Page 1 of 2
tri 4 link Q
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:57 pm
by 4sum4
with a trianglated 4 link with uppers and lowers do only either upper or lowers need to be 40 deg,I can only get the lowers 40deg and the uppers i can get about 35deg
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:29 pm
by Bush65
The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
Assuming the lowers converge at the chassis end, the angle determines where they converge. The height of this point (relative to the point where the uppers converge) determines the roll axis.
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:02 pm
by badger
http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/techarticl ... on_part_2/
that link has heaps of infor on how u can change length n angle to have same effect
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:22 am
by redzook
Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
Re: tri 4 link Q
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:52 am
by hokey
4sum4 wrote:with a trianglated 4 link with uppers and lowers do only either upper or lowers need to be 40 deg,I can only get the lowers 40deg and the uppers i can get about 35deg
A bit of a noob question here, is that 40 deg the minimum angle that it needs to be triangulated to be able to locate the axle laterally like a panhard? if anyone understood that
Cheers, Calvin
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:37 pm
by Bush65
redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
How about backing that statement up.
Are you saying that triangulated uppers, which converge at the axle end don't resist side loads? Then you are very wrong!
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:55 pm
by Guy
I cannot see the difference between which set of links is trinagulated.. if the distance from the diff to the mount points is constant (Which it is as the arms are solid) Then the longer "angled" links will cannot allow side to side movement.
Please explain how I am wrong ... One may be better than the other (uppers triangulated better than lowers or otherway around).
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:18 am
by redzook
Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
How about backing that statement up.
Are you saying that triangulated uppers, which converge at the axle end don't resist side loads? Then you are very wrong!
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so ur telling me triangulated lowers converging at the frame end and parrallel uppers wont work?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachme ... 1120703674
are the uppers controlling the side load here?
there is nothing converging at the diff end so there is nothing controlling side loads in your book?
edit: link dosent work so i attached the pic
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:59 pm
by Bush65
redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
How about backing that statement up.
Are you saying that triangulated uppers, which converge at the axle end don't resist side loads? Then you are very wrong!
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so ur telling me triangulated lowers converging at the frame end and parrallel uppers wont work?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachme ... 1120703674
are the uppers controlling the side load here?
there is nothing converging at the diff end so there is nothing controlling side loads in your book?
You haven't been able to back up you statement, that what I said was BS.
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:04 pm
by GRIMACE
Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
How about backing that statement up.
Are you saying that triangulated uppers, which converge at the axle end don't resist side loads? Then you are very wrong!
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so ur telling me triangulated lowers converging at the frame end and parrallel uppers wont work?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachme ... 1120703674
are the uppers controlling the side load here?
there is nothing converging at the diff end so there is nothing controlling side loads in your book?
You haven't been able to back up you statement, that what I said was BS.
well said...
I dont have much triangulation (only about 30 odd degrees) on my rear 4 link but so far it seems rather sturdy... time will tell
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:05 pm
by redzook
Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so of the picture i posted which links are controlling the side load?
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:10 pm
by GRIMACE
redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so of the picture i posted which links are controlling the side load?
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:53 pm
by beebee
redzook wrote:
That's pics got me thinking.... Would that setup actually work? As I see it, any side load cause opposing rotational forces in the axle tubes AKA Chinese burn style. Surely that wouldn't hold up in an abused heavy weight rig?
EDIT: I've thought a little more about it and it would probably be ok but I don't see any advantage over triangulated uppers....
Any other opinions?
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:03 pm
by PJ.zook
That is a brilliant site man, im glad i saw it before i started my 4 link, my design wouldve worked i think but now i know how it should be done im changing some bits.
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:15 am
by redzook
beebee wrote:redzook wrote:
That's pics got me thinking.... Would that setup actually work? As I see it, any side load cause opposing rotational forces in the axle tubes AKA Chinese burn style. Surely that wouldn't hold up in an abused heavy weight rig?
EDIT: I've thought a little more about it and it would probably be ok but I don't see any advantage over triangulated uppers....
Any other opinions?
a fair few people run it on pirate i think DSI and some one else were the first people to run it i think it was in DSI's comp rig?
nearly all the setups tho seem to run very high AS
i cant see the difference between that and a traditional IVI setup! so it should hold up aswell as them
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:05 pm
by 4sum4
were or how do you get the roll axis point for the rear?
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:09 pm
by redzook
4sum4 wrote:were or how do you get the roll axis point for the rear?
Bush65 wrote:
Assuming the lowers converge at the chassis end, the angle determines where they converge. The height of this point (relative to the point where the uppers converge) determines the roll axis.
or are u talking about the picture i posted?
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:13 pm
by A1
look here
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:17 pm
by 4sum4
redzook wrote:4sum4 wrote:were or how do you get the roll axis point for the rear?
Bush65 wrote:
Assuming the lowers converge at the chassis end, the angle determines where they converge. The height of this point (relative to the point where the uppers converge) determines the roll axis.
or are u talking about the picture i posted?
yeah the pic you posted
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:21 pm
by redzook
4sum4 wrote:redzook wrote:4sum4 wrote:were or how do you get the roll axis point for the rear?
Bush65 wrote:
Assuming the lowers converge at the chassis end, the angle determines where they converge. The height of this point (relative to the point where the uppers converge) determines the roll axis.
or are u talking about the picture i posted?
yeah the pic you posted
i dont know for sure but i am guessing the angle of the upperlinks when viewed from thew side
i am assuming thats why nearly every one running that setup has such high anti squat! they run flat uppers to try to get a flat roll axis therefore giving them a heap of AS
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:21 pm
by Bush65
redzook wrote:4sum4 wrote:redzook wrote:4sum4 wrote:were or how do you get the roll axis point for the rear?
Bush65 wrote:
Assuming the lowers converge at the chassis end, the angle determines where they converge. The height of this point (relative to the point where the uppers converge) determines the roll axis.
or are u talking about the picture i posted?
yeah the pic you posted
i dont know for sure but i am guessing the angle of the upperlinks when viewed from thew side
i am assuming thats why nearly every one running that setup has such high anti squat! they run flat uppers to try to get a flat roll axis therefore giving them a heap of AS
The roll axis will pass through the point where the triangulated links converge, and will be parallel with the links that are parallel when looking from above.
A flat roll axis does not have anything to do with having a heap of anti-squat.
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:32 pm
by Bush65
redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:redzook wrote:Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads. Generally these will be the upper links. The more angle the less load in the link and mounts.
i call BS
How about backing that statement up.
Are you saying that triangulated uppers, which converge at the axle end don't resist side loads? Then you are very wrong!
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
so ur telling me triangulated lowers converging at the frame end and parrallel uppers wont work?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachme ... 1120703674
are the uppers controlling the side load here?
there is nothing converging at the diff end so there is nothing controlling side loads in your book?
edit: link dosent work so i attached the pic
In your pic, the triangulated lowers will resist the side load.
What I said, and what you highlighted in red and called BS was:
Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads...
Now you still haven't backed up your statement calling this BS. The fact is that you can not
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:21 am
by redzook
Bush65 wrote:
In your pic, the triangulated lowers will resist the side load.
What I said, and what you highlighted in red and called BS was:
Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads...
Now you still haven't backed up your statement calling this BS. The fact is that you can not
so u have addmitted that the lower links are the ones controlling the side load? converging at the chassis end
so as soon as u triangulate the uppers at the diff end, the lowers converging at the chassis end just automatically become unable to resist side load?
i dont know anyother WAY to say it
BOTH the upper and lower links in a tri 4link will resist the side load
therefore your stament of "The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads" not tru as both the ones that converge at the diff end and the chassis help resist the sideload
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:25 am
by redzook
Bush65 wrote:
redzook wrote:
i dont know for sure but i am guessing the angle of the upperlinks when viewed from thew side
i am assuming thats why nearly every one running that setup has such high anti squat! they run flat uppers to try to get a flat roll axis therefore giving them a heap of AS
The roll axis will pass through the point where the triangulated links converge, and will be parallel with the links that are parallel when looking from above.
A flat roll axis does not have anything to do with having a heap of anti-squat.
i know the AS and axis have nothing to do with each other
but to get low AS on a setup like that with a flat roll axis
would basically have to be in a moon buggy or somthing with very flat lower links (close to parrallel to the ground)
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:33 am
by redzook
Bush65 wrote: Bush65 wrote:
Are you saying that triangulated lowers, which converge at the chassis end, resist the side loads? Then you are still wrong!
In your pic, the triangulated lowers will resist the side load.
SORRY i just had to put these together
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:35 am
by red90
The reason for having the uppers converge at the axle is that this height set the roll center. A higher roll center produces less body roll when turning and off camber. For lightly sprung rigs, this is very helpful.
With triangulation only at the chassis, side loading creates forces in all of the links and can cause suspension movement in of itself.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:15 pm
by Bush65
Bush65 wrote:
In your pic, the triangulated lowers will resist the side load.
What I said, and what you highlighted in red and called BS was:
Bush65 wrote:The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads...
Now you still haven't backed up your statement calling this BS. The fact is that you can not
redzook wrote:so u have addmitted that the lower links are the ones controlling the side load? converging at the chassis end
Not when the uppers converge at the axle.
But it appears that you don't know enough to understand that simple fact, you can not prove otherwise, yet you call BS.
In the 1st post 4sum4 was asking about angles of triangulated uppers and lowers. Not triangulated lowers an parallel uppers.
redzook wrote:so as soon as u triangulate the uppers at the diff end, the lowers converging at the chassis end just automatically become unable to resist side load?
Correct!
redzook wrote:i dont know anyother WAY to say it
BOTH the upper and lower links in a tri 4link will resist the side load
Wrong!
If the uppers and lowers all resist side load, and they are separated vertically at the axle, then the axle could not articulate .
redzook wrote:therefore your stament of "The links that converge at the axle end are the ones which have to resist the side loads" not tru as both the ones that converge at the diff end and the chassis help resist the sideload
My statement was correct. Yours is incorrect.
I will give a procedure that anyone should be able understand and test.
Take a triangulated 4 link, with uppers converging at the axle and lowers converging at the chassis. Remove the springs, shocks and wheels, so that they do not resist axle articulation. Suspend it so the axle is high off the ground.
Mark points on the ground, directly below the axle ends of the upper and lower links.
Now push the axle so that it articulates. If the joints at the ends of the links, or the links themselves, do not bind, the axle will swing easily (except for out of balance weight of the axle). In cases where the axle was not restricted by the chassis, and the joints at the links allow, the axle could rotate nearly 90 deg.
It will be clear (even to blind freddy), that the axle rotates about a point near where the uppers converge (the roll centre). The ends of the uppers hardly move to the side. But the lowers, which attach to near the outer ends of the axle, move considerably to the side as the axle articulate.
When the uppers converge at the axle, the axle end of the lowers could not move to the side, if as you claim, the lowers resist the side load.
Sorry to hijack your thread 4sum4. redzook calls BS, but can't back it up. This thread should go back to what it was about.
hijack off.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:22 pm
by GRIMACE
i am lost.... all links are working together to keep the diff located under the rig... thats my simple way of putting it...
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:52 pm
by Guy
AnthonyP wrote:i am lost.... all links are working together to keep the diff located under the rig... thats my simple way of putting it...
Thats what I thought ...
I think what has been said is along with some chest beating is so long as the links are triangulated they will locate the diff under the vehicle (with varying degress of sucess)
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:27 pm
by "CANADA"
3 Link pan' would have saved this long winded thread
