4 link tech, It seems the geometry will be all wrong.

as far as i know, your upper links should be about 70-80% of your lowers, and your roll axis should be slightly nosed down. (keep in mind this is going to see highway.) with these brackets your links are going to be equal(ish) in length, and because the lower link 'frame side' brackets are so wide, the lateral constraint point is going to be way out front, causing a bad roll axis.

am I over analyzing this? does anyone have rear world experience with a similar set up?
kj kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 22nd, 2010, 09:50 AM   #2
95geo
newbie
 
95geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: dryden
Posts: 5,777
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Those brackets arent going to lend themselves to a double triangulated 4 link very well.

I like the poly brackets, personally.
95geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 09:53 AM   #3
SANDVIPR
Yeeeee Haaaaw!
 
SANDVIPR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-10-06
Location: Holland
Posts: 7,596
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Default

^ what he said.... I would do something a little different.

Geo knows his stuff!!!!
SANDVIPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 09:59 AM   #4
kj kyle
Senior Member
 
kj kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-06-09
Location: SWMI
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I didn't mean those specific brackets, that was just a pic I had handy.

I do like the polyperformance brackets as well.



either way, the question remains. Whats the opinion on brackets where the uppers, and lowers mount at the same point on the frame? (equal length upper and lower links)

Last edited by kj kyle; February 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 AM.
kj kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 10:06 AM   #5
SANDVIPR
Yeeeee Haaaaw!
 
SANDVIPR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-10-06
Location: Holland
Posts: 7,596
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Default

I would order them as seperate pieces and them burn them in where they need to be.
Those integrated units don't allow for the different lengths of upper/lower links.
SANDVIPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 10:11 AM   #6
muddcherokee_09
jeeper for life
 
muddcherokee_09's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-21-09
Location: lansing, michigan
Posts: 147
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

the other problem with those brackets is that it will only allow a single trianglulated fourlink because those bottom brackets were straight not angled so i would either make your own brackets that takes more work or get individual brackets like stated above
muddcherokee_09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 10:17 AM   #7
kj kyle
Senior Member
 
kj kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-06-09
Location: SWMI
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

here is a quote from strange rover on pirate. this kinda sums up what I was worried about.

Quote:
The reason why the uppers should be shorter than the lowers is so that as the rear axle mover away from the frame the links the anti squat will become less.

So that if you start to climb with a certain amount of anti squat which will cause the rear axle to move away from the frame this movement will then reduce the anti squat value which lessons the tendency for the axle to keep moving away. This results in a more stable setup which will hop less on the steep climbs. It actually lets you run more anti squat at ride height so that you can get a good horizontal launch while still remaining stable on the steep climbs because the anti squat value will lesson all by itself.

If the links are all the same length as the axle moves away from the chassis the anti squat will increase which will cause the axle to move away more and the only way it can stabalise is by the extension on the rear springs (meaning the rear springs will extend more than if you ran short upper links).

I wouldnt be too concerned with the pinion angle changing - thats what uni joints are for. Probably should run a loose centre limiting strap to stop the rear from totally dropping out anyway.
kj kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 10:21 AM   #8
kj kyle
Senior Member
 
kj kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-06-09
Location: SWMI
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I think I'm just going to run these for uppers: http://www.ballisticfabrication.com/...t-_p_1462.html

and lowers, I'll have to crunch some numbers, and see if I can mount them under the frame rail, or if I should build a crossmember to narrow up the mounting points.


thanks guys.
kj kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 10:56 AM   #9
95geo
newbie
 
95geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: dryden
Posts: 5,777
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Ya, that's the general idea for the different length links but it really only helps you if you can get the links downhill at full stuff, otherwise it takes it from bad to ok rather than good to better. a really low anti squat and really high anti squat can only really be run on a buggy or somethign with a similar COG, if you do that with a typical trail rig you'll be in for some suprizes when you need them least.



See the links at full stuff? I wouldnt have done that without having such a low COG. I used the poly brackets on whiterhino's jeep and I dont think it has any short-falls. If I remember correctly, his lower links were 1.5" downhill at full stuff.
95geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2010, 11:28 AM   #10
kj kyle
Senior Member
 
kj kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-06-09
Location: SWMI
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

so what your saying, is I am over analyzing it for a trail rig. and the same length links wont be an issue on a mild wheeler.

got it.
kj kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Talk > General Tech

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.16051 seconds with 50 queries