pocketing frame for long arms...any thoughts?

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

Im thinking on the MJ to decrease the the BOA and increase clearance at the frame by 2" to pocket in the unibody frame rails about 2.5" and reinforce the inside and outside of each with 3/16" or 1/4" about 6" either side of the pocket and an inner brace at the top of the pocket full width and length of the pocket from 1/4"...any thoughts?

Kaczman · Nov 17, 2005

One of the local guys just did the same thing in the front.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=47516

-Jon

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

Kaczman said:
One of the local guys just did the same thing in the front.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=47516

-Jon

I think Id beef it up a little more than that and an actual square pocket? how is it holding up?

88rockxj · Nov 17, 2005

your arms still come down out of the frame the rocks will just hit a different part , i dont understand the gains for the amount of work. build an angled skid plate onto your mounts and put them in the same location yours arms come out through the frame and youll have the same ground clearance. the only way youre going to gain any kind of ground clearance from your control arms is to mount them inboarded on the side of your frame and have them bent so they follow your frame till they get to your tire.

i personaly like my control arms down low so i slide off them instead of dropping down into a hole and onto my frame rails

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

88rockxj said:
your arms still come down out of the frame the rocks will just hit a different part , i dont understand the gains for the amount of work. build an angled skid plate onto your mounts and put them in the same location yours arms come out through the frame and youll have the same ground clearance. the only way youre going to gain any kind of ground clearance from your control arms is to mount them inboarded on the side of your frame and have them bent so they follow your frame till they get to your tire.

i personaly like my control arms down low so i slide off them instead of dropping down into a hole and onto my frame rails

trust me on many trails we run in AZ 2" in the center of the vehicle is make or break, and you are not always moving in forwards...ever hear of reverse?

sliding on the arm is not the issue. it the upper bracket they bolt to. If it is hanging down past the frame it will hang you up.....if its flush it cant. having a smooth frame rail is what we all shoot for.

88rockxj · Nov 17, 2005

but the arm still comes down out of the frame, if there is a slider angled theres no difference between the rocks sliding on the piece of steel that doesnt swing up and down and the control arm that does swing up and down. besides the bolt and nut on the sides theres the same amount of clearance, and when you go in reverse they work even better as a slider because your vehicle slides up them instead of dropping down in a hole where your tire can bind up. works great on ledges with under cuts , its like a ramp instead of steps. but to each his own

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

88rockxj said:
but the arm still comes down out of the frame, if there is a slider angled theres no difference between the rocks sliding on the piece of steel that doesnt swing up and down and the control arm that does swing up and down. besides the bolt and nut on the sides theres the same amount of clearance, and when you go in reverse they work even better as a slider because your vehicle slides up them instead of dropping down in a hole where your tire can bind up. works great on ledges with under cuts , its like a ramp instead of steps. but to each his own

the arms have nothing to do with it.........forget about the arms.........it is the frame side mount we are talking about........... and what does the nut and bolt on the SIDES of the frame have to do with ground clearance?

no difference? you are saying that a 2" mount hanging down in the middle of the frame will not get you caught up any more than a smooth flat frame?

ramped or not the force applied to a small angular area rather than the same force spread over a large flat area the force will be much higher on the small area

RCP Phx · Nov 17, 2005

Seems like alot of work and not gaining all the available benefits.It doesnt look like(in the link above) that there is alot of up travel without opening the pockets higher.Assuming your talking about radius arms,then you also dramatically increase the binding by running them so far apart.I actually still had room to bring mine in a little tighter.

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

RCP Phx said:
Seems like alot of work and not gaining all the available benefits.It doesnt look like(in the link above) that there is alot of up travel without opening the pockets higher.Assuming your talking about radius arms,then you also dramatically increase the binding by running them so far apart.

3 link one radius arm one control arm, with track bar zero bind, and the pic in the link is done very poorly not enough clearance.. and all radus arm kits run that far apart except for TNT

gearwhine · Nov 17, 2005

This is an option I've been looking into fairly deeply. I really like it, but just trying to get myself over how much more work it will take, and if I do decide to go that route what the best way to support the cut out section would be?

This is a great option for someone not wanting to attach the CA's to the crossmember, and causing no clearance problems with exhaust, oilpan, etc. Just have to do the work to get the benefits.

This is basically what some YJ/CJ guys have done with their leaf springs... sinking them into the frame rail, you may want to do a search on that, I know i've seen a few pictures of it done.

88rockXJ, I'm trying real hard to follow your thoughts, but I can't see it. All I got is you like reducing ground clerance, just to stay off your frame rail?

_nicko_

88rockxj · Nov 17, 2005

"88rockXJ, I'm trying real hard to follow your thoughts, but I can't see it. All I got is you like reducing ground clerance, just to stay off your frame rail? "

there was a thread on pirate where it was discussed , ill se eif i can find it as it will explain it better then i can.

what im trying to say is that the arm itself has to come out of the frame at some point and the rocks will hit the arm! if you build your mount on the bottom of the frame, (in the same place your arm comes out of your frame if you were to pocket them), and build it properly with an angle so the rocks slide up it instead of getting caught like it would if it was flat, then you have the same exact clearance except the rocks will hit a solidly mounted piece of steel instead of the round tube on your control arm.

like i said to see any real benifit in ground clearance you have to mount it like the tnt kit and bend your lower arms

the only benifit of pocketing them is your bolt is up a couple inches , not worth the hastle to me.

88rockxj · Nov 17, 2005

here is the thread i was refering to

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=404087

basicly i agree with dans statement towards the bottom of page 1

"I use my links to help me get over things. If you drive fast, they are ramps not anchors. As stated, if a ledge is undercut the high clearance links can allow the tires to wedge under. Generally if I get hung with a link I just hammer it. Everything has its points.

Clicky

http://www.fototime.com/B373D5084CA4B32/conv.wmv

Dan"

Kaczman · Nov 17, 2005

RCP Phx said:
Seems like alot of work and not gaining all the available benefits.It doesnt look like(in the link above) that there is alot of up travel without opening the pockets higher.

It looks like the arm would need to be parallel to the frame rail in order to hit. I can't see any way to get that much uptravel.

The guy admits the execution isn't the cleanest, but it sounds like he's happy with it so far.

-Jon

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

88rockxj said:
"88rockXJ, I'm trying real hard to follow your thoughts, but I can't see it. All I got is you like reducing ground clerance, just to stay off your frame rail? " 1

there was a thread on pirate where it was discussed , ill se eif i can find it as it will explain it better then i can.

what im trying to say is that the arm itself has to come out of the frame at some point and the rocks will hit the arm! if you build your mount on the bottom of the frame, (in the same place your arm comes out of your frame if you were to pocket them), and build it properly with an angle so the rocks slide up it instead of getting caught like it would if it was flat, then you have the same exact clearance except the rocks will hit a solidly mounted piece of steel instead of the round tube on your control arm. 2

like i said to see any real benifit in ground clearance you have to mount it like the tnt kit and bend your lower arms

the only benifit of pocketing them is your bolt is up a couple inches , not worth the hastle to me.

1 you have no clue,......on most trails we travel speed is not an option, and the control arms have absolutely nuthin to do with it, so forget the control arms/links This whole thread is about the mounts only ok? LOL

2 forget the damn arms already. and if you place all the vehicle weight on the mount ramped or not the weight is still concentrated in one small area...get it?

If you spread the weight on a FLAT piece it will slide with much less effort. because it is flat. and how the hell can you have the same clearance if you have a bracket hanging down from the frame? The frame rail is what we are using to ride on.

2" lower is 2" lower in my book if its not in your then you need to go back to school

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

Kaczman said:
It looks like the arm would need to be parallel to the frame rail in order to hit. I can't see any way to get that much uptravel.

The guy admits the execution isn't the cleanest, but it sounds like he's happy with it so far.

-Jon

that is the same or more uptravel as the RE or other longa arm kits 2 1/2" at the the frame end equates to alot at the axle end around 8" to 10" depending on how far back the frame mount is

CRASH · Nov 17, 2005

I see an issue with turning radius. My LCA's are way inboard on the frame side, and I still just kiss them with the tires.

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

CRASH said:
I see an issue with turning radius. My LCA's are way inboard on the frame side, and I still just kiss them with the tires.

withmy 35's it does not appear to be a factor the arms are centerd over th framr rail now. The D44 still turns lock to lock

gearwhine · Nov 17, 2005

CRASH said:
I see an issue with turning radius. My LCA's are way inboard on the frame side, and I still just kiss them with the tires.

What is your WMS-WMS, Tire size, and Wheel size/backspacing?

rockwerks · Nov 17, 2005

gearwhine said:
What is your WMS-WMS, Tire size, and Wheel size/backspacing?

for me its stock width axles, 15x9 beadlocks and 3.5" back spacing

gearwhine · Nov 17, 2005

xjnation said:
for me its stock width axles, 15x9 beadlocks and 3.5" back spacing

yeah, right now I'm with the stock 30, 3.75" BS on 15x8's, and 33x12.5's I have rubbing on the frame when stuffed and turned.

I'm planned to pick up a F250 D44 next week (~67") and probably run stock hummer beadlocks (gives ~74-75" track width with 13.5" tires) or maybe H2 wheels, with somewhere around 36-37" tires. I have two ideas for link placement, but the turn clearance is something I completely neglected with this in the framerail idea.

pocketing frame for long arms...any thoughts?

NAXJA Forum User

Lurker

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Lurker

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

NAXJA Forum User

Similar threads