The Wishbone MIGHT work! lotza PICS

[Beezil]

I *think* I have the wishbone correct, and maybe managed to fabricate something that will actually hold up to the side-loading that wishbone suspensions have to endure. The key is the articulating joint that has to do two jobs: locate the axle from side-shifting like the tracbar used to do, as well as maintain caster/pinion angle throughout its travel in its arc. The only thing left to do now is test the damn thing!

I have a bunch of detail pics of the jont itself , if anyone is interested, I'll post them.

here's the updated pics:

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone31.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone33.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone35.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone36.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone40.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone43.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone45.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/wishbone46.JPG

[XJJPR]

Beezil,

It's going to need a track bar!

hinkley

[Ted Z]

Not like that it won't... The wishbone will only move in the vertical plane.... Sweet setup beez

[Rev Den]

Elegant, artwork, masterfull, Hmmm, maybe the best word is....WOW.

Rev

[KY Chris]

damn B. That is some fine lookin' fabbing. I want your Jeep to have babies.

[palmrose2]

?

Seems like a straight A frame would take more side stress without bending.

I'm sure there is reason to your design.

I think adding a track bar to this would invite problems with the bar fighting the bone. A bar moves the axle sideways a little through the travel. This design, if it works out, will keep the axle moving STRAIGHT up and down.

[Beezil]

ted, hinkley knows that....it was a predictable attack on my welding (or forgetfulness of)

palm.....before the parabola, I was trying to get either a true fourlink, or an a-frame to work.....

with a fore-aft (paralell) dimension of 36" (not link length point-to-point) you can't do a straight arm without hitting the bellhousing and oilpan......the parabola is the next strongest, most geometrically efficient shape next ot he triangle.....stronger than a basic U arm.......I bumped into an engineering site (I think it was some kind of grad thesis) on calculating the stregth of geometric shapes that could be quantified without bringing inherent material strengths into the mix....pretty interesting although i couldn't really make heads or tails of it in order to understand the math, just grasped enough to understand that the parabola was a good route to go in lieu of a straight link.....

real testing is needed to back up the this type-written nonsense.

[M. Lake]

Is there going to be issues with the left side of the wish hitting the DS on flex?

[4ward]

Lookin' good capt'n. You may want to consider spreading your mount plates a little wider so that your heim bodies don't hit the sides before they run out of misalignment. Maybe you've thought of this already, but in the pics things look kinda tight. I use 1" spacers on either side of my heims. Could probably go down to 3/4" and still be fine.

[Beezil]

is there going to be issues with the left side of the wish hitting the DS on flex?

gawd I hope not! can't check articulation clearance at this point!

[MaXJohnson]

FAB-u-lous

I can just picture you like "Edward Scissor Hands" only with shears, center punches and bastard files.

That is some fine looking junk :cool:

[4ward]

Your upper mount height appears to be the same as mine. My problem isn't with the driveshaft, it's with the top of the housing during compression. Mine just barely kisses it under full compression.

[ChiXJeff]

Wow..... that's some hell for stout fabbing. Are you planning to box in or reinforce the frame end mounts?

Hope I'm wrong, but with the longer arms, your joints are going to have to stay real tight to keep the axle located left-and-and-right.

[Beezil]

Your upper mount height appears to be the same as mine. My problem isn't with the driveshaft, it's with the top of the housing during compression. Mine just barely kisses it under full compression

one slump,

I guess I never looked to see where I'd be right about there. I focused so heavily on the d-shaft, I didn't check the housing......I guess I figured I'd have it cleared witht eh funky shape.....I'll look at it tomorrow.


jeff........yep!

but I know that anytime you go to moab, you carry your "heim tightener" tool with you.......please remember it.

:D

[C-ROK]

With a straight bushing at the axle do you think it is pliable enough to allow for the axle misalignment that will occur in articulation? I personally think the bushing will flex enough but you might find yourself killing bushings in the process.

I went with a vertical mounted 3" JJ for my rear wishbone. The JJ is able to turn through the threads and I obtain the same rotational freedom that you are looking for with your bearing swivel thing but the combination of the vertical mounted bolt and the JJ itself allows for the axle misalignment when one side drops and pulls that end of the axle forward.

[M. Lake]

Question about the LCA's. Putting the bend in just before the axlemount, does this cause give in the arms on rocks or under flex? Something like that and some how working in a triangled 3 link (kind of like the wish but with straighter arms) on front and rear, but have no experience in the the way it would work.

[Beezil]

c-rok: hmmmmmmmmmmm interesting.

lake: I have no idea. I have as much experience with this as you do. good question.

[Flowers]

I will be contacting the city of St. Louis today. Expect a call from their attorney's for infringing upon a historical landmark.

Flowers

[XJJPR]

Originally posted by C-ROK
With a straight bushing at the axle do you think it is pliable enough to allow for the axle misalignment that will occur in articulation? I personally think the bushing will flex enough but you might find yourself killing bushings in the process.


Greg,

You can't tell from these pictures but,

That joint right behind the bushing rotates 360* on tappered bearings. Plenty of movement for articulation.

mark
orgs mfg

[ChEwBaCcA]

Lol, @ Flowers,

Looks good, looks real good, and your moms must be on summer vacation because those welds look real good.

If its not 100% you can always redesign the whole thing at SlickRock along side of Bones!

Chew... no barky fab in that thing..bacca

[Beezil]

mark, i think he means the action that comes from "axle steer"......

if that's what he meant I'm catching his drift....axle steer should be very minimal considering the length of the lower links, and the fact that they are only like 15-degrees angled at static height, so the operating arc difference are somewhat tame during cross-up.

I'll keep an eye on it though.

[C-ROK]

It was the axle steer I was refering to.

I thought about it a little more and I think you're probably right Beez. With the length of the arms and the slight inward angle, your drop steer misalignment should be pretty small.

It would be pretty easy to estimate on some graph paper. You could get an estimate of the degree of mislaignment and then simply check it on the bushing by hand.
I can guarantee the bushing isn't going to restrict any articulation. Worst case, you may consume some bushings over time.

My front radius arms use poly bushings at the axle end and I go through about a set of bushings a year due to the differing caster rotation that each arm imposes during articulation.

[Economos]

Wow... yeah.

[satan]

Hey, why not run your polu bushing on a vertical pin -- it articulates already for roll - running it vertical will allow massive (granted a bit off-center) steer (yaw) ---

Or am I 'late to the show' and that's been your plan all along?

[XJJPR]

Originally posted by C-ROK
It was the axle steer I was refering to.

I thought about it a little more and I think you're probably right Beez. With the length of the arms and the slight inward angle, your drop steer misalignment should be pretty small.

It would be pretty easy to estimate on some graph paper. You could get an estimate of the degree of mislaignment and then simply check it on the bushing by hand.
I can guarantee the bushing isn't going to restrict any articulation. Worst case, you may consume some bushings over time.

My front radius arms use poly bushings at the axle end and I go through about a set of bushings a year due to the differing caster rotation that each arm imposes during articulation.

Ok

I was thinking that would be minimal also, poly should be fine for that, that is why I thought you missed the bearing joint.

mark
orgs mfg

[Beezil]

Hey, why not run your polu bushing on a vertical pin -- it articulates already for roll - running it vertical will allow massive (granted a bit off-center) steer (yaw) ---

and then you loose your ability to swivel about the vertical travel of the axle up and down.....more movement to worry about than the minimal axle steer. I should be okay.

[Blix]

There is some validity to your parabolic theory, but from what I remember it has to be a near-perfect parabola. Either way, it doesn't matter much because that is pretty much the shape you had to take to get around the pan. If you are worried that your Wishbone will fold with some extreme cornering, you might be able to weld in a curved strut from half to half that would curve right underneath the oil pan at full jounce. It would probably be one hell of an arc, but it should be strong enough to keep the wishbone tied together.

-Steve

[88justin]

On that note, during cornering, the stress concentrations in the wishbone are at the bushings where they connect to the parabola, and along the inside edge of the parabola. you might consider taking some measurements and seeing if some small gussets might fit near the heims, or the Poly bushing. Of course,you could also sleeve some portions of the parabola. I do like Blix's idea, but that may have to be an awkward shape.

Looks good!

[88justin]

i guess gussets wouldnt really fit at the heim ends, maby a sleeve would work in that location.

[MaXJohnson]

For the sake of discussion, I would think that the strength of the parabola would relative to force in direction "A" in the picture, not "B" where it is needed. Even considering "A", the strength is in the upper portion of the parabola, truncated by the horizontal yellow line and this assumes the legs are constrained where the yellow line dissects the arch.

The ideal shape would be the yellow triangle. At 45°, the arms take the full load of lateral forces in compression and tension of the arms. This triangle would be weakened by the use of curved arms which would not handle the compressive force nearly as well as a straight tube.

For a more acute triangle, as indicated in purple, less of the load is handled by the arms in compression and tension. The difference is handled by the beam strength of the arms.

A partial solution would be to widen the base of the triangle by moving the rear mounting points further apart. IIRC, this is what OneTon did by using the LCA mounts for his upper wishbone.

http://home.everestkc.net/alynloya/Wishbone33z.JPG

[Beezil]

I cannot widen the arms....

that shape represents the most efficient shape that fits in that MOST confined space!

I contend that the parabola is stonger than if I did a "U" arm with a constant radius. Since I have the ability to fabricate multi-radius forms, I went with the parabola shape. I tried like hell to fit a triangle, and there's no question that is the strongest form.

[88justin]

I think that you have some nice points there, i like the picture!

The more accute triangle would still have side tubes in tension and compression, just the forces would be greater. At the same time, less force in the direction of B vector would go into the mounts.

nevertheless, the apparent shortcommings of the parabola geometry can be overcomed by the strength of the construction material. If this particular design is too compliant and feels loose in the lateral direction, use a stronger tube. common sense.

adding some flat plates on the outsides and insides of hte parabola would increase its resistance to bending laterally. Im thinking somethingk like some 3/16" X 1.5" X the length of the curve. Square material is ideal for bending loading conditions.


enough said. This suspension is PIMP

[XJguy]

Originally posted by Beezil
gawd I hope not! can't check articulation clearance at this point!

That has been my concern in trying to figure out a way to do what youre doing Beez.

Great work by they way.

XJguy

[XJguy]

Beez, how about triangulating the lower arms. Have them converge to the center at the body end. I dont know if this would actually fit but if it did, you then have 100% assurance you will not have any axle centering problems and you will not rely soley on the UCA for it. And if you decide to attatch it by one rod end, it will be one less to worry about loosening.

XJguy

[Scott Mac.]

Originally posted by Beezil
I cannot widen the arms....

that shape represents the most efficient shape that fits in that MOST confined space!

I contend that the parabola is stonger than if I did a "U" arm with a constant radius. Since I have the ability to fabricate multi-radius forms, I went with the parabola shape. I tried like hell to fit a triangle, and there's no question that is the strongest form.

Your research tells you that that shape is the most efficient shape that fits in the space you have available.

I think Alyn is trying to tell you that that shape is only efficient when the forces are moving from the point to the base. Not from side to side.

Spank me if I'm wrong.:moon:

Looks sweet. Paint it bright yellow so we can all see it work.:)

[magoo117]

How about some pics of the joint.What bearings did you use?You said your wishbone is 36",what is the length of your lower arms?sould they be the same length?I have Clayton's setup on mine now and I want to get rid of the tracbar,this looks like the deal for me.

[Beezil]

Beez, how about triangulating the lower arms. Have them converge to the center at the body end

I tired to do a double triangulated link design for the front using straight arms.....

YOU CAN'T.

not without some serious trade-offs namely, clearancing everything else that needs to be there....

driveshaft
exhaust
oilpan
motorstarter
bellhousing
transmission
fuel lines-brakelines (become an issue when having to keep them opposed from wherever the exhaust needs to go)

if any of you are confused by any of this, get on your creeper and crawl under your rigs, and you'll be able to understand how very limited you are in running links differently.

I am not saying the parabola is some magically strong shape. OF COURSE TRIANGLES ARE STRONGER! but the parabola is certiainly stronger than a "wishbone" with 90-degree/6" centerline radius bends going to the center joint, which has a very confined stress area, which I might add, will hit the top of the differential housing, whereas the parabola clears the diff housing too, and has about 2-3 inches more travle before it hits the area right where the pinion seal is.

the parabola is the most efficient shape fitment wise
it is stronger than a "U" arm
I was actually able to MAKE the shape I needed, no compromises fabrication-wise.

I enjoy critique, so fire at me!


:)

[MaXJohnson]

Beezil, I'm not suggesting you change the shape. I think you picked the right shape. OneTon and Matt both went with a square with rounded corners. You parabola is superior to that and it's obvious that a pure triangle wouldn't fit. I'm just looking at ways you could optimize your shape. A broader base is one way to lessen the strain on the tube members. A shorter triangle, from the base to the swivel would be another(moving the rear mounts forward). This would require considerations in the side view.

Adding material strength and weight will offset the problems with design shape. Matt had problems with his lower arms and the axle joint of the upper, but I haven't heard of his or OneTons upper arms bending or failing. Your's looks to be the best of the bunch.

[Beezil]

Max, I know, you didn't have to explain at all, I LIVE for debate and open critique..... Yeah, there are one or two ways I could strengthen the shape, and if I could do it by changing proportions or length, I would have, but dammit, there are limitations and constraints everywheere!!!! arghhh!

I may be able to bridge the joint area with a web, we'll see.

the project is not finished because I am awaiting delivery of a steering ram I've been waiting 10 weeks to get...I'll have to seehow much room I have left over after it is installed.

until then, I am working on the rear now, which I have some preliminary pics of...I am leaving for the shop right after I'm done with this coffee, and I'll be metal-bitchin' all day...

magoo here's the joint....4130/or40 body, machined from solid stock to accept a pair of identical timken tapered roller bearings.

the shaft is 8620 alloy steel, with a fine thread cut into it to accept a top-locking nut, tightening adjusts the preload on the bearings. the joint is serviceable.

I forget the specs on the bearing in terms of trust and radial loads, but I remember thinking they were adequate.

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/joint4.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/joint1.JPG

http://users.rcn.com/beezil/public/joint6.JPG

[Chark]

Nice work Beez.....I just can't believe the amount of BS on everyone's opinion of "what you could of done". I realize what's real world and like you....can now only try the damn thing!!! Again, nice work and in my opinion..."It will work".

[Beezil]

hey, the reason I posted the pics was to get feedback, I don't take it as BS...the thing is, I can't really utilize any of the ideas posted here. Shit, I don't even know where the exhaust will go now! I figured I'd worry about that later.....

The thing that was important was one-ton talking me into sawing off anything that was in my way, including the exhaust/brakelines and fuel lines, and having that NOT be a distraction. if I kept the exhaust in place, I would have whimped-out on link placement at the frame, and I wouldn't have stuck with the original (so-called "optimal") link locations.....where the exhaust is currently, would have been a lame excuse no to go ahead with the link routes I wanted to run....

the same thing goes for the rear....when you see what I've done, is the result of having my "jeep psycology" modified....I began discussing link seperations and mounting locations, and I reply something like "I see where you are putting "link X", but you realize that is above the floorboard right?" and the responce is "Yep, sheetmetal sucks".......

so its been an extremly rewarding experience to change the way I "see" modifications....once you change your view that the xj platform is a "blank canvass" you realize how many times you've seen other modifications posted that conform too much to constraints that aren't really constraints......ex.: two of my rear links needed to go through the floor boards to imaginary spaces (soon to be actual locations) that make the geometry optimal, or at least ideal. One Funk helped me remember that I own cutting equpiment. Everything is a trade-off, the better part of the deal is usually the most difficult or labor/material intensive solution...how far do you wanna take it?

posting pics here for open critique is part of the process of measuring those boundaries.

[vintagespeed]

Steering rams can be found cheaply at www.surpluscenter.com they ship usually the next day, I got mine in 3 days.

Trailer axles can be found at local trailer sales shops or at Rockstomper http://www.rockstomper.com/catalog/pieces/hinge.htm for those of you so inclined.

I think the arms are gonna work fine, the lower frame ends where the heims are look wimpy to me, but I'm used to looking at my JJ ends.

[Beezil]

unfortunatly, my orbital valve is 9.7 cu in, and the closest sized ram would give me 1.4 turns lock.....

that's scary quick.

yeah, i was thinking about going that route, but that would have meant also buying ANOTHER valve, somewhere around 5-6 cu in.......

I was past the point of no return, and I was told the ram shipped already....

gotta go with it i guess.

I was wondering....on a double-ended ram, I can put that thing off-center, can't I?

I can't imagine it effecting anything....

[Fullsizexj]

If you mount it off center, the only thing that you will have to keep in mind is that the angle if any to the arms must not change the amount/distance of the throw/push/pull uf the steering knuckles. Would not want it to steer pigion toed

[vintagespeed]

I dont know what the hell Burrow is talking about, as usual. You should be fine with it off center as long as it's inline between the steering arms. But then you'll have to carry 2 sets of tie-rods instead of just one spare.

[4ward]

I don't think carrying spare tie rods should even be considered with your setup. If you've taken out a tie rod, you've taken out your entire steering setup.

Mounting a doubel ended ram off center is going to affect the radiuses (???) that the tie rods travel in. I guess they should actually be called drag links though, eh? Maybe we'll just call them steering links. Anyhow, as you turn your wheel your knuckles travel in an arc. I would think that if you have different length arms on your ram, the arc that the knuckles travel on is going to fight with the ram due to the different radiuses the steering links are going to be traveling on. I could be wrong, but I'm thinkin' I'm right this time.

[Beezil]

too bad for you link man, the ram will be offcenter.

[vintagespeed]

1Ton, yes but if he carries a second ram & T/Rs then he's GTG. I think the rods will be fine with heims on each end, they should handle the arcs just fine.

[Beezil]

a second double-ended ram as a spare?

That's a joke right?

just working on my first cup of coffee, so I'm a bit gullible right now....

[Fullsizexj]

Why not, you could put in the back next to your spare engine in front of the spare trans

[4ward]

keep it next to your 4 spare tires and extra t case too :rolleyes:

There is no doubt in my mind that the heims and whatever material he chooses to use as links can handle it. I don't know if this is going to cause push/ pull/ bind issues inside the ram. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather overthink it than waste $300+ on another ram.

[brent]

looks great beezil, just a thought for the next one you build, put the "A" arm on the bottom hooking to the lower part of the axle tube in the middle of the housing, run the upper links strait back. no driveline issues, the "A" will set under the oil pan and even act as a skid.

[Gojeep]

Originally posted by brent
looks great beezil, just a thought for the next one you build, put the "A" arm on the bottom hooking to the lower part of the axle tube in the middle of the housing, run the upper links strait back. no driveline issues, the "A" will set under the oil pan and even act as a skid.

Thought about that one myself but read in a book on the subject that the A mount on the axle determins the roll centre and it would not work that low in c relation to the upper mounts was the reason I think. Too long ago now and have long since returned the book but was disappointed that it couldn't be done safely.
There are guys here that would know it better than me and give the reason why it is never done;)

[brent]

I've seen it done on a couple of rigs, and it seamed to work well for as well as the drivers could drive, which wasn't saying much for these punks.

[ashmanjeepxj]

Back from the dead!!!

Anyone still have the pictures... all RED X's
I remember it was pretty clean, Im looking at a wishbone or triangulated 4link for my front with full hydraulic. keep bending leafs.

[JeepFreak21]

Back from the dead!!!

Anyone still have the pictures... all RED X's
I remember it was pretty clean, Im looking at a wishbone or triangulated 4link for my front with full hydraulic. keep bending leafs.

I think they're all on XJDB (http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/)... just search for Beezil or Wishbone.
Billy

[Rev Den]

Or....PM Phunk.

Rev

[BrettM]

i always forget how you spell his username (kazcman?), but this guy from Colorado has a nice front triangulated 4 link and full hydro:

http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/d/2464-2/177727067PARhYQ_ph.jpg
http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/d/2057-2/19_194.jpg

[OT]

I think they're all on XJDB (http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/)... just search for Beezil or Wishbone.
Billy
What about searching "parabola boy"?
:roflmao:

[JeepFreak21]

i always forget how you spell his username (kazcman?), but this guy from Colorado has a nice front triangulated 4 link and full hydro:

http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/d/2464-2/177727067PARhYQ_ph.jpg
http://www.xjdb.com/gallery/d/2057-2/19_194.jpg

Kaczman. And definitely one of my favorite rigs! http://www.slicky.net/smilies/cool.gif
Billy

[ashmanjeepxj]

So far that has been my favorate example. I like the 4link better then then wishbone. the Wish bone I was mostly interested in the frame mounts for the upper arms.

I dont have much room with my big Th400 auto, drive shaft on one side and exhaust on the other.

This is the best pic of his links I found while searching yesterday.
http://wheelingarizona.com/forums/files/thumbs/t_flopsized_501.jpg

I'll go on XJdb and search some more I forgot to check there...

[Weasel]

so hows the project coming ashman? and were did Beezil disappear off to?

[ashmanjeepxj]

so hows the project coming ashman? and were did Beezil disappear off to?

Its leading into more project. Drivetrain wise its great. The 350 on propane the 400 and 203-205 are sweet but the weight is killing my old leafspring design...since saturdays bent leafs I diging up front 4link desings... so more down time for me.
I have some video in my build up thread where it bent my leaf on not a tough trail.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139642

[Lincoln]

so hows the project coming ashman? and were did Beezil disappear off to?

He has gone back to his ways when he was just a wee youngin. Cry's and pisses his pants nowdays.

[Kaczman]

Ash- Billy should have all the pics I've posted. If you need more for some ideas, let me know. It's a tight fit, but I think it is worth the effort.

-Jon

[ashmanjeepxj]

Ash- Billy should have all the pics I've posted. If you need more for some ideas, let me know. It's a tight fit, but I think it is worth the effort.
-Jon

I downloaded all your pictures and measured under my rig last night and Mines even Tighter, With the V8 I have more exhaust issues for the upper frame mounts passenger side. Only 26in long uppers about 40 degrees and about 35in lowers will fit same as yours. 26in links are really short I was hoping to get 16in travel coilovers on it and those short links might not work for that.

Im really worried about heat on the upper frame mount joints. I have my 2.25in exhaust all wrapped in headder wrap but it gets HOT. My passenger floor board gets screamin hot with only a single layer stainless steel tranny tunnel. I was planning to do polly at the frame and heims at the axle for the uppers. yours are all heims, those would hold up better in the heat. I know the polly would melt. I am not going to re-do my exhaust again, If anything Ill upgrade it to large tube and dual exhaust so that clearance will only get worse.

My only option for making the upper links longer is to do a cross member like 2in box tube (removeable with flanges) similar to the long arm kits and mount both the lowers and uppers to the cross tube. Almost the same pivot point like radius arms, same crapy anti lift, but should not bind up like radius arms and 4 links = more then 3 links for material strength.

This weekend I plan to cut off all my leaf brackets weld a jig from the frame to the axle and start the lower links, Even If I do radius arms over the 4link the lower links will be in the same place.

[BrettM]

Ashman, your rig doesn't strike me as one suited or idealized for high-speed, overall wheel-travel, but rather crawling and articulation. If that's true, you could use a wishbone from the bumper area to the center of the axle. It will do crazy things to the pinion angle if you let the center of the axle travel more than a few inches (I'm guessing 8" would be fine), but would not affect articulation.

[ashmanjeepxj]

Ashman, your rig doesn't strike me as one suited or idealized for high-speed, overall wheel-travel, but rather crawling and articulation. If that's true, you could use a wishbone from the bumper area to the center of the axle. It will do crazy things to the pinion angle if you let the center of the axle travel more than a few inches (I'm guessing 8" would be fine), but would not affect articulation.

I though of that too.

Id do a parallel 3 link wih panhard bar before that I have room for the upper and lower arms on the drivers side but not the passenger side. Isnt that what you did?

High speed, no, but 45mph on rough roads needs to be able to soak it up.

[BrettM]

there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 3 link with panhard. a lot of people use them with great results, from comp buggies with full-hydro to street/trail rigs with normal (draglink) steering.

once again, the URF 3-link seems to be the answer. don't fear the panhard. in hindsight I wish I had done a 3 link w/ panhard in the rear of mine rather than a triangulted/wishbone 3 link.

[JamesD]

Awesome thread guys. Alot of great info to a newb like me.

[ashmanjeepxj]

I updated my build up thread,
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5877675#post5877675




My lowers are where I want them, the uppers are flexable.


Longer and flat upper link option (http://www.wheelingarizona.com/forums/download.php?id=6098Long )


Short and angled upper link option (http://www.wheelingarizona.com/forums/download.php?id=6097)

I think the shorter link design is better but only if my drive shaft does not bind up at 10in of drop...

long is the easy option though it might not be as stable and might have some anti lift feal.

What do you think?

Lowers. 2.25in 3/8in DOM 1.25in Rod ends, 1.5in polly
http://www.wheelingarizona.com/forums/files/thumbs/t_000_0005_103.jpg

Uppers 1.5in 125 wall DOM, 7/8in rod ends 1.5in polly
http://www.wheelingarizona.com/forums/files/thumbs/t_000_0007_818.jpg

http://www.wheelingarizona.com/forums/files/thumbs/t_100_1680_125.jpg

[flexy92xj]

Had a failure on my upper wishbone link... should have extended the gusseting down to the bushing when I first built the arm... sleeved, welded and more gusseting and its good to go.

Just posting for group benefit... side loads on the wishbone are what I think caused the failure.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2076205130032428117pATWjn

[hadfield4wd]

Good thing you had 400 ratchet straps with you.

[RWKHausSupply]

Had a failure on my upper wishbone link... should have extended the gusseting down to the bushing when I first built the arm... sleeved, welded and more gusseting and its good to go.

Just posting for group benefit... side loads on the wishbone are what I think caused the failure.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2076205130032428117pATWjn

I disagree yet agree, depending on how you ment this...

As Rockkrawler found out through many broken rear TJ wishbones on thier rear "tri-link" system back some yrs ago...

On the design/setup like you had/have and the very similiar RK setup, the wishbone has such loads also being applied by the unibody rails as well as the rotational torque and the side loads of the axle housing.

Meaning.. The wishbone is acting as a Very solid crossmember that is trying to siffen the rails, and if you know how flexable a XJ can be in the area of the chassis where you have the body side mounts of the wishbone at, you know then how much flex that wishbone is trying to prevent.

Thats with also the axle forces, I would say you ran in to the same exact issues RK did. The wish bone acted like a paper clip, it was flexed one way then another just one to many times, no matter how small it (the flexing) was...

I will say it prolly lasted double what it would have if you used Hiems at the body end at least. The poly was able to deflect some and give to some of the squeezing and pulling apart forces of the chassis.

If you stay with this design I Highly recommend a cross member located right at your body end of the wishbone mounts. This is prohibit the chassis flex from distroying another wishbone or link ends..

Just IMO.... But givin that I personally was a RK failier customer 2 times with thier wishbone and with over a dozen hiems in about 3 months, I have some experience in this.

[flexy92xj]

robert, I tried to stiffen the unibody as much as possible with three underbody cross members, but I'm sure there is still a little movement... don't know how much it contributed to the break.

...heres a shot of the brace behind the wishbone body mounts, ties into the brackets for the lower arms.
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1099870781032428117rdDHvf


...had to borrow a bunch of ratchet straps that day, 8 in total to locate the axle pretty solidly

[BrettM]

for a rear application like that.... why not a 4 link?

[flexy92xj]

Just decided to go with a wishbone setup instead of a 4 link... just a choice I made early on not a whole lot of reasoning for choosing one over the other. I am very pleased with how it rides and flexes and is now much beefier after the fix... need some more time to test longevity.