Possible trackbar elimination? OneTon, Beezil...

I'm planning to go with the HP44/9" swap as many have done successfully, fullwidth and retaining the stock Ford radius arms up front. Although setting up the trackbar isn't really that big of an issue, I stumbled upon this pic earlier today on the Campbell website.



I do plan to drive my rig on the road once everything is built, so my main concern is whether or not a configuration such as this would have "street-able" manners. Also, in a configuration such as this, would it be best to mount the "inner" links as close to the diff. as possible, or would it be better to have them mount in the center of the axle? They clearly mounted them as close to the differential.

Guys, let me hear your thoughts on this configuration, because my inquiring mind want to know.

the diff's on the wrong side

you won't be able to do a straight link on the xj, period.

That's what the whole parabola-thingy was all about......get as close as you can to straight arms to make it work.

the parabola works, and is FULLY trail-tested.

sean and I are running the SAME exact arms, but engineered our own center joints....mine works perfectly, just as sean does, yet seans is more direct, uncomplicated, and if the heim joint itself fails (doubt it) replaceable if he carries a spare.

if you want to run a steering box, go ahead. You can quiet all the "what about bumpsteer" people by reminding them that your suspension operates similarly to a leaf sprung vehicle. One ton and I are both running full hydro however.

the wishbone front has been my favorite mod so far.

I've removed several pics of the wishbone from my server, so if you look back to the old threads, and need another look, let me know, I'll upload them again.

about that configuration...

I see that the c-mounts are taking care of axle rotation, and the V links are converging to the same point as the radius arms. Since mine is different than this, I can only make a wild-ass guess as to how it would perform, and i would guess that there would be no discernable difference other than the fact that the axle will cycle straight up and down.

CheapXJ said:

the diff's on the wrong side

Click to expand...

Jackass.

BJ, by straight links, you're referring to the "inner" link correct? Because the radius arms should be somewhat in line with the uni-rails. And from there, where the "inner" links would be straight, I'd need the "parabala" bends to clear the exhaust and all that other sh!t?

Beezil said:

I see that the c-mounts are taking care of axle rotation, and the V links are converging to the same point as the radius arms. Since mine is different than this,

Click to expand...

your gonna hafta post a pic now...

Could that type of triangulation work with a wristed radius arm setup?

Im thinking... thinking

I think it would becuase of the misalignment ability of those spherical bearing ends.

Ashman, I think it would do just fine.

Why are you looking to do this funky trac bar setup rather than something really simple like what's already there? Are you concerned about frame flex, funky travel, what?

I'd make sure the convergent point is in the center, and I'm betting this one is in the center. Of course, this is the only pic I've seen of it too.

Sean

After looking at it and thinking about it a little more, wouldn't it be better if the "inner" links mounted to their own frame mounts as opposed to mounting to the radius arms? It seems that mounting them on the arms wouldn't cure any lateral movement and that essentially, all the links are mounted to the frame by only two mounting points, those being the radius arms. Am I correct with this observation?

Lets for a moment imagine that these crude drawings represent a HP44 1/2 ton housing. The first drawing shows the "inner" links mounted to the radius arms. The second shows them mounted to their own frame mounts in double sheer.

Config. 1,: "inners" mounted to the radius arms.



Config. 2: "inners" mounted directly to the frame, sharing a double sheer mount with the radius arms.



Sean, I really don't have any problems setting this thing up using a trackbar and keeping it simple; I'm just exploring other possible options that could improve it's performance.

Now, you guys are running full hydro on your junk. I highly doubt I'll ever need full hydro; I was really hoping to run an inverted T over the stock Ford knuckles using custom links and heims.

Jason

I agree with Economos I think that they shouldn't be mounted on the radius arms either. But if it works good and has great street manners I might try it. I'd also be interested in finding out how that particular setup would work with wrised arm.

Mark

check my reply on PBB

brett

mad maXJ said:

check my reply on PBB

brett

Click to expand...

Thanks Brett, I'm getting some good feedback over there. It looks like it would have bumpsteer if I retained "mechanical" steering, but I wonder how bad it would actually be? Full hydro is not an option - this thing has to be streetable.

Since all this is still in the pipe dream stage why don't you build some mock ups and see how everything will all work together?The internet doesn't hold all the answers, sometimes you simply need to get your hands dirty and see for yourself. Trial and error.

TN Offroad attempted something like what you have pictured a while back and tried to use converntional steering. Bumpsteer wasn't that bad but when you cranked the wheel the body rolled side to side instead of turning the tires. K.I.S.S., use the trackbar and the radius arms.

Thanks Wes, I didn't see the body roll factor, so I'm glad you brought that to the table. I wish I had all my parts so I could do some mock-ups, but I'm poor and as you said, it's still a pipe dream...

economos, I can help when it comes to building something like this, but I'm hesitant to comment any further since you are trying to keep things "steetable". That wasn't a concern when i did mine, and my standards are pretty low when it comes to that. I wouldn't want to steer you in the wrong direction.

I guess the big thing is to make sure you have a really good reason for not wanting a tracbar, because designing a system that doesn't use one may be more trouble than its worth.

hth

Economos said:

After looking at it and thinking about it a little more, wouldn't it be better if the "inner" links mounted to their own frame mounts as opposed to mounting to the radius arms? It seems that mounting them on the arms wouldn't cure any lateral movement and that essentially, all the links are mounted to the frame by only two mounting points, those being the radius arms. Am I correct with this observation?

Lets for a moment imagine that these crude drawings represent a HP44 1/2 ton housing. The first drawing shows the "inner" links mounted to the radius arms. The second shows them mounted to their own frame mounts in double sheer.

Config. 1,: "inners" mounted to the radius arms.

Config. 2: "inners" mounted directly to the frame, sharing a double sheer mount with the radius arms.

Sean, I really don't have any problems setting this thing up using a trackbar and keeping it simple; I'm just exploring other possible options that could improve it's performance.

Now, you guys are running full hydro on your junk. I highly doubt I'll ever need full hydro; I was really hoping to run an inverted T over the stock Ford knuckles using custom links and heims.

Jason

Click to expand...

Yea I noticed that... In the "REAL" pic, the V Panhard bar attaches on the radius arms afew inches down...and not exactly at the joints...

Imagine the V panhard bar attached half way... it would bind up really bad... as show it is close to the radius attachement but sice it is not it should bind some. If its an issue I dont know...

I still think this would work good with a wristed radius arm setup, but that would be critical that the V panhyard bar attache at teh radius arm attachement...

where is the thread on pirate?
thanks,

are the arms really curved in those drawings? or is that just a crude rendering, and you intend the links to be straight?

BJ, I totally understand why you're hesitant about showing me the "light". Yeah I know my MS Paint layouts are very primative , but it's all I have to work with. I'm fairly sure the inner links would have to be curved like yours... or would they?

Layout with straight inners:



Ashman, here's my Pirate thread.

Thanks guys.

if i could have run straight links I would have, trust me.

I was trying like hell to get them to work, no way in hell.

get some kite string, some twine, whatever.....crawl underneath, and start snapping straightlines where your links will go, and you'll see.

take a look at my lay-out board.....

Beezil said:

if i could have run straight links I would have, trust me.

I was trying like hell to get them to work, no way in hell.

get some kite string, some twine, whatever.....crawl underneath, and start snapping straightlines where your links will go, and you'll see.

Click to expand...

I know you tried everything possible to get straight links, and it looks like the only way to axe the trackbar would be to run a configuration like you and OneTon have. In which case, it's not paramount that I lose the trackbar. I should have dug through your previous threads and done a little better research, but I'm glad I posted the thread anyways. Ford radius arms and a trackbar, here I come.

Thanks a lot Beezil.

Jason.

if you think you are ready to get rid of your trackbar, I can supply you with a pair of curved arms, but the center joint is all you my man.