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.
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.
Just a question for those with more knowledge on the subject than me (not hard to do ).
Is it possible to organise an A-frame rear suspension so that the two legs attatch at the axle and the point of the A attatched to a crossmember on the vehicle? any minimum angle across the A-Frame legs
Planning forward to the SAS and would like to go A-Frame but the position of the fuel tank is going to make it a biatch to fit one the conventional way (runs alongside the driveshaft from just behind the tcase to 8" in front of the axle inside the chassis). Even having it reversed is going to require a chop.
Hoping not to relocate it as I would like to avoid the cost/inconvenince (plumbing, mounts, removing the spare tyre "tub" in the back for space).
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
STUMPY - I think you seen sumthing different on pirate.
I assume your still gonna have the two outer lower links?
You can run the triangulated links either way, it still works.
If you wanna clear the fuel tank have you thought about a 3link (not aframe) with a panhard?
basically a five link with one uper link missing (so as to keep the fuel tank in same position and not have to chop a thing)
GaryInOz wrote:Just a question for those with more knowledge on the subject than me (not hard to do ).
Is it possible to organise an A-frame rear suspension so that the two legs attatch at the axle and the point of the A attatched to a crossmember on the vehicle? any minimum angle across the A-Frame legs
Planning forward to the SAS and would like to go A-Frame but the position of the fuel tank is going to make it a biatch to fit one the conventional way (runs alongside the driveshaft from just behind the tcase to 8" in front of the axle inside the chassis). Even having it reversed is going to require a chop.
Hoping not to relocate it as I would like to avoid the cost/inconvenince (plumbing, mounts, removing the spare tyre "tub" in the back for space).
yes u can do it
im pretty sure it an inverted 4 link
Team UNDERDOG #233
WERock Australia thanks to
[url]http://www.longfieldsuperaxles.com[/url]
[url]http://www.rockbuggysupply.com[/url]
AnthonyP wrote:STUMPY - I think you seen sumthing different on pirate.
I assume your still gonna have the two outer lower links?
You can run the triangulated links either way, it still works.
If you wanna clear the fuel tank have you thought about a 3link (not aframe) with a panhard?
basically a five link with one uper link missing (so as to keep the fuel tank in same position and not have to chop a thing)
Cheers
Anthony
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, and it reduces the need for one vulnerable link. Two beefy lowers and it should be close to unbreakable.
The existing 5 link upper points come from the center at the chassis (20cm seperation) to the axle (40 cm seperation) and are about 350 mm long. As you can see from the photo's (taken long ago LOL) it is a pretty tight squeeze.
Nothing inherently wrong with a three link + panhard, other than not being significanly more flexible than a 5 link. The "shortbody" version (pre 2000) is already 3 link + panhard.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
If the pangard is made of suitable material it should not be a concern about it being vulnerable. Either way it would be stronger than the diff housing.
Have you worked out what diffs you are going to run?
[quote="Harb"]Well I'm guessing that they didn't think everyone would carry on like a big bunch of sooky girls over it like they have........[/quote]
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
advantage was that he would be able to save cost and not have to chop/relocate any fuel tank crap
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
advantage was that he would be able to save cost and not have to chop/relocate any fuel tank crap
I thought that was a disadvantage with a conventional A-frame. There was no suggestion that a single upper link could not run on the opposite side of the drive shaft.
sierrajim wrote:If the pangard is made of suitable material it should not be a concern about it being vulnerable. Either way it would be stronger than the diff housing.
Have you worked out what diffs you are going to run?
GQ 4.6 or 4.88:1
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
The forces would be acting on the A-Frame in the same fashion either way according to my high school physics, it would be the points of anchorage that would be different.
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
The forces would be acting on the A-Frame in the same fashion either way according to my high school physics, it would be the points of anchorage that would be different.
GaryInOz wrote: ...
Was hoping two outers (lower) + A-Frame (upper), no panhard. The Idea behind the A-Frame is to not need a panhard by 'triangulating" the lateral loads across the chassis, ...
The inverted A-frame will not provide transverse location of the axle, hence the need for a panhard.
I can't see any advantage over 3 link plus panhard.
advantage was that he would be able to save cost and not have to chop/relocate any fuel tank crap
I thought that was a disadvantage with a conventional A-frame. There was no suggestion that a single upper link could not run on the opposite side of the drive shaft.
sorry i thought you ment that you couldnt see the 3link plus panhard having any advantage over the inverted aframe (my bad)
The inverted Aframe will have the same (very similar properties) to a standard aframe so long as you have the two lower outboard links, you wont need a panhard.
Also GaryInOz your curent link setup (five link with slightly triangulated uppers) is basically the same design as your considering only you wanna space the links at the diff end and bring them closer at the chassis.
This would allow you to remove the panhard but as you have already stated you will need to chop the fuel tank.
Id try a single upper link to the side of the driveshaft (opposite the side with the fuel tank) and make it longer than the original upper links and keep the panhard. (as already has been suggested - 3link plus panhard)
Sorry if i missed it but wat diffs are you looking to put under the Kia
Brent from Wizard makes a bolt on "A" frame to replace the upper control arms for GQ/GU. This negates the need for a panhard rod. It has an upside down "U" shaped bar on the diff bolted to the upper control arm mounts. This has a pivot point welded into the top center where the "A" frame section bolts into. The other end of the "A" frame section mounts to the chassis mounting points for the upper control arms
).
