Thread: short course links

Idk if there is a thread about this if there is please post the link, but I'm looking for daily drivers or prerunners with shourt course links and the way they did their upper shock mounts, I was also looking for steve herreras ranger I seen his in offroad mag but I can't find many pics of the mounting points

AvyDriver's avalanche, Jnegri's frontier. I believe the threads are "DD Avalanche build" and "3.3 liter gas eater"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fatal-mobile opperation short course ranger

1986 Ford SuperCab Ranger - Race Truck - Off-Road Magazine

set up for 2.5 coilover/bypass.

Here are a couple.

thanks to all of you

Originally Posted by hemanhe

thanks to all of you

are you over the giant 64s yet?

i still have the 64's im going to send em to get rearched and trade em to friend of mine for some coilovers so i can do short course links on my ranger

Seems like a cool ass set up vs's a regular 4 link.
What are the differences basically? I realize you dont run the c/o's on the links.
Why dont more people run short course links set ups?

Originally Posted by Tobolose

Seems like a cool ass set up vs's a regular 4 link.
What are the differences basically? I realize you dont run the c/o's on the links.
Why dont more people run short course links set ups?

you have to buy big shocks?

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by hemanhe

i still have the 64's im going to send em to get rearched and trade em to friend of mine for some coilovers so i can do short course links on my ranger

thats my plan

You dont get as much travel out of this setup,usually around 20 or so and you actually run bigger shocks, usually 18's

Right on yeah I can see getting less travel since the shocks are almost 1:1 off the axle. Im strapped and bump at 15" up front, so if I could get 17" in the rear that would be plenty for me.
Thanks for the info dudes.

Less travel but can tune the shocks better. But less travel means not as smooth in the big stuff. But handles the tighter more technical stuff better.

and still easier to tune and better riding than leafs.

this is the set up I want to run on my explorer whenever I get to it...

Joey

Originally Posted by ranger#1

and still easier to tune and better riding than leafs.

Yea forgot to add that.

Originally Posted by ragingbull2k2

this is the set up I want to run on my explorer whenever I get to it...

Joey

Unless you want to lose a nice bench in the back or cargo space of a mezzi setup this is the best route to go with an Explorer. Or you can push the wheelbase back a little and run them off the lower links right near the end and keep your bench. Which should be able to get you to the 20" travel mark.

Originally Posted by Tobolose

Seems like a cool ass set up vs's a regular 4 link.
What are the differences basically? I realize you dont run the c/o's on the links.
Why dont more people run short course links set ups?

You get less travel than conventional 4 link, finding the spring rate is a bitch, rebound is slower.
I've bent a shock shaft with 16's before. Mines strapped at like ~17 ish.
Doesn't handle as good in the deeper whoops, but I've also noticed that my truck bucks way less than leaf sprung trucks do, and it doesn't nose dive off jumps.

Maybe a dumb question but minus the larger shocks, is this cheaper than a conventional 4 link setup just because of the raw material used?

the main difference is the lower link... a single piece of tubing is wayyy cheaper than buying a lower link, even if its something like the gian WIY kit... would use virtually everything else (i.e. pivot boxes, heims, bungs, etc)...

Joey

Originally Posted by usmcgunrock

Unless you want to lose a nice bench in the back or cargo space of a mezzi setup this is the best route to go with an Explorer. Or you can push the wheelbase back a little and run them off the lower links right near the end and keep your bench. Which should be able to get you to the 20" travel mark.

I figure for the price of a nice set of leaf springs, I can almost get the entire rear end built minus the shocks, specially since I would design and get the pivot boxes cut out myself anyways... well, not including a new 9" I would want to buy anyways... 17" out of the rear and 16" out of the front and I'd be happy, haha...

Joey

linking a truck requires a fuel cell, and the ability to properly setup the geometry of the links so your truck handles properly. It's a pretty big deal compared to just bolting up a set of leaf springs...

rebound is slow? that's a valving issue. spring rate is easy, use a triple rate if you have to...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone

linking a truck requires a fuel cell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Jnegri

no it doesn't.

on a ranger, you can't use the stock fuel tank, it's almost 5 feet long. and it's right where the driver side upper link goes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bronco 2 tank right behind the cab works just as well. Just like they did on giant daily drive link setup.

Originally Posted by redsilvy

Bronco 2 tank right behind the cab works just as well. Just like they did on giant daily drive link setup.

Still costs more money.

Linking a truck is not as simple, or as cheap as going with leaf springs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

correctly done.. no. lol

If its not done correctly, what's the point in talking about it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then get off DR lolololol

Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone

linking a truck requires a fuel cell, and the ability to properly setup the geometry of the links so your truck handles properly. It's a pretty big deal compared to just bolting up a set of leaf springs...

To have a good leaf spring set up it takes more then just bolting it up. Is linking more work and money? Yes. Is there ways to save money on a well done link setup? Yes. Is it worth the extra money, time, and effort to link it? That is all up to what you plan on using it for.

Originally Posted by Tobolose

Seems like a cool ass set up vs's a regular 4 link.
What are the differences basically? I realize you dont run the c/o's on the links.
Why dont more people run short course links set ups?

From what I know, the shocks work better when you slow the velocity down . That is why the majority of builders, short course or not, use the links and move the shocks to about 50% on the arms. Honestly, this is one of the first link trucks I have seen where shocks are on the rear end.
Usually when they upgrade to coil overs, they move the shocks up. Also, you can only get +- 16" with the shocks on the axle.

GD

Originally Posted by Gawdodirt

From what I know, the shocks work better when you slow the velocity down . That is why the majority of builders, short course or not, use the links and move the shocks to about 50% on the arms. Honestly, this is one of the first link trucks I have seen where shocks are on the rear end.
Usually when they upgrade to coil overs, they move the shocks up. Also, you can only get +- 16" with the shocks on the axle.

GD

what? lol

Yea does not make since to me either.

Originally Posted by Gawdodirt

From what I know, the shocks work better when you slow the velocity down . That is why the majority of builders, short course or not, use the links and move the shocks to about 50% on the arms. Honestly, this is one of the first link trucks I have seen where shocks are on the rear end.
Usually when they upgrade to coil overs, they move the shocks up. Also, you can only get +- 16" with the shocks on the axle.

GD

how long of a shock you have determines how much wheel travel you have. I have 3.0x18 coilovers for mine, so I will be in the 18 +/- range.

Yes, the shaft speeds will be ridiculous high, but that can be handled with proper valving.

If this the first linked truck you've seen with shocks off the axle, you must have never gone to a short course race.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever...

I would say that the existing LOORRS wheel travel rules make the " shock on rear axle" idea mandatory. If you like more wheel travel, then the length of your shocks, then move the shocks to the links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Gawdodirt

Whatever...

Originally Posted by letsgetthisdone

how long of a shock you have determines how much wheel travel you have. I have 3.0x18 coilovers for mine, so I will be in the 18 +/- range.

Yes, the shaft speeds will be ridiculous high, but that can be handled with proper valving.

If this the first linked truck you've seen with shocks off the axle, you must have never gone to a short course race.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you say "proper valving", you must get a customized piston or a piston with increased flow through the ports. The off the shelf pistons in Fox,king,SAW,bilstein, rad flow.. are not designed to see shaft speeds that fast (like off the rear axle). No shim stack can progressively control dampening when the shaft speed is that high using the commercially available pistons out there. This is why most people run shocks 1/2 way on the trailing arm (because shaft speed is slower and this works best for their shock piston and valve stacks). One way is not more "efficient" per say just most pistons are not engineered to deal with flow rates that high (And still maintaining a controlled ride over all surfaces). If one were so inclined you could custom make a piston but that sounds like A LOT of trail and error.

When you hit woops at 70mph the shaft speed is way faster vs. a CORR truck hitting a rolling jump so comparing these different applications is not correct.



read this too: Basic Valving Theory

Originally Posted by Gawdodirt

Whatever...

I would say that the existing LOORRS wheel travel rules make the " shock on rear axle" idea mandatory. If you like more wheel travel, then the length of your shocks, then move the shocks to the links.

If you really want off the axle shocks and want more wheel travel then:

1) Get a 18" shock and take out the drop stops = 20ish" travel shock. At the right motion ratio off the axle this may yield 22" of travel

or

2) Have a longer custom shock built like buggy guys do. It's just a longer shock body and shock shaft.

Originally Posted by 2000prerunner

When you hit woops at 70mph the shaft speed is way faster vs. a CORR truck hitting a rolling jump so comparing these different applications is not correct.

Isn't the shaft speed the same as giant 64's pounding through the whoops at 70?