BlazeN8

Its been a while since I've logged on to Yotatech. Not sure why but my primary computer cannot open this website anymore? Anyway, here I am on my old Pentium III laptop from 2004 and its working, go figure. The guy from Canada, who is frustrated with customer service, needs to send me an e-mail and request the Blazeland Contact / Order Form. Complete this form, sign it and send it back to me and I will be glad to get started on your order for you. I need to respond to some of the above banter but I'm not in the mood right now. But......who ever speculated on how many kits I've sold was off a bit, I've sold 50+ kits. All positive feedback! No failure or breakages reported.

Numbchux

just wanted to make sure this word wasn't forgotten.



When the time comes. I'll be going blazeland!!

POTAzoa

i'll probably be going Blazeland in the near future, looking for better ride on fire trail roads that i don't have to crawl up quite so slowly, for the price you can't get much better, with the ability to upgrade for better shocks than torsion bars in the future as funds allow. Besides, even if you do manage to break something you could buy a whole second kit before you came close to the price of the total chaos kit. While they are a young company, i've shot a few emails back and forth with Nate and he seems a perfectly stand up guy willing to give any info he has. If you don't want to SAS but still want some more travel and don't want to put $4k into a truck you probably bought for two grand, Blazeland is the way to go

SCToy

I got nothing against Nate, but let's be honest. You cannot classify his kit as a long travel kit. It's a mid travel kit at best.
There are so many better ways to get a little more travel. Than to cut and extend stock arms.

It's really not huck fest worthy and it's definitely not a race kit.

xxxtreme22r

So SCToy what can we do to to get a little more travel that equals the travel of the BL kit? I'm sorry but BJ Spacers with low profile stops and a diff drop isn't going to give the travel that the BL kit does and you them make the CV's the weak link in the entire system.

BL DOES race on his kit. BTW. Baja 1000 worthy, no. But I'd be willing to bet this would make one heck of a kit for those who like to do tough truck and mild desert running. All While keeping the integrity of the CV's.

All you guys bashing on this kit have no clue what BL puts his through and CAN NOT come up with instances which claim what your claiming. How can you possibly bash on something when they have a 100% success rate?

SCToy

I do not know what he actually cycles because he only posts his metal to metal number of 12 inches.
I would just do a tubed UCA with a 1 inch uniball, some shock hoops (coilovers if you wish) and some bump stops. This eliminates that bolt on UCA extension that looks like an accident waiting to happen and you stay stock track width. No BJ spacer needed, no bracket lift, retains stock geometry, so no crazy bump steer, no bad steering scrub, not ruining the steering acronym, not yielding a funky camber change through the travel and the list goes on.
For 999, you still need you T100 axles and the torsion bars he recommends and he's priced his shock hoops for another 399. That's looking like 1500 bucks by the time you've actually got his 12 inches metal to metal.

That's just my opinion though.

xxxtreme22r

And then you STILL have the issues with the travel of the CV's. Which isn't much more then what Toyota designed them for. Besides, where you gonna get a stock width tubed upper control arm from?

SCToy

I'd build it myself. And yes, the CV's will limit you, but they limit you with T100 axles as well.
The upper ball joint will limit you before the CV does, so you'll still net more travel than stock and have a truck that still drives like a stock truck on the street.
For those who cannot build themselves the UCA, then they would need to find someone who can, but that's about as simple as it gets for a fabricator, so I'm sure they could find someone to do it.

ROCKGUARD 1

i agree. i have yet to come across negative feedback about the blazeland kit. all the reviews have good, reviews from people who actually own the stuff. i would like to see more video of it in action though, havent found too many videos anywhere.

and yes, i would call it "long travel" because it gives you a helluva lot more travel than the stock set-up...
i would buy that set-up over a "bracket lift" all day long.

BlazeN8

This is what I mean about not being in the "mood" to responding to this type of forum thread. I don't see any other suspension mfg's defending their products like this. Anyway lets look at the term "long travel" first. I think its a given that a TC Gen I or II system is a LT example. The BL kit achieves very similar travel numbers and suspension geometry. Yes there are some slight differences but the bottom line is if yor building around the T-100 CV axles (the limiting factor) then what we discussing here is all your going to get. Weather you use gold plated cromoly tube construction or titanium SR-71 sourced heim joints, rod ends, and uniballs is irrelevent, it is the geometry that that defines LT.

If your wanting to run without 4wd then it is possible to get a bit more travel out of BL or TC. If your wanting to keep 4wd then getting more travel is a huge drain on the wallet. For example, I built a prototype using extended Rancho UCAs, centerlink, etc. that would cycle 14" but the issue of CVs still needs attention. So I built a center mount diff with custom length CV shafts I had machined ($600 per pair) that will allow close to the 14" but again it becomes a budget thing and a good deal of custom fabrication. You also need to find an old Rancho kit to source parts from and that kit has not been available since the mid 1990's.

I have to say it is frustrating to try and convince skeptics but BL does work. I was convinced of success on my first prototype. Fifty testimonials is nice but how many times do I need to go through this banter. Its a formula that works once its going to work again and again. How many times does it take?

xxxtreme22r

Personally I am not a really big fan of those Rancho UCA's, seen too many with cracking CA's. Makes you wonder why they quit making that kit.

Maybe the skeptics come in because they don't trust or have their own experience in welding, that they think the fact these are extended (more leverage etc etc) and simply won't hold together. But fact is, if your reinforcing in the correct areas, using the proper thickness materials and KNOW how to weld, they would realize that you have had no issues with your kits.

I see all this bashing on your product by just a handful of guys, yet NOT ONE has given ANY feedback on how to correct what they may see wrong with your design. I wonder why?

BlazeN8

Thanks for that xxxtreme22r! Viewing the design from an outside perspective is different than the first hand but you seem to get it! I am so saturated in what is going on its hard to be objective. If I sound overly defensive I appologize.

xxxtreme22r

They have to do more to convince me that yours is a bad design, not just say the design sucks, accident waiting to happen etc etc. And simple geometry will tell you just the fact that you widen the track by what is it? 3" per side?? tells you that you gain travel without even messing with the bump stop locations.

Now what I don't know is if the T-100 CV's can handle extra angle as opposed to the mini-truck as I don't know if it uses the same joint itself. Meaning is it safer to actually increase that angle from say (and I am just gonna pull a number out my butt) 35 deg. to 45 degrees.

But even if not, the 35 deg CV angle is going to net more travel when the length is 3" longer with absolutely no extra risk to the CV itself. I don't know the actual numbers to plug in, but anyone that knows how a triangle works, will understand this.

2DoorJoRunner

I've done a gang of research on this topic. Testimonials, hard to find yet accessible videos online tho few in number, reviews in magazines and forums.

Here is a basic synopsis of what I have found.

BL Kit offers an AFFORDABLE alternative to TC camburg etc etc etc

A kit that allows more travel, retain 4wd, better ride quality.

Option of using T-bars or C/O's depending on budget and preference

Totally bolt up, no fab (per using t-bar set up)

Now if you want to teach your truck to fly like you see in the lucas series, then ya this may not be the kit for you. It isnt built for THAT kind of wheeling. People need to know their own limits along with their rigs and choose accordingly. But someone who wants a TC quality set up for 1500 or less is delusional.

So who is this kit for?

Someone who doesnt want to SFA

Wants more flex/travel

Better ride quality

Practical application for a susp lift

Not empty out their bank acct

The fact is Nate nor Blazeland have a bad rep. Just skeptics who either are bashin on a product that isnt designed for their tastes in the first place, OR guys who puff their feathers out saying "Oh I could do better!..." To which I reply, "Ok, go do it, market it, and stand up to the unfounded criticism Nate gets on the regular or pipe down until you have some irrefutable proof why it isnt good"

2DoorJoRunner

Just my .02

SCToy

I cannot speak to his work quality, but as an AWS certified GTAW welder, I don't trust anyone else's welds until I see them from prep through finish.

The only thing I really disagree with Nate on, is the ball joint extension bracket. That significantly increases the torque arm on a joint which resists braking forces.

Lastly, I don't intend to bash Nate for coming up with budget minded kit to increase the viability of 4x4 IFS, I just don't think it can be compared to a long travel kit. As you may or may not know, TC is really an entry level kit and structurally I do not think the BL kit can compare. You'll never see someone hammering through whoops and hucking big air with a ball joint extension bracket, it's just not feasible.

xxxtreme22r

So your saying the upper BJ is the weak link in the BL kit?

Actually did you know the weak link in the control arm area on the IFS isn't the ball joint area? It's the bump stop brackets. Ask the guy on here that runs his stock IFS in tough truck what happened to his bump stops.

I don't know if Nate has done anything to his CA's to address that issue or not.

And as far as questioning his extensions, show me one instance that his design has failed. I don't know for sure what class Nate runs as far as racing goes, I'll let him explain what has and has not failed through the design phases his kit has gone through. I don't know how many of his other customers are racing on theirs to say for sure.

And BIG difference in price when comparing the BL and TC kits. And by big I mean HUGE price difference. And even then, your still limited in travel by the front CV's. There is very few people on here, that will require the strength of the TC kit. Or even push the limits of the BL kit for that matter. How many of us take whoops at high speeds? How many of use run tough truck? Not many. And those that do, are most likely competing and can afford the TC/Camburg kits.

As far as saying the BJ's will fail before the CV will fail, well with those who are running just BJ spacers and even with the diff drop kits, I have seen more failures with CV's then I have with the ball joints separating. I haven't heard one instance where Nate's kit has separated the Ball joints let alone broke at the control arm itself. So your claims it's weak under racing circumstances are mute.

Nate has never said his kit stacks up comparably to the strength of TC and Camburg kits. But as far as travel gained they are very comparable. Especially when retaining 4wd function. And BOTH kits use the T-100 axles.

Strength of the kit has nothing to do with whether or not it should and shouldn't be labeled as an LT kit.

If your worried about the lower ball joint itself, well grab a TC BJ and replace the stock style. As far as the uppers, I am not sure. I believe Downey was the only one to ever make a replacement upper.

Now you know I agree with you on this site with alot of stuff, but I am not feeling you on this one SCToy.

SCToy

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just voicing mine.

BlazeN8

I've been working on getting some video but forces are against it. I got some footage at the dunes at Glammis in March, but that ended up being recorded on an I-phone and without a telephoto lense it was too far away to see much. Here is the You Tube Link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOZMD...4DzrpjZ81daEg=

I was out in Barstow the next weekend with my friends doing some final tunning for the Baja 250 race. Brent has a 1970 Blazer- class 1500. I wasn't racing the 250, just going to pre-running and as his chase truck. Brent's Blazer raced the 250 and ended up placing second in his class. Anyway back to the Barstow story. We camped out on a section of the course for about 5 hours testing / tunning the Blazer and the Fordota suspension and shocks. The whoops in this section were about as big as it gets. We had a video camera on hand. Since we had a trailer for our rigs and I was only a few hours from home I was pushing it with the mindset for failure. Better here near home with a trailer 200 yards away than in some remote area in Mexico. I hit it hard and fast, 3rd gear 40-50 MPH. I adjusted the preload in the front coil springs. I adjusted the valving in the rear by-pass shocks. The bypass shocks dampening adjustment setting ended up being set as soft as it would go and the re-bound as firm. We came to the conclusion that the Chevy 63 rear springs are just too stiff and more than the shocks could overcome on the rebound. Maybe if I had the shock re-valved for more rebound it would be able to overcome the force of the spring on the rebound. To increase the compression load I tried weighting down the rear with up to 240 lbs of ballast, but it still was oversprung. I found that 110 lbs of ballast made the best improvement. Once both of us were tunned we spent a few hours pre-running the 15 mile loop. At the end of the day the only problem uncovered on the Fordota was one side of my fiberglass bedside had ripped off the frame. I couldn't wait to see the video footage but I had to head home that night. The rest of the guys stayed in the hotel. That night the tow rig got broken into and all Mike's camera equipment was stolen. So no video footage once again!

donomite49

I adjusted the valving in the rear by-pass shocks. The bypass shocks dampening adjustment setting ended up being set as soft as it would go and the re-bound as firm. We came to the conclusion that the Chevy 63 rear springs are just too stiff and more than the shocks could overcome on the rebound. Maybe if I had the shock re-valved for more rebound it would be able to overcome the force of the spring /quote]
did you try increasing the compression dampening before adding ballast? i know from racing motocross for many years, and learning bike setup, that if you dont run enough compression that the shock will blow through too much of the stroke, increasing the pressure from the spring because it is too far down in the suspension travel, increasing the need for more rebound dampening throwing the whole setup off. spring rate, compression and rebound dampening have to work together to have a good working setup. just my 2 cents. i am researching truck suspension to try to figure out what i am going to run when i do my suspension. i have the difficult task of setting my suspension up to do it all for an all around truck. i'm interested in what you know works and what does not. any advice or tips would be helpfull.