Thread: cage and link design

just have an idea i threw together real quick on a cage and link set up, feel free to make changes n suggestions, but just wanted to see what everyone thought

the shock mounts need to be integrated into that tube that runs up and back from the cab/ cab cage

what, no resi on the coilover? pffhhh

better?

holy dimple dies. what about the other resi? you want to go fast right?

its a uni-res.

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (matt_helton @ June 01 2005,9:36)]holy dimple dies. *what about the other resi? *you want to go fast right?

ummmmmm its behind the mounts... lol

coil over mounts are too high, need a tube off the main cage to run to the bump, frame is too high, lower links are too short, upper link(s) will hit the tank, spares are too high, but other than that(mostly stuff not to scale its good.

also looks like you have 4" of up travel. Might wanna thing about back halfing the truck

yeah, you need at least 8"

wel lthanks for al lthe specs.. but its not to scale.. im posting the idea not the measurements

hmm but i didnt even think of the upper link....

Move the fuel cell to the rear...

You don't have to move the cell to rear, that's a whole other argument which boils down to preference.
Is that a extra long bed or what?
Anyways, here's what I'm gonna roll with if i get an ext. cab (deciding in the after next thursday -last final). I'm going to shorten it down to about the length of a longbed. Why? because I like shorter wheelbased vehicles, and I want the extracab for storage/and it will allow me to have a clean bedline, without sacrificing strength. Yes the shocks will mount inside the cab, kinda. Steinbergers prerunner is kind of what I was thinking.

ps, sorry i stole your pic Torian

Might as well get rid of the frame… I added some by-pass tubes, a second reservoir just for fun. I moved up the cell (which I changed to a “fuel safe”) because the upper link(s) would hit the cell in the location you got.

Oh boy, holy cow, it's got.........KINGS!!!!!!&#3 3;

You can meghuck for sure now!

I spent a little bit of my night with damien giving me some inspiring idea's. It's pretty amazing what a simple program like paint will do... oh yeah, it's got new paint.....................

Holy crap... I thought I was doin' a good job...

Damn Clarke that drawing is fuckin sweet. I wish I could draw that good on a computer.

clarke, you did that on a paint program?? Damn dude, I'm lucky if I can get two lines to connect where I want them....that's sweet. Fuck autocad and solidworks...paint is the shit...at least in clarkes hands.

about the rear uptravel thing.... i think 15 is about minium on a minitruck in the rear, 17 or so preferable. uptravel is what takes bumps and big landings, if you want your truck to buck all over the place then go with 4-8, if you want it to stick to the ground then think about mid teens.

"to go fast you need downtravel"
"To haul ass you need uptravel"

who are you quoting?

Good question, i remember reading it on RDC a few months back.

Ill say Matt_Helton because everyone quotes him. waj

dick

ha, go back and work on them chevys

Isn't down travel more important in the rear to keep the power to the ground? I know that in the front 60/40 to 70/30 with bump being the greater factor is about right, but in the rear isn't more down travel important so that the front can absorb while the rear keeps putting power to the ground? I mean ofcourse the rear needs to take its part is dampening, but you get what i mean.

i wish i had something to work on. aint got shit to do once again.

what you have to remember with all travel is that the initial hit is pretty much all compression travel. after that the suspension will drop back out.....either way you will be keeping power to the ground because it will drop out as much as possible, pretty much until the tires hit the surface.....after that it is just repeating that cycle only now the suspension is drooped and it has more travel to cycle through.

i would have to agree with mike....mid teens is goingto be prefferable over 8", however if you cant get that then i would at least shoot for 12"-15".

8" is good if you only have 16" total...ie leafs. just wanted to throw that out, i realize this is a link discussion.

12" of uptravel is alot when linking the truck, and keeping the frame. i think ill be happy if i can get that. i may pull my poly bumps, and use a hydro, and have it bottom 1/2" from my frame. not to sure tho, but its comin close. jsut gotta put the mounts on the housing, and itll cycle and drive(with shocks in fucked up spot for my leafs)!!!!

i run 12" up, and 14" down, works for me

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (ZTFab @ June 02 2005,5:54)]Fuck autocad and solidworks...paint is the shit...at least in clarkes hands.

you are being sarcastic, right? Those 2D crayon paint drawings might impress a 1st grader, but they are useless for any real designing or fab work. Paint is ok though for conceptualizing, like drawing on a napkin at a restaurant.

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (matt_helton @ June 02 2005,12:35)]i wish i had something to work on. *aint got shit to do once again.

Fix my truck.
-dave

hahaha, what do you need done?

if you are having trouble with getting a good amount of up travel with a link setup because you kept the frame then notch the frame or hack it off.

looks good, but i didnt know this was a forum of fighting over who has the best looking drawing

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Alex_E @ June 01 2005,11:36)]Is that a extra long bed or what?

no but i didnt want the tires tucked up in the bed, i like the look of them hanging off much better

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Alex_E @ June 01 2005,11:36)]

i really like clarke's set up tho.. looks nice