I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure the idea is to get the bump stop to move with the arm, which is why it doesn’t use a “can” mount but a shock cap on the bump and tabs for it to mount off of so it pivots in with the arm.
OK, so I guess I am still missing the point. Any weight saved for the bump mount....would be put right back on(and probably more) with the whole assembly that pivots, right?
Also, since that is part of the suspension lever... technically speaking... wouldn't 50% of that new weight you added for the assembly be "unsprung". I can see how you won't have scrub. But what is benefit of that besides not having to replace a delrin pad occasionally? (seeing as I assume the weight savings is cancelled out with my thought above)
Barge is on to something with the "bottom mount ressy" bump stop idea. Seems like this would be a better design than an emulsion shock for bottoming resistance.
Still wondering how loud that "slapping" must be too. I mean, it looks like metal to metal. That can't be good on the ears... or the thing in between your ears.
No. 50% of the slapper arm yes, but it attaches so far inboard that it really doesn't make a difference. All of the oldschool trucks that ran that way had urethane bumps on the arm. No metal to metal. Also the slapper shock geometry looks less than desirable on the above truck. Also short bumpstop.........
For me personally it was a combination of not wanting some monstrosity of a bump stop mount hanging off the top of the shock mount to hold a bumpcan and with the old school style of the truck I thought slapper arms would be rad. That truck posed above is Luke McMillins Racer chassis.