Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Neat swaybar disconnect idea
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
Neat swaybar disconnect idea
Off OFN
Its so obvious! I was looking at tractor spline a few years ago - but this is already done. Could use a vacuum hub for in cab use too!
Its so obvious! I was looking at tractor spline a few years ago - but this is already done. Could use a vacuum hub for in cab use too!
ADHD Racing would like to thank
Mrs Bru @ Sunshine Coast Developmental Physiotherapy - www.scdphysio.com.au , Ryano @ Fourbys www.generaltire.com.au Blitzkrieg Motorsport
Mrs Bru @ Sunshine Coast Developmental Physiotherapy - www.scdphysio.com.au , Ryano @ Fourbys www.generaltire.com.au Blitzkrieg Motorsport
Pretty sure it's Skyjacker that started the FWH as a swaybar disconnect.
Personally, I'd tend to say the suspension will either work with or without a swaybar, but not both. Just my 2C.
Steve.
Personally, I'd tend to say the suspension will either work with or without a swaybar, but not both. Just my 2C.
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
Your off road nerd nous astounds me Steve.Gwagensteve wrote:Pretty sure it's Skyjacker that started the FWH as a swaybar disconnect.
Steve.
the guy who's build thread it is wrote: It was one of those dangit things..... The customer I build chassis for wanted an anti-sway bar that they could "disconnect" for their beam cars. They asked for a removable link. I really didn't like the idea and had thought of the hub. Splined shaft, need to unlock it, It was a natural. Then I found out Skyjacker was already doing it for Jeeps! D'oh!
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| ||
|.........SUZUKI..........| ||'|";, ____.
|_..._..._______===|=||_|__|..., ]
(@)'(@)"""''"**|(@)(@)*****''(@)
|.........SUZUKI..........| ||'|";, ____.
|_..._..._______===|=||_|__|..., ]
(@)'(@)"""''"**|(@)(@)*****''(@)
pfft too slow...cj wrote:I saw it done on a Sierra a few years ago too. It was based on the Skyjacker.
you have to be a quick nerd around here Cj
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
Interesting given that there are a few air-disconnect systems currently out there - what makes yours different?1MadEngineer wrote:i have 2 air-disconnect swaybars setups awaiting patent application ATM.
I'd rather a dual rate swaybar - one that gives a nice tight onroad ride and then gives a subtle but balanced swaybar for offroad - Just my 2cGwagensteve wrote:Personally, I'd tend to say the suspension will either work with or without a swaybar, but not both. Just my 2C.
Steve.
Cheers [url=http://www.wooders.com.au]Wooders[/url]
I've toyed with the idea of a swaybar that changed from either rigidly connected, to connected via a damper.Wooders wrote: I'd rather a dual rate swaybar - one that gives a nice tight onroad ride and then gives a subtle but balanced swaybar for offroad - Just my 2c
Onroad it works like a normal swaybar, offroad it gives you full travel but still smooth and controlled and adds control to fast body movements.
If anyone makes a million from that, they need to make me a couple.
I looked at this a while ago with a flamminfabrications winch air freespool disconect style of setup using a gq hub.
I was going to fill in and cut out odd numbers of teeth at set intervals so that it would only mesh back in the original position.
i just wasn't sure how positive the mesh of the teeth would be as it reconnected.
I was going to fill in and cut out odd numbers of teeth at set intervals so that it would only mesh back in the original position.
i just wasn't sure how positive the mesh of the teeth would be as it reconnected.
innovation is better, better is faster, and fast is all that counts
Clever.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
What's it off?ozrunner wrote:Clever.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
[quote="4WD Stuff"]
I haven't quoted Grimbo because nobody takes him seriously :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: [/quote]
I haven't quoted Grimbo because nobody takes him seriously :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: [/quote]
A shock would be too soft, you would need something compact yet strong, like a motorbike shock but skinner, i think you would be pressed to find a item to do it and still allow the system to be rigid when it needs itKiwiBacon wrote:And a normal suspension damper has an easy life?jet-6 wrote:Id say a damper would get cained hard, there are some serious amount of load on those rods some times
You can valve a shock to give whatever damping rates you please. When rigid, the damper is just along for the ride.jet-6 wrote: A shock would be too soft, you would need something compact yet strong, like a motorbike shock but skinner, i think you would be pressed to find a item to do it and still allow the system to be rigid when it needs it
Picture a system like ozrunners, but with a damper mounted beside his electric disconnect.
You can use the hub concept and on the hub end intergrate a mount off a lever arm chain slack tensioner into the equation.
The rubber would then act as a dampner and i guess you could then change the dampening by ordering the mounts with varying degrees of tension.(duro of the rubber)
Your basically creating a winch air freespool but the input shaft/torsionbar has a dampner inside the drum and the drum it self is the pivot point of the arm which is connected to the lower trailing arm.
What stopped me was the reliability of the teeth meshing and unmeshing whilst on the run mid stage.
cheers smitty
The rubber would then act as a dampner and i guess you could then change the dampening by ordering the mounts with varying degrees of tension.(duro of the rubber)
Your basically creating a winch air freespool but the input shaft/torsionbar has a dampner inside the drum and the drum it self is the pivot point of the arm which is connected to the lower trailing arm.
What stopped me was the reliability of the teeth meshing and unmeshing whilst on the run mid stage.
cheers smitty
innovation is better, better is faster, and fast is all that counts
I'd like to know too.cj wrote:What's it off?ozrunner wrote:Clever.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
This is not legal advice.
chimpboy wrote:I'd like to know too.cj wrote:What's it off?ozrunner wrote:Clever.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
x3
GU 4.2 TD Garrett BB Hi-flow, M8274 + Bells & Whistles with plenty of fruit still on the list!
[b][color=red]\ m / ( > . < ) \ m /[/color][/b]
[b][color=red]\ m / ( > . < ) \ m /[/color][/b]
ive wondered if this type of setup would work on your average 4wd??KiwiBacon wrote:I've toyed with the idea of a swaybar that changed from either rigidly connected, to connected via a damper.Wooders wrote: I'd rather a dual rate swaybar - one that gives a nice tight onroad ride and then gives a subtle but balanced swaybar for offroad - Just my 2c
Onroad it works like a normal swaybar, offroad it gives you full travel but still smooth and controlled and adds control to fast body movements.
If anyone makes a million from that, they need to make me a couple.
http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_ ... ct_picture
its the same thing used on a v8 supercar. it wouldnt have to be in cab adjustable as you would only want 2 settings but the idea is when the blades are vertical they are at their stiffest (in our case for on road) and when they are horizontal they are at their softest giving more articulation by allowing the arm to bend. dunno it was just a thought
**I'll preface these comments by saying they apply to live axles, not IFS. I do understand that "decoupling" each wheel from the other in an IFS car is a good thing**
There's lots of innovative ideas here, for sure, but I'm still confused as to why a suspension that's designed to work properly needs to have its swaybar removed under "some circumstances" *. Swaybars are added to overcome a characteristic of the suspension that's unhelpful, and I'm 100% sure that if the characteristic is unhelpful on road it will be unhelpful offroad. I've always found that to be the case. The nasty stuff my cars do on road they also do off road under similar circumstances - ie my Gwagen had too much front roll stiffness on and off road, so I pulled the stock swaybar, but it has always had inadequate rear roll stiffness, a problem that afflicts it on and off road.
I am aware that unhooking a sway bar might assist in adding articulation, but by unhooking the swaybar you'll also unbalance the car by excessively lowering the roll stiffness, the reason the swaybar was there in the first place, and in any case, since when has travel added capability? (in any car with lockers)
*Except posing on a ramp
Steve.
There's lots of innovative ideas here, for sure, but I'm still confused as to why a suspension that's designed to work properly needs to have its swaybar removed under "some circumstances" *. Swaybars are added to overcome a characteristic of the suspension that's unhelpful, and I'm 100% sure that if the characteristic is unhelpful on road it will be unhelpful offroad. I've always found that to be the case. The nasty stuff my cars do on road they also do off road under similar circumstances - ie my Gwagen had too much front roll stiffness on and off road, so I pulled the stock swaybar, but it has always had inadequate rear roll stiffness, a problem that afflicts it on and off road.
I am aware that unhooking a sway bar might assist in adding articulation, but by unhooking the swaybar you'll also unbalance the car by excessively lowering the roll stiffness, the reason the swaybar was there in the first place, and in any case, since when has travel added capability? (in any car with lockers)
*Except posing on a ramp
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
I understand your point, but there's still a large void between the best suspension trim for comfort and stability onroad at say 100km/h and offroad at 20-60km/h.Gwagensteve wrote:**I'll preface these comments by saying they apply to live axles, not IFS. I do understand that "decoupling" each wheel from the other in an IFS car is a good thing**
There's lots of innovative ideas here, for sure, but I'm still confused as to why a suspension that's designed to work properly needs to have its swaybar removed under "some circumstances" *. Swaybars are added to overcome a characteristic of the suspension that's unhelpful, and I'm 100% sure that if the characteristic is unhelpful on road it will be unhelpful offroad. I've always found that to be the case. The nasty stuff my cars do on road they also do off road under similar circumstances - ie my Gwagen had too much front roll stiffness on and off road, so I pulled the stock swaybar, but it has always had inadequate rear roll stiffness, a problem that afflicts it on and off road.
I am aware that unhooking a sway bar might assist in adding articulation, but by unhooking the swaybar you'll also unbalance the car by excessively lowering the roll stiffness, the reason the swaybar was there in the first place, and in any case, since when has travel added capability? (in any car with lockers)
*Except posing on a ramp
Steve.
If your offroad use takes you closer to onroad speeds of 100km/h then the differences in suspension trim become smaller.
I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, for two reasons:
A) I can laterally load my car as much offroad as on, offroad it's by side angle and on road it's by cornering g's - but the effect of too little roll stiffness and a high COG is the same
B) general suspension tune makes very little difference to car behaviour at low speed, but LOTS of difference at maybe 60 km/h upwards. What I mean is that a car setup to handle for 60km/h up won't behave very much differently at 20 km/h than a car setup only to work at low speed (I'll maintain the 60km/h+ car would work better... but anyway) but a car setup to be optimum at 20km/h would be lethal at 60km/h.
Of course, wheelspeed needs to be taken into account too - I'd vote that possible wheelspeed needs to be taken into account too.
A car moving slowly but with the potential for high wheelspeed needs much better suspension control than a car just plain crawling along - that's why cars "getting on it" in mud tend to look floppy - all that intertia from the spinning wheels starts to be the tail wagging the dog.
all things being equal, I still say a competent car on road will be a competent car off road, but a compenent car off road could be lethal on road.
PS KOH is an excellent exmple of how off road performance in difficult terrain and high speed capability are linked.
Steve.
A) I can laterally load my car as much offroad as on, offroad it's by side angle and on road it's by cornering g's - but the effect of too little roll stiffness and a high COG is the same
B) general suspension tune makes very little difference to car behaviour at low speed, but LOTS of difference at maybe 60 km/h upwards. What I mean is that a car setup to handle for 60km/h up won't behave very much differently at 20 km/h than a car setup only to work at low speed (I'll maintain the 60km/h+ car would work better... but anyway) but a car setup to be optimum at 20km/h would be lethal at 60km/h.
Of course, wheelspeed needs to be taken into account too - I'd vote that possible wheelspeed needs to be taken into account too.
A car moving slowly but with the potential for high wheelspeed needs much better suspension control than a car just plain crawling along - that's why cars "getting on it" in mud tend to look floppy - all that intertia from the spinning wheels starts to be the tail wagging the dog.
all things being equal, I still say a competent car on road will be a competent car off road, but a compenent car off road could be lethal on road.
PS KOH is an excellent exmple of how off road performance in difficult terrain and high speed capability are linked.
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
I'd agree with that entirely. Some people think dampers offroad are a waste of time.Gwagensteve wrote:I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, for two reasons:
One major difference would be swaybars tuned to prevent oversteer when overcooking a corner onroad vs swaybars tuned to give equal roll-stiffness offroad to keep the vehicle more level more often.
My rangie is a great example of that. It needs a decent amount of roll-stiffness up front to keep the oversteer under control onroad, this is provided by the radius arms.
Offroad the back suspension does most of the work and the body follows the front axle.
I imagine your G-wagon wouldn't be too different. But yours may have more weight rearward.
The G wagen is very very matched front to rear - both ends are radius arm.
The rear has high roll stiffness only due to spring rate and slightly wider arm spacing. The problem is the rear has a higher COG - ( lots of steel bodywork) than the front so when climbing the effect is that the rear is too floppy/soft.
The front has longer springs/shocks and opens up well offroad.
Factory the car had a massive front swaybar and understeer was excessive on road, turn in was terrible, and offroad the balance sucked.
Even my old G mechanic thought the car was much, much better to drive on road with the swaybar removed.
Steve.
The rear has high roll stiffness only due to spring rate and slightly wider arm spacing. The problem is the rear has a higher COG - ( lots of steel bodywork) than the front so when climbing the effect is that the rear is too floppy/soft.
The front has longer springs/shocks and opens up well offroad.
Factory the car had a massive front swaybar and understeer was excessive on road, turn in was terrible, and offroad the balance sucked.
Even my old G mechanic thought the car was much, much better to drive on road with the swaybar removed.
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
patrolbenhl wrote:chimpboy wrote:I'd like to know too.cj wrote:What's it off?ozrunner wrote:Clever.
But I much prefer my electric disconnects as its a lot easier to just reach up and flick a switch
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ozrunner/Suspension2.html
.
x3
WWW.TEAMDGR.COM
WWW.SUPERIORENGINEERING.COM.AU
WWW.LOCKTUP4X4.COM.AU
WWW.SUPERIORENGINEERING.COM.AU
WWW.LOCKTUP4X4.COM.AU
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests