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.
coilly serria handling
Word! Gutless 
any "kit" that doesn't change the geometry of the suspension will never be any chop. What coilers need is the kind of reengineering that you see with some of the "long arm" kits for TJ's.
At the end of the day, coil sierras are a dog's breakfast of compromise between road handling, leaf sprung chassis design and lack of development $$$ (YYY?) Ironically, leaf sierras have higher roll stiffness in the rear than the front (wider spaced springs) and then on the coiler they throw it all out of the window. Same thing happened with the 80 series 'cruiser.
If you want to see a "clean sheet" coil chassis design, look to a Range Rover or the G wagen. These chassis do not widen at the front and the coil spacing is almost identical front to rear. (yes, I know, these cars have their problems too)
I like you plans Gutless, but cross your car up and check the clearance between the tyre and the chassis. I don't think there is room for a coil bucket in there, even at 3.5" OD (coilover size) I would leave that space for an antirock type swaybar.
The ultimate you to do this might be to set the coil bucket into the chassis. (Soni Honneger did this on his flatty in the US in about '92) Check out the post your favorite jeep thread on the hardcore jeep page of Pirate.
Have a look at the rear end set up on a vitara. This is very close to what you describe, (although it runs an a frame rather than a 4 link) and is very good for a factory set up, however, even with the wider track width of a vit, the tyres will rub on the spring buckets if the travel increases much over stock.
With your set up the way you describe, I think you will be very happy.
any "kit" that doesn't change the geometry of the suspension will never be any chop. What coilers need is the kind of reengineering that you see with some of the "long arm" kits for TJ's. At the end of the day, coil sierras are a dog's breakfast of compromise between road handling, leaf sprung chassis design and lack of development $$$ (YYY?) Ironically, leaf sierras have higher roll stiffness in the rear than the front (wider spaced springs) and then on the coiler they throw it all out of the window. Same thing happened with the 80 series 'cruiser.
If you want to see a "clean sheet" coil chassis design, look to a Range Rover or the G wagen. These chassis do not widen at the front and the coil spacing is almost identical front to rear. (yes, I know, these cars have their problems too)
I like you plans Gutless, but cross your car up and check the clearance between the tyre and the chassis. I don't think there is room for a coil bucket in there, even at 3.5" OD (coilover size) I would leave that space for an antirock type swaybar.
The ultimate you to do this might be to set the coil bucket into the chassis. (Soni Honneger did this on his flatty in the US in about '92) Check out the post your favorite jeep thread on the hardcore jeep page of Pirate.
Have a look at the rear end set up on a vitara. This is very close to what you describe, (although it runs an a frame rather than a 4 link) and is very good for a factory set up, however, even with the wider track width of a vit, the tyres will rub on the spring buckets if the travel increases much over stock.
With your set up the way you describe, I think you will be very happy.
[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]
Gutless:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthre ... 29&page=10
You can just see the pocketed front springs in the RHF. Set up like this it would allow the spring spacing you are looking for I think, and maybe even allow the tender spring/sleeve idea that I was talking about.
I would try and get hte shocks outboard of the chassis, vitara style. Look towards a 99009 Rancho (pin top, eye bottom, 10.75" travel. This shoudl be plenty long enough and they have soft valving that will work well on a coiler if the shock is doing close to wheel rate. (i.e not so far inboard)
It looks super wide in the two newer photos but in the bottom magazine photo you can see that it sat quite narrow on the rims it was built for, which is why it needed the pocketed springs.
I have the original 4WD&SU article on it when it was first built. It was built with a stock 4 cylinder and (I seem to recall) an SM420 trans, dana 18 and 4.88 diffs. IT even competed in some early rockcrawling comps.
I also have a photo from FourWheeler taken at (I think) TTC '95 with it and Ned Bacons Killer Bee when it was still just a SPOA flatty ramped on a 44 gallon drum. At the time it was just insane for a car that short. Both cars were almost perfectly balanced on the drum and made a big impression on me.
Steve.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthre ... 29&page=10
You can just see the pocketed front springs in the RHF. Set up like this it would allow the spring spacing you are looking for I think, and maybe even allow the tender spring/sleeve idea that I was talking about.
I would try and get hte shocks outboard of the chassis, vitara style. Look towards a 99009 Rancho (pin top, eye bottom, 10.75" travel. This shoudl be plenty long enough and they have soft valving that will work well on a coiler if the shock is doing close to wheel rate. (i.e not so far inboard)
It looks super wide in the two newer photos but in the bottom magazine photo you can see that it sat quite narrow on the rims it was built for, which is why it needed the pocketed springs.
I have the original 4WD&SU article on it when it was first built. It was built with a stock 4 cylinder and (I seem to recall) an SM420 trans, dana 18 and 4.88 diffs. IT even competed in some early rockcrawling comps.
I also have a photo from FourWheeler taken at (I think) TTC '95 with it and Ned Bacons Killer Bee when it was still just a SPOA flatty ramped on a 44 gallon drum. At the time it was just insane for a car that short. Both cars were almost perfectly balanced on the drum and made a big impression on me.
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]
Thanks for the info. I have a few ideas now, and I think the front end is gonna end up with a fair bit of flex when I am finished with it. the rear will be better, and the coils will be mounted further along the axle by about 60mm each side. Shocks may stay on the inside depending on how much room is left.
I'll order all the bits from the laser cutters next week
I'll order all the bits from the laser cutters next week
[url]www.twinstickoffroad.com[/url]
tazzazuk wrote:with an a frame in the suspension doesn't all the strane go through one point? i heard that only 3 out the 12 enginerrs is west oz will actually engineer this setup. is it easier to get it engineered in vic and nsw?
I dont know about engineering but you can build an A frame set up more like a range rover, basicly 2 triangulated links that join the diff side by side. (strain goes through 2 points) rather then haveing 2 links becoming 1 link and 1 link joined to the diff.
[url]http://www.vic.suzuki4wd.com/forum[/url]
this is call triangulated 4 link. the upper links ( one from each chassis rail) meet side by side at the centre piont of the diff. the lower links are usually parrallel with the chassis. Tjis has the same effect as an A frame, but depending on setup, the a frame will bind up a little less at full articulation.muppet_man67 wrote:tazzazuk wrote:with an a frame in the suspension doesn't all the strane go through one point? i heard that only 3 out the 12 enginerrs is west oz will actually engineer this setup. is it easier to get it engineered in vic and nsw?
I dont know about engineering but you can build an A frame set up more like a range rover, basicly 2 triangulated links that join the diff side by side. (strain goes through 2 points) rather then haveing 2 links becoming 1 link and 1 link joined to the diff.
[url]www.twinstickoffroad.com[/url]
God Of Emo
Posts: 7350
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:04 pm
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:04 pm
Location: Newy, home of the ZOOK (Rockin the 'diff)
Contact:
NO ITS NOT I PROTEST!spamwell wrote:mines purple wooooooooooo
When ppl tell me my cars purple i prop the bonnet and clearly point out the colour code - BM = BLUE METALLIC
This thread is getting hugely technical
'04 NP DiD Pajero: 2" Lift, 33's, ARB Bar, XD9000 Winch, Rear ARB Locker, Snorkel, Dual Batts and Much More...
being in the design/print industry... i can tell you that "BLUE" contains Cyan and Magenta... the shades of which are determined on percentages of those colours... more magenta than cyan gives a purple, however magenta is a darker colour than cyan, so it overrides cyan at lower percentages, hence 100% cyan and 100%magenta produce a purple colour... however, its still considered blue, as the magenta does not outweigh the cyan as far as percentages go.
All that said - the sierra PURPLE is made more of like 75% Cyan and 100% Magenta...
So in short... its purple =)
All that said - the sierra PURPLE is made more of like 75% Cyan and 100% Magenta...
So in short... its purple =)
The worst thing about censorship is ███████.
Leave that discussion to this threadHotAe92 wrote:NO ITS NOT I PROTEST!spamwell wrote:mines purple wooooooooooo
When ppl tell me my cars purple i prop the bonnet and clearly point out the colour code - BM = BLUE METALLIC
This thread is getting hugely technical
http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modul ... ght=burple
With reagrd to engineering A frames, well, vitaras and Range rovers have them standard. An engineer couldn't knck back a stock vit or Rangie arm, if it was mounted with stock hardware and in stock angles.
I suspect that one of the engineers concerns with fabricated A frames might be due to what the diff top link is made of. Both Vitaras and Range Rovers use ball joints. Ball joints are terribly uncool and so people tend to look towards johnny joints or heim joints. Many engineers will run a mile from heims or other "fabricated" joints as they are prone to wear and lack the known durability of a ball joint.
You are sort of right about "all the load" being on one poin on an A frame, but it is only all the lateral load and about 1/2 of the drive load. With a stock coiler, all of the lateral load is borne by the panhard rod. I can't really see why that is different to an A frame.
I never cease to be amazed at what some engineers will not allow but then they will pass somthing that I wouldnt allow on anything. Oh well.
Bear in mind that IMHO, engineers are not stupid. If the engineer feels uncomfortable about the quality if the build or the plan, they might well knock back the car and the "reason" might not really reflect the real problem.
PS yeah... Blue
Its OK, I was orange denial for years with my G - It says red on the compliance plate, but I can tell you, it's pretty orange
Steve
I suspect that one of the engineers concerns with fabricated A frames might be due to what the diff top link is made of. Both Vitaras and Range Rovers use ball joints. Ball joints are terribly uncool and so people tend to look towards johnny joints or heim joints. Many engineers will run a mile from heims or other "fabricated" joints as they are prone to wear and lack the known durability of a ball joint.
You are sort of right about "all the load" being on one poin on an A frame, but it is only all the lateral load and about 1/2 of the drive load. With a stock coiler, all of the lateral load is borne by the panhard rod. I can't really see why that is different to an A frame.
I never cease to be amazed at what some engineers will not allow but then they will pass somthing that I wouldnt allow on anything. Oh well.
Bear in mind that IMHO, engineers are not stupid. If the engineer feels uncomfortable about the quality if the build or the plan, they might well knock back the car and the "reason" might not really reflect the real problem.
PS yeah... Blue
Its OK, I was orange denial for years with my G - It says red on the compliance plate, but I can tell you, it's pretty orange 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]
yes a range rover A frame ball joint is a pretty solid looking unit. some fabricated A frames that I have seen Particulrly the mount on the diff there dont look all that good.Gwagensteve wrote:With reagrd to engineering A frames, well, vitaras and Range rovers have them standard. An engineer couldn't knck back a stock vit or Rangie arm, if it was mounted with stock hardware and in stock angles.
I suspect that one of the engineers concerns with fabricated A frames might be due to what the diff top link is made of. Both Vitaras and Range Rovers use ball joints. Ball joints are terribly uncool and so people tend to look towards johnny joints or heim joints. Many engineers will run a mile from heims or other "fabricated" joints as they are prone to wear and lack the known durability of a ball joint.
You are sort of right about "all the load" being on one poin on an A frame, but it is only all the lateral load and about 1/2 of the drive load. With a stock coiler, all of the lateral load is borne by the panhard rod. I can't really see why that is different to an A frame.
I never cease to be amazed at what some engineers will not allow but then they will pass somthing that I wouldnt allow on anything. Oh well.
Bear in mind that IMHO, engineers are not stupid. If the engineer feels uncomfortable about the quality if the build or the plan, they might well knock back the car and the "reason" might not really reflect the real problem.
PS yeah... Blue
Steve
[url]http://www.vic.suzuki4wd.com/forum[/url]
I agree Sam.
A lot of the A frames built actually separate the two pivots - they will have a side to side pivot (for articulation, a bolt/bush running parallel to the driveshaft) and then the"up and down pivot" (usually a bolt/bush parallel to the axle line) will be above or in front of the other pivot.
IMHO this is terrible design and will cause some kind of odd behaviour, (even if it just makes the links move oddly)especially on articulation. Obviously, ball joints are too uncool to use, but heim joints are noisey and not readily engineeriable.
I think that many builders massively overestimate the range of motion this link has to do. to most cars, 8-10" of vertical movement and about 20 degress of pivot would be as much as they ever need. as I keep coing back to, there is a lot to be said for limiting the motion of the rear end of the car to allow the front to load up.
As a rough guide, 20 degrees of articulation (on both axles) on a sierra, would mean over 1m of total articulation. (his is a great deal and typically very difficult to build shock and spring locations to allow, and difficult to retain stability in a car at this point.
A lot of the A frames built actually separate the two pivots - they will have a side to side pivot (for articulation, a bolt/bush running parallel to the driveshaft) and then the"up and down pivot" (usually a bolt/bush parallel to the axle line) will be above or in front of the other pivot.
IMHO this is terrible design and will cause some kind of odd behaviour, (even if it just makes the links move oddly)especially on articulation. Obviously, ball joints are too uncool to use, but heim joints are noisey and not readily engineeriable.
I think that many builders massively overestimate the range of motion this link has to do. to most cars, 8-10" of vertical movement and about 20 degress of pivot would be as much as they ever need. as I keep coing back to, there is a lot to be said for limiting the motion of the rear end of the car to allow the front to load up.
As a rough guide, 20 degrees of articulation (on both axles) on a sierra, would mean over 1m of total articulation. (his is a great deal and typically very difficult to build shock and spring locations to allow, and difficult to retain stability in a car at this point.
[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]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests