NOT a budget buggy build

[Menzenski]

I noticed that the axle-end joint of your lower rear links is significantly above the centerline of the axle tubes. How much of an effect will that have on your suspension geometry? Did you put them there for any reason besides clearance?

 

[BrettM]

I hadn't commented on Brett's comment...........the only thing that matters is weight on the axle, where that weight is means little. I think he had a brain fart, and forgot that half the weight that's between the axles is on the rear axle.

I know it doesn't matter exactly where the weight is. ALL I was saying is that it looks to be weighted about 80% towards the front and if you had tools, battery, fuel, etc behind the rear axle it would probably make a significant difference.

When I brought mine to JV last Nov it was probably about 70% weighted to the front, and I got stuck in the sand driving to Outer Limits (6psi, 2wd), I had to get out and lock the hubs and it pulled right out. It sure climbed well though, as I'm sure yours will also.

 

[BrettM]

I noticed that the axle-end joint of your lower rear links is significantly above the centerline of the axle tubes. How much of an effect will that have on your suspension geometry? Did you put them there for any reason besides clearance?

It is beneficial to the geometry because you get flatter links resulting in a flatter roll-axis and generally better anti-squat. I am unconvinced of the clearance benefit though, because if you're sliding a link on a rock, it will get to the axle tube and hang up bad, but if you links meet the centerline of the axle they will act as a ramp.

 

[lugie]

Richard, I'm ready to "rig-swap" again. Looks like fun. is the arse sitting high? or is it just the picture angle? looks fairly light, weigh it yet? I'll concur on the "needs bigger tahrs!"

cheers :beerchug:

 

[Goatman]

I know it doesn't matter exactly where the weight is. ALL I was saying is that it looks to be weighted about 80% towards the front and if you had tools, battery, fuel, etc behind the rear axle it would probably make a significant difference.

When I brought mine to JV last Nov it was probably about 70% weighted to the front, and I got stuck in the sand driving to Outer Limits (6psi, 2wd), I had to get out and lock the hubs and it pulled right out. It sure climbed well though, as I'm sure yours will also.

The forward weight bias is an optical illusion since there's nothing behind the axle. The front axle is moved forward 4" which will transfer some weight to the rear. Plus, there's no front bumper, the winch is moved rearward, and the battery and air compressor are in the back. Also, since my wheelbase is shorter than yours, the seats are closer to the rear axle. For an XJ/MJ derived buggy, I'm anticipating a pretty good front/rear weight bias.

Yes, the position of the rear lower links is mostly for geometry, to flatten the links, but is also for clearance. I don't buy into the common PBB comment about a rock sliding back down the link and hitting the tube, so it being better to have the link at the axle center line. In the real world the rock/ledge would slide down the link only until the tire hits the rock, then the rear will lift up off the link. The higher link will help you get your tire to the rock. When you had leaf springs, how often did you hang up on a rock at your axle tube right below your leaf springs? Right........never.

 

[BrettM]

Yes, the position of the rear lower links is mostly for geometry, to flatten the links, but is also for clearance. I don't buy into the common PBB comment about a rock sliding back down the link and hitting the tube, so it being better to have the link at the axle center line. In the real world the rock/ledge would slide down the link only until the tire hits the rock, then the rear will lift up off the link. The higher link will help you get your tire to the rock. When you had leaf springs, how often did you hang up on a rock at your axle tube right below your leaf springs? Right........never.

Excellent point...

 

[Weasel]

just curious have you weighed it and figured out your weight dist?

 

[Big Red]

Great work Richard! That buggy looks awesome and I'm sure will do great off road. I've seen quite a few deals on 40" MTRs on Pirate4x4 and ebay etc with about 50% tread or so, I think these were comp tires and with the sponsorship $ flowing the people selling them are getting new ones or trying a different brand or something like that.

37s are a good size tire, but like people are saying they look small on your buggy. Your rear track bar looks taller than the top of your tires. Can we get some current specs like Wheelbase, width of outside tires, weight with no spare stuff, no gas, nobody sitting in it and what you think it will be loaded up, weight dist?

:cheers:

Troy

 

[vintagespeed]

Why do you guys need anything larger than a 35s in JV?

The buggy is looking good Goat!

As for your link angle, if you raise your axle center relative to the wheel center you can have a nice flat link with the joint behind axle center......

You get a little more clearance that way too.

 

[Goatman]

Why do you guys need anything larger than a 35s in JV?

The buggy is looking good Goat!

As for your link angle, if you raise your axle center relative to the wheel center you can have a nice flat link with the joint behind axle center......

You get a little more clearance that way too.

Now what kind of axle would that be?

 

[Big Red]

Now what kind of axle would that be?

I think you are being talked into Portal axles Goat.

Please let me know if you are selling your current axles!

 

[BIGWOODY]

My buddy will sell his for 16k and he'll throw in the buggy too.:cheers:
21" under the diffs with 47" goodyears

 

[vintagespeed]

My buddy.....in the buggy too.:cheers:
21" under the diffs with 47" goodyears

That's pretty good but mogs are heavy and tend to self destruct.

According to my waist-o-meter measuring tape, 16" with 35" tall tires.

:cheers:

 

[Jeff 98XJ WI]

How about a report on how this thing works? I haven't seen any pics of it in action and I've been scouring the board. I haven't seen hardly any pics of Pauls or Dave's rig either. Found a few of Rons and Avery's though. Jeff

 

[vetteboy]

There's a few pics of it in this thread:
http://jeepin.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35857

(IntrepidXJ's photos from the weekend)

 

[Clint]

Ask and you shall receive

 

[Ben H]

 

[IntrepidXJ]

backdoor video:

http://myxj.net/videos/JV2006/goatman-backdoor.wmv

 

[IntrepidXJ]

...and a few more pics

 

[Goatman]

Funny this just came up.......I just snapped a few shots of carnage and was ready to post an update. I have to say that I am very pleased with how the new rig worked. It was very stable, never felt tippy even when leaned way over. The tires stuck like glue, it felt like it would walk up anything and it went up everything I tried if I didn't get hung up.

The weakness was the Tera front suspension that came on the rig, and which I didn't have time to change. I added the coilovers, and raised the track bar mount on the axle a couple of inches so it would drop enough to mount the 12" shocks. The problem was with the long lower arms (36") and the relatively short upper arms (19") in the Tera setup. As the axle drooped the pinion swung down enough to cause the front pinion u-joint to bind........no wonder they had 8" shocks and limit straps when I got it, and the 12" coilover travel was too much for it. I shortened the lower arms after the first day to minimize the problem, but evidently not enough. The needle bearings in one cup went south on Sat, and I ripped out the u-joint u-bolts on Sunday. Also, when the drivers side tire stuffed the bend in the track bar hit the UCA mount, and part way through Resolution on Sunday the track bar broke at that funky bend. Also, while the drag link is up on a high steer arm, the tie rod is on the normal knuckle mount, and now has a pretty good bend in it. I also got hung up a few times on the LCA frame mount which is a typical below the frame long arm style mount.