Limiting Straps as like swaybars?
07-17-2007, 09:37 PM
#21
Contributing Member
Flygtenstein.... it looks like your front air stop probably bottoms out under full stuff when crawling, and then starts to act like a fulcrum as a standard urethane stop would. Is that what happens?
I am curious as to how much pressure an air bump can handle when it is fully bottomed out. I assume they are designed to be bottomed out while crawling....? Maybe you have to set them up so they can't over compress to avoid damage...
I am curious as to how much pressure an air bump can handle when it is fully bottomed out. I assume they are designed to be bottomed out while crawling....? Maybe you have to set them up so they can't over compress to avoid damage...
07-18-2007, 06:52 AM
#23
Registered User
Wow, definitely works.
How much PSI are you running?
I'm just confuse how it can be compressed so easily at slow speed , yet stiff enough to prevent body roll.
Do the air bumps have valving? Oil?
How much PSI are you running?
I'm just confuse how it can be compressed so easily at slow speed , yet stiff enough to prevent body roll.
Do the air bumps have valving? Oil?
07-18-2007, 07:54 AM
#24
Registered User
They work just like a poly stop but better.
On vertical compression at speed, they are harder. When crawling, no worries.
They are just like an air shock, valvable, tunable and adjustable with oil and nitrogen.
Mine are at 250 PSI now.
For the record, the suspension is not maxed out in either direction here. The limit straps in the rear are still slacked and there is both droop and compression left on the front shocks. Balanced is right.
On vertical compression at speed, they are harder. When crawling, no worries.
They are just like an air shock, valvable, tunable and adjustable with oil and nitrogen.
Mine are at 250 PSI now.
For the record, the suspension is not maxed out in either direction here. The limit straps in the rear are still slacked and there is both droop and compression left on the front shocks. Balanced is right.
07-18-2007, 08:00 AM
#25
Registered User
The other part of this we are forgetting is the effective rate of the rear shocks.
Everyone throws those hoops on to angle the shocks and then complains of body roll. At that angle, the shocks have around half of their designed valving. I will call dfoxengr to confirm.
Try mounting the shocks more vertically so they actually dampener the rear. Not as easy as a hoop but it should improve body roll. I doubt you are using the full stroke in the current configuration anyway.
Everyone throws those hoops on to angle the shocks and then complains of body roll. At that angle, the shocks have around half of their designed valving. I will call dfoxengr to confirm.
Try mounting the shocks more vertically so they actually dampener the rear. Not as easy as a hoop but it should improve body roll. I doubt you are using the full stroke in the current configuration anyway.
07-18-2007, 08:40 AM
#26
Registered User
Good point about the shock angle. Definitely something I considered, but sleeping comfort could not be sacrificed. So, the less desirable angle was chosen. On top of that, I have mine inboard to aid in flex.
Did you have to change the valving of the bumps? or is that stock?
Definitely something for me to consider in the rear.
Did you have to change the valving of the bumps? or is that stock?
Definitely something for me to consider in the rear.
07-18-2007, 04:08 PM
#27
Contributing Member
I have this / \ now, but think if I copy for of a factory style shock mount I can get the same length shock closer to the axle ends.
My question is... is it the angle / \ , or simply where the shock ends are placed in relation to the leverage of the axle that is causing the shocks to loose some of there dampening ability?
Flyg... a shock at an angle placed further outboard on the axle will get said shock performing better? Even if the angle, be it in a different configuration... remains the same?
Does that last sentence make any sense??
My question is... is it the angle / \ , or simply where the shock ends are placed in relation to the leverage of the axle that is causing the shocks to loose some of there dampening ability?
Flyg... a shock at an angle placed further outboard on the axle will get said shock performing better? Even if the angle, be it in a different configuration... remains the same?
Does that last sentence make any sense??
07-18-2007, 06:23 PM
#28
Contributing Member
I really don't think we want to go down the shock dampning thread again.
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f31/...ck-trig-86902/
This will give you a headache with the amount of BS you have to wade through, but it eventually stumbles to the facts. Its well hashed out and gives a decent idea of what you are asking.
Complete with diagrams!
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f31/...ck-trig-86902/
This will give you a headache with the amount of BS you have to wade through, but it eventually stumbles to the facts. Its well hashed out and gives a decent idea of what you are asking.
Complete with diagrams!
07-18-2007, 08:20 PM
#29
Contributing Member
Thanks for the link. Very informative... although I mostly skimmed through. My rig is an old '91 I SAS'd myself... with plenty of parts no longer perfectly straight and perhaps never where. At this point, there is no way I need use that level of engineering to just install my shocks. Well, maybe I do, but I just can't believe I have to be that exact.
Cliff notes: Inward angled shocks have less dampening. Hmmm.... just like this thread states.
I really don't have any room to the front of my axle for shock placement, but it seems I can just run both shocks vertically with a slight slant towards the back of the vehicle. I can gain 2" by moving the lower pivot from the top to lower back of axle, and I can also move the upper pivot tighter to the body.
Although I haven't seen a setup where both shocks "lean" back, this quote from the article "Be a Genius - Shock Absorbers" (http://www.4x4review.com/feature/shock-genius.asp) seems to indicate it will work... and may actually be the way I should do it:
"If you have a leaf spring, with the shackles mounted in the rear, your shock absorbers should be mounted as far outboard as possible, but with a slight lean to the rear (About 1 to 2 degrees of rearward rake for every 2 inches of lift above stock, compounded geometrically). This is because as the suspension cycles, it does so with a slight arc backwards."
I think I'll give this new shock location and position a try and see how it effects my on road body roll and offroad performance... unless anyone posts up something I may be missing... or another idea...
Cliff notes: Inward angled shocks have less dampening. Hmmm.... just like this thread states.
I really don't have any room to the front of my axle for shock placement, but it seems I can just run both shocks vertically with a slight slant towards the back of the vehicle. I can gain 2" by moving the lower pivot from the top to lower back of axle, and I can also move the upper pivot tighter to the body.
Although I haven't seen a setup where both shocks "lean" back, this quote from the article "Be a Genius - Shock Absorbers" (http://www.4x4review.com/feature/shock-genius.asp) seems to indicate it will work... and may actually be the way I should do it:
"If you have a leaf spring, with the shackles mounted in the rear, your shock absorbers should be mounted as far outboard as possible, but with a slight lean to the rear (About 1 to 2 degrees of rearward rake for every 2 inches of lift above stock, compounded geometrically). This is because as the suspension cycles, it does so with a slight arc backwards."
I think I'll give this new shock location and position a try and see how it effects my on road body roll and offroad performance... unless anyone posts up something I may be missing... or another idea...
07-18-2007, 08:27 PM
#30
Contributing Member
That thread is pretty in detail and was more of a pissing match than anything, but it does have amazing tech info, and becasue of the arguing, goes VERY in depth into where to put shocks for various effects. I learned A TON from it, even though it was annoying.
Just FYI, since i know you've done a conversion, but STOCK leaf sprung toyota 4x4 trucks have one shock leaning forward, and the other leaning rear. The shock on the gastank side leans to the rear, the shock on the exhaust side leans forward.
I have no idea why that is, but just something to keep in mind when researching. Sounds like you've got some good plans going already. Good luck!
Just FYI, since i know you've done a conversion, but STOCK leaf sprung toyota 4x4 trucks have one shock leaning forward, and the other leaning rear. The shock on the gastank side leans to the rear, the shock on the exhaust side leans forward.
I have no idea why that is, but just something to keep in mind when researching. Sounds like you've got some good plans going already. Good luck!
07-18-2007, 08:48 PM
#31
Contributing Member
AxleIke... yes, part of my reason for posting up my proposed dual rearward leaning shock configuration was because of the way the Toyota did it with the opposing setup.
I'd like to try and figure out why both shock towards the back might be bad. Toyota sure has a lot more qualified minds to draw upon than mine... so they must have had their reasons. I have also seen this opposing setup on other brands of pickups.
Perhaps it's to help combat or control axle wrap...?
I'd like to try and figure out why both shock towards the back might be bad. Toyota sure has a lot more qualified minds to draw upon than mine... so they must have had their reasons. I have also seen this opposing setup on other brands of pickups.
Perhaps it's to help combat or control axle wrap...?
07-18-2007, 09:07 PM
#32
Contributing Member
For Rigs.
Not for buggies tho...
Still I have a sucker winch in the rear for the very reson that... well at the time I did not understand Tippy and the fact that.. a sucker ATV winch wasn't gonna help.
To be honest in terms of my 2nd gen tippy self I am not sure if my re-engineering of my rear suspention (Got rid of coils for 63" chebby's) or if I have not pressed her enough (Need to run Pritchette again). Well I kinda think Running holy Cross this weekend will tell the tail either way. That and needing to still chop the weight off of my back since I will never have a full width well centered set up like Adrian!
Either way a great discussion here all. Thanks for letting me add my 2 Roly Poly cents!
07-19-2007, 06:30 AM
#33
Contributing Member
AxleIke... yes, part of my reason for posting up my proposed dual rearward leaning shock configuration was because of the way the Toyota did it with the opposing setup.
I'd like to try and figure out why both shock towards the back might be bad. Toyota sure has a lot more qualified minds to draw upon than mine... so they must have had their reasons. I have also seen this opposing setup on other brands of pickups.
Perhaps it's to help combat or control axle wrap...?
I'd like to try and figure out why both shock towards the back might be bad. Toyota sure has a lot more qualified minds to draw upon than mine... so they must have had their reasons. I have also seen this opposing setup on other brands of pickups.
Perhaps it's to help combat or control axle wrap...?
07-19-2007, 08:05 AM
#35
Registered User
Small winch used to suck up the slack in your suspension. Professional rock crawlers have been using them on their buggies for years. It seems to help out the 4 link suspensions the most. Some 4 link front ends tend to unload while climbing steep climbs and rocks. Using a winch to suck some of the suspension in helps the frontend stick to the rock rather than unloading and pushing the front tires off of the rock.
07-19-2007, 09:57 AM
#36
Registered User
Small winch used to suck up the slack in your suspension. Professional rock crawlers have been using them on their buggies for years. It seems to help out the 4 link suspensions the most. Some 4 link front ends tend to unload while climbing steep climbs and rocks. Using a winch to suck some of the suspension in helps the frontend stick to the rock rather than unloading and pushing the front tires off of the rock.
I recall hearing of/seeing these before. That is what I imagined, just wanted to make sure.
Do they typically run one winch tied to the diff, 2 winches to each axle end.
Seems like the 1st would be better for flex.
07-19-2007, 11:41 AM
#38
Registered User
Ok, I'll explain the differences between forwad mounting and rearward mounting of shocks.
I'll start with why forward mounting is better for travel and rearward is better for stability.
The springs pivot from the front of the springs (the "hangar). As the suspension drops the axle moves down and FORWARD. If the shock is mounted closer to the pivot point of the suspension it experiences LESS movement (extend/compress action) as compared to if it's aft of the axle.
For example (extreme) if the shock were mounted to the axle.. the the top of the shock were mounted to the the spring hangar the shock wouldnt compress or extend AT ALL. IT would simply pivot like a solid bar. The closer the top of the shock is mounted to the pivot point the less effective it is. And the less movement it has to do.. So you can get more travel out of a shock if its mounted this way but it will inheritently be less effective.
When the shock is mounted aft of the axle .. or in any case the further away from the pivot point (the hangar) the top of the shock is mounted the shock is used more. You will need a shock that can travel further if its mounted aft of the axle and further from the hangar than if you mount them on the front of the axle and the top is mounted closer to the hangar.
Think of it this way also... You have a shock in your hands... is it harder to compress and then extend the shock 2" or is it harder to fully compress then decompress the shock? ... Obviously you're going to be much more tired after compressing the shock completely than just a few inches... The more the shock has to travel the MORE EFFECTIVE IT IS..
SOOOO...
The most EFFECTIVE way to mount a shock is perpendicular (vertical) to the axle... BUT This isn't really practical because of uptravel and downtravel.. The shock will fully compress before you want it to (you dont want your shock to be your bumpstop!!!) ... So you tilt it out so that you sacrifice effective ness for up travel.
I hope this helps.
Toyota didn't design our trucks with rock crawling and all the nasty stuff we do to them in mind. I wasn't in the engineering room when they decided on the stock shock design but what makes sense to me (my theory) is this:
The ubolt/lower shock mount plates are universal.. there isnt a Left and Right.. they are interchangeable (save money manufacturing).. The gas tank and LPSV prevent a forward of axle upper shock mounting location.. Why redesign the gas tank location for a shock mount that is less effective? The trucks not a performance race car.. its a cheap work truck. The Driver side shock is forward where its less effective.. but (not sure on stock exhaust) but its possible they were taking the tailpipe into consideration as well as the ubolt.lower shock mount plate.. you flip the pass side one around and you have plenty of room for an upper shock mount.. Is the loss of shock performance noticeable enough NOT to save money here?.. I don't think so! Honestly I think they simply found it cheaper to manfucture the truck with the driver side shock mounted forward by reusing the lower ubolt and shock mount plate.
Now, 3link or 4 link or any coil over setup you look at the shocks are mounted veritcally (perpendicular to the axle).... Now.. why? Well from what I've just explained it should all make sense now. A vertical shock is the most effective! ... No pivot points on a coil suspension!
Hope this helps!
I'll start with why forward mounting is better for travel and rearward is better for stability.
The springs pivot from the front of the springs (the "hangar). As the suspension drops the axle moves down and FORWARD. If the shock is mounted closer to the pivot point of the suspension it experiences LESS movement (extend/compress action) as compared to if it's aft of the axle.
For example (extreme) if the shock were mounted to the axle.. the the top of the shock were mounted to the the spring hangar the shock wouldnt compress or extend AT ALL. IT would simply pivot like a solid bar. The closer the top of the shock is mounted to the pivot point the less effective it is. And the less movement it has to do.. So you can get more travel out of a shock if its mounted this way but it will inheritently be less effective.
When the shock is mounted aft of the axle .. or in any case the further away from the pivot point (the hangar) the top of the shock is mounted the shock is used more. You will need a shock that can travel further if its mounted aft of the axle and further from the hangar than if you mount them on the front of the axle and the top is mounted closer to the hangar.
Think of it this way also... You have a shock in your hands... is it harder to compress and then extend the shock 2" or is it harder to fully compress then decompress the shock? ... Obviously you're going to be much more tired after compressing the shock completely than just a few inches... The more the shock has to travel the MORE EFFECTIVE IT IS..
SOOOO...
The most EFFECTIVE way to mount a shock is perpendicular (vertical) to the axle... BUT This isn't really practical because of uptravel and downtravel.. The shock will fully compress before you want it to (you dont want your shock to be your bumpstop!!!) ... So you tilt it out so that you sacrifice effective ness for up travel.
I hope this helps.
Toyota didn't design our trucks with rock crawling and all the nasty stuff we do to them in mind. I wasn't in the engineering room when they decided on the stock shock design but what makes sense to me (my theory) is this:
The ubolt/lower shock mount plates are universal.. there isnt a Left and Right.. they are interchangeable (save money manufacturing).. The gas tank and LPSV prevent a forward of axle upper shock mounting location.. Why redesign the gas tank location for a shock mount that is less effective? The trucks not a performance race car.. its a cheap work truck. The Driver side shock is forward where its less effective.. but (not sure on stock exhaust) but its possible they were taking the tailpipe into consideration as well as the ubolt.lower shock mount plate.. you flip the pass side one around and you have plenty of room for an upper shock mount.. Is the loss of shock performance noticeable enough NOT to save money here?.. I don't think so! Honestly I think they simply found it cheaper to manfucture the truck with the driver side shock mounted forward by reusing the lower ubolt and shock mount plate.
Now, 3link or 4 link or any coil over setup you look at the shocks are mounted veritcally (perpendicular to the axle).... Now.. why? Well from what I've just explained it should all make sense now. A vertical shock is the most effective! ... No pivot points on a coil suspension!
Hope this helps!
Last edited by drew303; 07-19-2007 at 11:45 AM.
07-19-2007, 11:49 AM
#39
Registered User
And.. to add to the original subject of the thread.
As everyone else has accurately and kindly explained, limiting straps will NOT act as a sway bar simply because the compressed side has no extra force keeping it from compressing.. You will only make the problem worse by losing the traction of the tire that the strap is extended on ( the uncompressed side ) .. by lifting it off the ground.. (start praying!!)
Swaybars simply transfer force to the opposite side. One side pushes up it pushes the other down. In short, stiffens everything up basically which is why people either disconnect or completely remove sway bars for offroading.
As everyone else has accurately and kindly explained, limiting straps will NOT act as a sway bar simply because the compressed side has no extra force keeping it from compressing.. You will only make the problem worse by losing the traction of the tire that the strap is extended on ( the uncompressed side ) .. by lifting it off the ground.. (start praying!!)
Swaybars simply transfer force to the opposite side. One side pushes up it pushes the other down. In short, stiffens everything up basically which is why people either disconnect or completely remove sway bars for offroading.
07-19-2007, 11:58 AM
#40
Contributing Member
Thanks for the explanation. I am going to run them both angled slightly towards the back and see what results I get.
I'll post up some pics and feedback when I get that done.
I'll post up some pics and feedback when I get that done.
