Thread: Rearend links- 4 link, 3 link, parellel, angled???

Tweet

Originally Posted by Henry Rifle

Also, you'll have to mount your shocks upside-down, won't you?

If I'm looking at the drawing right, they should still compress when the rear end housing goes up.
But, then it's Sunday & I just woke up from a nap.

pro is correct. I was off somewhere on a walkabout, apparently.

I think that the shocks should be mounted more toward 50/50 on there travel--as they compress the spring gets tighter and the bumper comes into play but on extension they will just go unimpeded to full travel and put pulling stresses on the shock parts that aren't considered----

The roller cam bearings just run on the cam journal---at that size they don't need to be hardened as they roll full 360* where as in rocker arms or U joints they ocillate back and forth

The GM bushings were used in the end of a longer link so they just twisted a few degrees in the rubber----on these rocker arms they will probably rotate 45* or more and that would twist the rubber-

A genuine suspension poly bushing for say a anti roll bar probably could be used around a 1 1/2 bar that was supported on both sides----actually, maybe you could incorporate an anti roll bar as the rocker mounting pivots

dog, you're proposing 3" bump and 3" droop? Nothing wrong with that, but the components you've drawn out won't support it. The rocker is way too short. Angles would be acute at that bump/droop. With a 1/1 ratio on the rocker, that would mean 3" from neutral on the coilover. There may be such animals available, but I don't know who would make them (6" total travel). The shock is installed at the wrong extension. When I bought my Eagles, Aldan recommended leaving 55% for bump, 45% for droop. Others have recommended 50/50.

Please list the shock dimensions so I can play with this.

I want to tell all you how much I am digging this discussion. You all are really helping me work through this. Much thanks. Couldnt have done it without you.

Ok, enough of the mushy stuff.

These 5 pictures show the suspension in 3 positions.
Full bump.
Full droop.
Ride height. (which is at 1/3 bump, but sounds like I need to set it up more like 1/2)

I have these shocks. They are QA1 adjustable. 17" eye to eye with 5.5" of travel.

I can change any of this and so far it sounds like I need to change-
1. shocks to be at 50/50 or close
2. The legnth of the rocker????
3.????

The rocker has no collisions or binds.
I am comfortable with 5.5" total wheel travel (full droop to full bump)

Ok, Techinspector, get crackin! I want a full report on my desk in the morning...... or the afternoon......... ok, by friday ...... or whenever.

"I have these shocks. They are QA1 adjustable. 17" eye to eye with 5.5" of travel."

17" eye to eye what? extended? compressed? halfway?

"I am comfortable with 5.5" total wheel travel (full droop to full bump)"

You can have 5.5" or 6" or whatever you want. You just have to build the proper ratio into your rocker arm and make the arm long enough to prevent acute angles and decreasing spring rates on bump.

17"eye to eye fully extended with 5.5" of travel making them 11.5 eye to eye fully compressed.

I have to think about that " and make the arm long enough to prevent acute angles and decreasing spring rates on bump" part. Not sure what I would change.

"Not sure what I would change."

Ummm, how about the length of the arms. You asked for blue last time, so here's some blue

So----wouldn't it be simpler to just mount the shock to the rear axle in a more normal matter????? seems like it would fit

I see. With a longer reach on the rockers, the pushrod and shock stay closer to being inline with the travel of the rear end.

"No acute angles". Duh, now I get it.

Jerry, At this point I just might. The reason for moving the shocks to this location and using all this mechanism was to put the shocks in a place that had room for them and then have room for a watts link. Today I will take a look to see if I can impliment Techinspectors revisions, but will also take a look at going back to the shocks in the rear of the axle with a panhard bar.

I am known to make things overly complicated once or twice. But its allways cool.

Is there room to put the shocks in front of the axles and still use a watts? Maybe put the watts link behind the rear end housing? Hard to tell from here without seeing what you have to work with room wise.

I have started the watts link, and I think there is room for the shocks in front. Going to work that out and see what I can come up with. Not a lot of room for the shocks too behind the axle.

I guess a Watts is cool, and limits lateral displacement of the rear axle to virtually nil. However, a 30" Panhard bar would allow only 0.104" displacement at full extension or compression of the suspension (2.5" each way.)

While I believe that Panhards are less than optimal, I'm firmly convinced they're far from an abomination (sorry Tech . . . just had to . . .).

They're commonly used and work very well on street driven cars with minimal suspension travel.

Not saying you should use one - just a thought.