Case, you wanting to lower your Rubicon from 5.5 to 4.5?

Was the added height making it unstable?

LOL, jake so true!  I am amazed at how much Jeremy can carry.  Air tools, parts, chainsaw, etc etc...   :-)

he is well prepared.

Case, that is interesting about the RE 4.5" coils.  I would bet that having a jeep that is lifted is much different than what you are used to though.  How long did you ride on a stock jeep with flat fenders and 32's?

Maybe going to a wider tire?  More offset on the rims?  I have no clue man...I saw some of the pictures of your jeep flexed online during the short span they were public domain.  So you would recommend going with the 4.5" and 35's instead of the 5.5" even though the price is the same?  Maybe you could find a used set of 37's to try and see if some 37's that are wider maybe 12" would be more stable?  Although a regear would be in order at that point...

Case, I think the "tipsy" feeling is because of the increased body roll of the super soft springs, NOT the ride hieght itself. I don't think that lowering it an inch will help you at all.

Several of us toyota guys have experienced the same problems with "super flexy" leaf springs. One for example: Donnie Woodall had 5" all-pro front springs on his toyota. It flexed like mad, but it felt the body was mounted on a slinky. It had some fierce body roll. It "felt" like it was going to tip over even on a slight side-hill. He just changed them out for 3" downey front springs (yes, old school) and put the factory rear springs back on the rear. Thanksgiving weekend was his first ride with the new springs and his truck performed WAY better than it ever did with the 5" all-poos. The difference was amazing. I think the all-pro springs were way too tall and too soft of a spring rate. I think this is your situation also.

Seems that the lift manufacturers are so concerned about getting every inch of articulation out of their products that they forget that your suspension does more than just flex, but it seems everyone wants to have a ramp champ flex machine so I guess that where the money's at.

I guess if you wheeled rockpiles on flat terrain a ton of flex would be great. For the terrain we wheel I don't think a lot of wheel travel is neccesary. I think your red jeep just how it is, stock but with lockers and good tires would spank your rubicon. Don't get me wrong, your rubi did great, but I think your red jeep could do better.

This is just my two cents on the matter.

I'd post it on Pirate but if I were you, I'd leave out the part about the curb at the mall.

Otherwise, I think you are on the right track.  Low Center Of Gravity!  Break out the sawzall!

Case, I don't think that shocks will make a noticable difference. I've had several brands and styles and I can't tell any difference.

How much do your coils springs compress with the weight of the vehicle on them? If they are, for instance, 20" long unloaded, but only measure 15" with the weight of the jeep on them then you have 5" worth of stored energy. When you get in an off camber situation and the weight shifts to one side, then the spring on the uphill side wants to release the 5" and go back to 20". See what I'm trying to say?

This is also an issue when climbing something steep. When I had the "rears up front" on my toyota, they had about 8" of arch when they were off the truck. With the weight of the truck on them they only had about 3" of arch, so therefore they had about 5" of compression "stored". Anytime you compress a spring it wants to rebound back to a "free" state. Right? OK, when I would get on a steep hill and the weight would transfer to the rear my front springs would unload badly making the front feel light. If I was rolling backwards on a steep hill and hit the brakes it felt like it was going to flip over backwards.

I had some wore out generic 3" front springs on my old '84 and NEVER had any issues. I ended up getting these springs back from BJ after he bought 4" Marlins and put them on my '89. I stood these up in the floor next to my "rears up front" and they had about 3" less arch, but when I put them on the truck it sits about an inch higher. Totally solved he problem. My truck feels more stable, and it performs much better than it did.

Back to Jeeps, Heath has the 6" skyjacker longarm on his rubicon. The problem I've noticed with it is that when he is climbing something steep there seems to be very little weight on the front tires. The front end will unload bad enough that the coil spring is completly loose. I think some of this is due to the front/back weight ratio of a jeep. Jeeps tend to be very rear heavy. I think they are close to 50/50 weight ratio whereas a toyota is more like 70/30.

Does this make any sense to anybody but me.  

bluetoy wrote: ....... Back to Jeeps, Heath has the 6" skyjacker longarm on his rubicon. The problem I've noticed with it is that when he is climbing something steep there seems to be very little weight on the front tires. The front end will unload bad enough that the coil spring is completly loose. I think some of this is due to the front/back weight ratio of a jeep. Jeeps tend to be very rear heavy. I think they are close to 50/50 weight ratio whereas a toyota is more like 70/30. Does this make any sense to anybody but me.

Don't recall what part, but there was at least one time when you were climbing something during our *last ride* and your front springs were loose.  One of Nick's friends even commented on it.

Al

bluetoy wrote: I think the all-pro springs were way too tall and too soft of a spring rate.

They sag substantially over time and settle to be much lower than they start out.  Look at this pic when I first installed the allpros:

versus how it sits now:

Major sag.  I like em.  Dont judge these springs new.

alabamatoy wrote: bluetoy wrote: I think the all-pro springs were way too tall and too soft of a spring rate. They sag substantially over time and settle to be much lower than they start out.  Major sag.  I like em.  Dont judge these springs new.

I agree. Major sag with trail use.

Also major axle wrap and major un-loading.

Notice the distance your shock is extended. Your axle is not articulated at all.

Think about this: for your rig to move forward, the tires get traction, traction from the tires = forward energy, forward energy is transferred from the tires to the frame via your leaf spring. So your axle is pushing against the spring, the spring is pushing against the frame, your rig moves forward. Simple. Or is it? Think about HOW this force is being applied to the frame.

Notice the difference between the yellow and blue lines. This is the direction force is being applied to your frame.

With a lot of arch in your springs you are pushing below the frame, this tends to make the springs "bow up" and makes the front tires run away from the truck. This is the reason you need so much slip on the front driveshaft. I have seen rigs that could max the suspension out on a ramp and the driveshaft would not come apart, but as soon as they started up a steep climb the front driveshaft would seperate because the front axle tried to run out from under the truck.

Another contributing factor is shackle angle and length. Notice that your shackle is vertical with the springs strecthed way out. If it was shorter and vertical on flat gound with the springs compressed it would limit how far the axle tries to run away from the truck. The shackle is the only thing limiting this.

This is hard to explain over the computer, but we (the skyline toys) have been studying and experimenting with this for some time now. We have ran about every spring combo possible at one time or another. We have come to the conclusion that the long travel springs are not what works best on a toyota.

bluetoy wrote: Notice the distance your shock is extended. Your axle is not articulated at all.

That's incorrect, its signficantly drooped, look at the top of the tire versus bottom of fender and compare to the stationary level pic.  Also, look at the silhouette of the right side tire, its much higher, yet the hoor is not visible which it would be if the rig was tilted towards the drivers side.  The shock cannot extend without drooping the axle, they are attached! :-)

bluetoy wrote: With a lot of arch in your springs you are pushing below the frame, this tends to make the springs "bow up" and makes the front tires run away from the truck. This is the reason you need so much slip on the front driveshaft. I have seen rigs that could max the suspension out on a ramp and the driveshaft would not come apart, but as soon as they started up a steep climb the front driveshaft would seperate because the front axle tried to run out from under the truck.

That can be due to axle wrap alone, but could be worsened by the spring flex.  What you are saying is that you want a real soft spring with very little arch AT REST (loaded).

bluetoy wrote: Another contributing factor is shackle angle and length. Notice that your shackle is vertical with the springs strecthed way out. If it was shorter and vertical on flat gound with the springs compressed it would limit how far the axle tries to run away from the truck. The shackle is the only thing limiting this.

No, the flex of the spring (or lack thereof) also limits this.  And if your shackle is vertical at rest on level, then you have almost no flex!  The spring can only flex if it can also shorten and lengthen.  If the shackle is vertical, then you will have about the same shorten as you do lengthen, which is definitely NOT what a 4X4 needs - you need minimal compression and tons of droop, which translates into minimal lengthen, lotsa shorten on the spring, or minimal rearward travel and lotsa forward travel on the shackle.  This is why those double shackle setups are desirable.......

bluetoy wrote: This is hard to explain over the computer, but we (the skyline toys) have been studying and experimenting with this for some time now. We have ran about every spring combo possible at one time or another. We have come to the conclusion that the long travel springs are not what works best on a toyota.

I agree that long travel is not what you need for good 4X4 and articulation on the Toy -- what you need is limited compression and LOTS of droop.  This is best accomplished with a soft spring without a lot of arch loaded at rest, on a shackle that's close to 45 rear slant but with plenty of arch at full droop.

alabamatoy wrote: That's incorrect, its signficantly drooped, look at the top of the tire versus bottom of fender and compare to the stationary level pic.  Also, look at the silhouette of the right side tire, its much higher, yet the hoor is not visible which it would be if the rig was tilted towards the drivers side.  The shock cannot extend without drooping the axle, they are attached! :-)

I was mainly using your rig as an illustration because that was just a good side shot on a steep grade, not meaning anything offensive. Just trying to illustrate my theory.

But, your shock is extended due to wieght transfer causing the springs to unload more than anything. Your axle is not articulated the length that your shock is extended. Look at the passenger side spring, it is not compressed at all, but extended as well.  There is nothing on that obstacle that would make one tire "droop" that much.

alabamatoy wrote: This is why those double shackle setups are desirable.......

Double shackles are junk. This is proven. I don't know if you've wheeled with anyone with double shackles, but I have never seen any advantage to this. Same goes for buggy leafs. All it's for is to look impressive with your 20" of droop.

alabamatoy wrote: what you need is limited compression and LOTS of droop.  This is best accomplished with a soft spring without a lot of arch loaded at rest, on a shackle that's close to 45 rear slant but with plenty of arch at full droop.

I dissagree. The steep shackle angle and lots of droop does not work nearly as good. I have ran both on the same truck.

alabamatoy wrote:   And if your shackle is vertical at rest on level, then you have almost no flex!

Notice my shackle angle is vertical on flat ground.

As you can see here it does not flex at all.

Guys, settle down... I'll fess up... it was all trick photography!

bluetoy[/QUOTE wrote:

 I don't know how all this applies to Case's Jeep anyways. 

Sorry to jack your thread Case.

bluetoy wrote: Your axle is not articulated the length that your shock is extended. Look at the passenger side spring, it is not compressed at all, but extended as well.

I dont understand how the shock can extend without the axle being drooped?  They are ATTACHED, the shock cannot extend or compress unless the axle is causing it do to so.  Also, bear in mind that the shock will compress more for the same amount of axle compression, because the axle pivots to some degree aabout the compressed spring.  The shock would compress in-for-inch if both springs are compressing simultaneously, but if one is compressing and the other is extending, the compressed side shock is going to compress more.

I admit, I may not have the position and length of the shock optimized.  My shock is probably what limits total droop, but I have a bumpstop positioned to stop compression when there's about 1 inch or so of shock left.

BTW, I take no offense at any of this, so just cause I dont agree, dont sweat it.  You can say whatever you want about the truck, just dont call it a Jeep, right Nick?

As far as shackle angle, if its vertical at rest, then you cant have as much droop as you would if the shackle were rearward, with everything else the same - there's not as much rotation for the shackle to go, and the spring cannot droop without shortening its eye-to-eye length.

alabamatoy wrote: bluetoy wrote: Your axle is not articulated the length that your shock is extended. Look at the passenger side spring, it is not compressed at all, but extended as well. I dont understand how the shock can extend without the axle being drooped?  They are ATTACHED, the shock cannot extend or compress unless the axle is causing it do to so.

Who said the axle wasn't drooped? I said articulated, meaning one tire was not significantly higher or lower than the other. Big difference.

For your tires to move your rig forward, the axle has to either PUSH against something or PULL against something. Am I wrong? Think about how this is achieved.

The blue lines are the direction your rig and your axle needs to move. The white and yellow lines are the directions your tire has to either push or pull agianst the only two points attaching your axle to your frame.

Study this picture and explain how that front tire is going to make the rig move forward. It HAS to either push or pull the rig. What are the adverse affects from the directions in which the energy is being transferred from the tires to the rig ??? Think about it for a while and get back to me.

Most of you guys are engineers, I'm just a dumb machinist. If I can understand this concept surely ya'll can.

rolltidezuk wrote: That is what is wrong with my Samurai suspension.  My shackles are vertical. I went with yj springs, after I had in modified for cj springs. I need to find someone to move the spring hangers forward to fix my shackle ange and hopefull drop the front end down some.    JC

The above post does not so much apply to your rig (unless you're in reverse) because the shackle is on the front side of the axle. So therefore the axle is pulling against the solid mount of the leaf spring. Follow me??

As far as traction is concerned the front mounted shackle is better, the downfall is the rough ride and having a shackle sticking out the front to catch every rock on the trail.

bluetoy wrote: There is nothing on that obstacle that would make one tire "droop" that much.

Actually at that point in the climb on those ledges, Doc wasn't climbing the ledges at a 90 deg angle and the right front tire of Doc's Jeep (oops - sorry) Toy was already climbing onto the ledge the left tire is up against.

mdmTJ wrote: Doc's Jeep (oops - sorry) Toy was.....

Here you go man, you can borrow mine...

You're gonna need this:

Here again, I was using that pic of Doc's rig to illustrate a point about some issues with leaf springs, I used that pic because it was just a good side shot, not to argue about his rig. I would have used a pic of my rig if I would have had a good pic.

I can't believe you called his toy the "J" word. javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :punish:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>  Shame on you. javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :spankbutt:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>

cj8lvr wrote: Besides, It's not a question of where he grips it,  It's a simple matter of weight - ratios ...  A five-ounce bird could not hold a one pound coconut!

  Whathcu talkin' 'bout Willis?

bluetoy wrote: I can't believe you called his toy the "J" word. javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :punish:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>  Shame on you. javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :spankbutt:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>

A complete slip of the tongue - err- fingers.  If this is the worst I do on this day I'm OK.  Besides, he started it.

BTW - wasn't this about Case's springs?  You see, this is just an excellent example of how easy it is to confuse me.  Just don't throw any facts my way because I'd have to duck.

Michael

bluetoy wrote: Study this picture and explain how that front tire is going to make the rig move forward. It HAS to either push or pull the rig. What are the adverse affects from the directions in which the energy is being transferred from the tires to the rig ??? Think about it for a while and get back to me.

We oughta move this to the general 4X4 forum, and let CASE repost his wanted....

Anyhow, yes, both ends of mine will droop or extend upon acceleration....or with the Toyota, it should be called attempted acceleration   The front will extend because like you said, a force on the front axle in the forward direction will result in the axle moving downward relative to the vehicle, and this is compounded by the axle wrap.  In the rear, the axle moves downward due to axle wrap pressing on the top link.

To me, this just means you need more shackle angle to allow movement.  I submot for the courts review, the following:

I submit that if you have a vertical shackle angle (instead of the rearward slant as in first cartoon), then the result is a limitation of the ability of the axle to move forward and downward (ie droop).  I submit that this is a BAD thing, because it will limit the axles ability to keep the unloaded tire on the ground.  It will however, result in less available COMPRESSION - if the first cartoon is again the starting point, and you compress the axle upward, the spring will lengthen as it flattens and force the shackle rearward.  In my case, I only have about 3 inches of vertical compression before I hit the bumpstop anyway.

SO....if you want more compression, start with the shackle vertical.  If you want more droop, start with the shackle slanted rearward.

Agree or no?

Case wrote: this has been the best thread ever on this board

For folks with leaf springs.

 Very good illustration Doc !!! I've tried to explain this to several people before and wished I had a good drawing.

As stated in the drawing, axlewrap and driving force will cause the spring to bow up and the axle to move forward until the shackle stops it. There are several problems with this. The arch of the spring gets taller as the axle moves forward, so this makes the front taller and causes wieght to shift to the rear of the vehicle and off the front tires. This is the same reason comp rigs with link suspensions use a winch to keep the front suspension from unloading. The lower you can keep the weight on the axle , the more effective the suspension is, no matter if it's leaf springs or four link. You want to keep weight as low as possible on the axle.

Another issue is that forward energy generated by the tires is being absorbed by the spring as the spring "bows up". The energy is being used to bow the spring instead of move the vehicle forward. Think about this, if your axle was welded directly to the frame then 100% of the forward energy from the tires would get transferred to the frame. This is the main reason that a properly set up link suspension works better than a leaf spring, NOT because it has more flex. If you had a well designed link suspension and a leaf spring suspension with exactly the same amount of wheel travel, the link suspension would work better. Why? Because it is more effective at transfering energy. Why? Because it is pushing or pulling against solid links instead of a flimsy spring, thus more energy from the tires is being tranferred into forward motion of the rig.

Also, as the spring "bows" and twists due to axlewrap, it is constantly wanting to return to a relaxed state. The more the tire tries to push the spring forward, the more the spring tries to push the tire backwards. The axle(wrap) twists the spring one direction the spring snaps back the other direction. The tire and the spring are contantly fighting each other.This is what causes wheel hop. Wheel hop = less traction.

So the conclusion is: anything you can do to combat the statements above, the better your rig will perform.

As for my experience of how all this applies on the trail (on a toyota...) I'll list a few of the local toys and some of the different setups we've ran and how they worked. All of these rigs (except Clint's) are setup basically the same as far as drivetrain. Being: 5.29's, locked both ends, marlin crawler, and either 36" or 38" tires.

First off: My old blue '84 xtra cab.

Front suspension: wore out generic 3" lift springs (not even sure what brand). Stock shackles, stock shock towers with 3" longer shocks.

Rear suspension: 2wd mazda springs 6" (eye to eye) shackles.

How did it work??? : awesome. never had any complaints. this truck is a legend.

My old blue '84 xtra cab after I traded to B.J. ( and he made a few changes)

Front suspension: 4" marlin crawler springs, 6" (eye to eye) shackles, ford shock towers, really long shocks.

Rear suspension: Ford ranger springs, 6" (eye to eye) shackles.

How did it work??? : really tall, flexed like crazy, did very good on most places, flopped it on it's side twice, SERIOUS front axlewrap (I'm surprised the springs didn't break)

My old blue (now OD green) '84 xtra cab (new cab and revised suspension)

Front suspension: 3" downey springs, 4" (eye to eye) shackles, ford shock towers, shorter shocks.

Rear suspension: 4" marlin crawler FRONT springs (yes front springs on the rear), 6" (eye to eye) shackles

How did it work??? : By far better than it did. Sticks to the ground and hooks up. I've seen this truck climb stuff I didn't think possible. Impressive to say the least.

Clint Holloway's OD green '80 model.

Font suspension: STOCK front springs, 2'' longer shackles,wore out parts store shocks

Rear suspension: 2wd mazdas, 6" shackle,

How did it work?? : This truck was a beast. you couldn't roll it over if you tried ( and he tried) . I've seen this truck carry a front tire head high and keep climbing like it was on flat ground. This truck embarrassed a lot of high dollar rigs.

Donnie Woodall's white '84 (with the old suspension)

Font suspension: 5" all-pro springs, really long shackles, even longer shocks

Rear suspension: NWOR rear springs with  buggy leafs

How did it work?? : felt like it was mounted on a slinky, LOTS of flex, lots of body roll. This truck did good on most places, but ask him sometime about gaurdrail at Tellico.

Donnie Woodall's white '84 (same truck, new suspension)

Front suspension: 3" downey springs, shorter shackles, same shocks (which are too long)

Rear suspension: STOCK rear springs, 6" (eye to eye) shackles

How did it work?? :(only 1 ride so far) Night and day difference, stuck to the ground and walked every obstacle. He said it felt WAY more stable. We were all impressed.

My blue '89 (old suspesion)

Front suspension: Rears up front (modified several times) 4" shackle , ford shock towers

Rear suspension: ford ranger rear springs

How did it work?? : Not worth a poop. (well it did OK) After driving my '84 for 5 years I was not impressed with this truck. Always felt light in the front end and would wheel hop badly. Roll backwards on a hill and hit the brakes and it felt like it would flip over backwards. I didn't like it.

My blue '89 (different front springs)

Front suspension: got my old generic 3" springs back from B.J. , same shackles, same shocks

Rear suspension: exactly the same

How did it work?? : totally fixed the problem. No longer feels light in the front, climbs MUCH better, feels more stable. I would have never believed changing front springs would make such a difference.

These are just a few examples, I have tons more. Ya'll have seen these trucks in action so I chose them.

Ya'll may want to read http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479052 - this .

Interesting.  JP for you non-J**p guys is a Primedia Magazine about J**P's.

FYI: Primedia is also Peterson's 4wd

bluetoy wrote: Rear suspension: STOCK rear springs, 6" (eye to eye) shackles

I guess they are all different.  My stockers on the rear wouldnt flex at all.

I started out with the Allpro 5" front, and still have them.  My rears started as stock, then went to NWOR 2 or 3 inch (cant recall) and they were horrid, awful, it rode like it had no rear suspension at all; then Superlift 5" and that was marginally better; then the 63" chevy springs with a Rancho add-a-leaf.  The chevy's work quite well except that they are so long, and pretty much prevent a bed-bob.  I dunno how half ton chevy pickups can carry anything, these springs are so soft.

The biggest change I made was the rear traction bar, which prevents squat.  The rig used to squat super bad when climbing a hill, now it virtually squats none at all, or actually lifts.

Also, I cut the rear of the front fenderwells so that I could full stuff the front even with the steering at full lock.  I dont think I could run less than the 5" springs or else my 36s would be into the fenderwells all the time.  I have no body lift and dont plan to add one.

alabamatoy wrote: bluetoy wrote: Rear suspension: STOCK rear springs, 6" (eye to eye) shackles I guess they are all different.  My stockers on the rear wouldnt flex at all.

I agree not the best spring if your looking for mad flex.

BUT, when you can idle up rocks like this its hard to say they don't work.

Here's BJ's with 4" marlin Front springs mounted on the rear. I don't think he even slipped a tire on this. Maybe he will start the newest craze in toyota suspension, instead of rears up front, he has fronts out back. I doubt this will catch on, but all I know is that it works. Can't argue with results.

Both of the above rigs once had super flexy springs, and have since ditched the slinkys.

  What we have learned here class: if you want jaw dropping flex  the long soft springs are for you. If you want your rig to hook up like a pro mod dragster and climb rocks like a billy goat, stay away from the tall slinkys.

bluetoy wrote: javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :working:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>  What we have learned here class: javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :grad:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>  if you want jaw dropping flex javascript void0;" target=_blank onclick='window.opener.replaceText" :jawdrop:", window.opener.document.forms.postmodify.message; window.focus; return false;'>  the long soft springs are for you. If you want your rig to hook up like a pro mod dragster and climb rocks like a billy goat, stay away from the tall slinkys.

So, is this a challenge I hear?

alabamatoy wrote: So, is this a challenge I hear?

Bring it on !  Don't be chicken just prepare to be spanked.    

 Ya'll know I'm just joking,.... right?  

Hey Case......

Did you ever find a used set of RE 4.5" coils?

It was just a thought.  

Just thought I'd ask since it was the original question posted about 12 miles North of here.

haha...this topic cracks me up....

a friend of mine just installed a 4.5 inch super flex RE lift on his Rubicon and he is runnin 35s...lemme just say they are stuffed in there and that you are probably better off running the with what you have....just my .02