Nth Degree D60 Stinger

[wrecked]

I just got my chance to read the Jan. 2007 Four Wheeler magazine. Theres an article on page 68 about the Nth Degree Stinger for the rear dana60.

The article got me thinking. I'm still gathering parts and ideas for build. I've got my axles and 3 different XJ's to build off of. I have alot of my ideas drawn out and ready to go. I thought I was set on my suspension but when I saw the article, I starting thinking a bit more. And that brings me to this thread. I have a few concerns and questions and was hoping that someone could possibly answer them.

My first concern has to do with link placement. I know that there wouldn't be much as far as options go for the stinger itself. However, through reading up on 4-link rear suspensions, it seems that the most recomended way to go is through the floor. Still the same idea?

I'm not totally positive on the anti-squat and other effects that this system would create. It really doesnt go into detail in the articel. I know there are some suspension guru's on here that I hope will chime in.

Any ideas, comments and suggestions?
Thanks for the help.

-Kevin

 

[Goatman]

What is the Nth degree stinger?

Is it an anti-wrap bar used on a leaf sprung rear end? If so, then it has no application on a link suspension.

 

[Kittrell]

Here ya go Richard

http://www.nthdegreemobility.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=30_51&products_id=392

 

[vetteboy]

What is the Nth degree stinger?

Is it an anti-wrap bar used on a leaf sprung rear end? If so, then it has no application on a link suspension.

Nah, not entirely true. They suggest using it in place of upper arms on a linked suspension as well. Theoretically allowing you to design a suspension with two lower arms, this stinger thing, and a panhard to locate it laterally.

I see it functioning sort of like a bastardized radius arm configuration as far as caster change goes...kind of a weird setup to visualize though.

 

[wrecked]

Nah, not entirely true. They suggest using it in place of upper arms on a linked suspension as well. Theoretically allowing you to design a suspension with two lower arms, this stinger thing, and a panhard to locate it laterally.

I see it functioning sort of like a bastardized radius arm configuration as far as caster change goes...kind of a weird setup to visualize though.

Exactly. I start to think I can see how it works and then it just doesnt click. Bieng that the stinger is able to rotate up and down and then pivot forward and backward on the shackle I'm confused on how well that would turn out.

I have no problem running a track bar, but I would like to learn more about the characteristics of the piece.

-Kevin

 

[Goatman]

Interesting.

Never thought of a traction arm being used to eliminate the upper control arm. I guess there's no reason it wouldn't work. The lower arms locate the axle and the upper arms control axle rotation, so no reason a traction arm couldn't be used. But, to me it's backwards since you go to links to eliminate the traction arm......not the other way around. It should be much easier to make/mount an upper arm or two than to use the traction arm, and cheaper if you have to buy the one from Nth Degree.

Pointless, really. Basically what they say on their site is simply a sales pitch to sell more arms in an application that most wouldn't think of. Now, for a street car with soft rubber bushings in the links I can see where a traction arm could add more control, but you should be able to do the same thing by changing to poly link bushings. In our 4x4 applications where we use hard joints on our links, this thing is of no advantage at all.

Leaf springs?, Yeah, you need one, or something like it.

 

[vetteboy]

Interesting.

Never thought of a traction arm being used to eliminate the upper control arm. I guess there's no reason it wouldn't work. The lower arms locate the axle and the upper arms control axle rotation, so no reason a traction arm couldn't be used. But, to me it's backwards since you go to links to eliminate the traction arm......not the other way around. It should be much easier to make/mount an upper arm or two than to use the traction arm, and cheaper if you have to buy the one from Nth Degree.

Pointless, really. Basically what they say on their site is simply a sales pitch to sell more arms in an application that most wouldn't think of. Now, for a street car with soft rubber bushings in the links I can see where a traction arm could add more control, but you should be able to do the same thing by changing to poly link bushings. In our 4x4 applications where we use hard joints on our links, this thing is of no advantage at all.

Leaf springs?, Yeah, you need one, or something like it.

I can see it being used in a situation where you already have it for leaf spring anti-wrap control, and want to upgrade to rear links. You've already got the center crossmember mount in place, and any fool can weld on some LCA mounts for the rear and make some longer links.

I just found this little sales blurb quite interesting:

Torque Arm-This proven suspension design from vehicles such as the Camaro is designed to maximize power and traction to the ground.

Yeah, those camaros. It's exactly the same setup as what they're describing...lower links, the anti-wrap bar (that on a camaro goes to a bushing near the trans output), and a panhard. I ran the rough numbers were I to install it on mine in place of the upper links, estimating the anti-wrap bar as a single link connecting the top of the diff to the line between the LCA mounts, and it increased my rear anti-squat by 40% (up to 136%). And the behavior over travel sucked. And is it held to the axle by....u-bolts?

As a minor point of irony, the first set of springs I tried on my rear 4-link were Chevy Camaro rear springs. No joke.

I think they're a little light.

 

[kerndogg]

"Designed to fit all HIGH Pinion 60 Housings"

might cause you some trouble if you don't have a hp rear!

 

[wrecked]

I guess I proposed my idea a little bit differently than I had thought. I wasn't planning on buying the Nth Degree kit. I was trying to get an idea on what that suspension style setup would work like. I'm sure I could build my own, in fact I could probably do something that worked out to be a nice pinion skid for my 60 as well.

However, I'm almost positive that I'll go ahead and stick with the leafs in the rear for the firts part of the build as I have a spare set of RE leafs as well as some OME and oem leaves to put a nice flexy pack together. Later on I may make the switch to coils.

-Kevin

 

[ashmanjeepxj]

Id just do a (3-parallel) 4 link, The shown setup will torque the traction bar when you put power to the axle and when the axle hits obsticals. Id be worried about its strength for hitting obsticals. like when going down an steep ledge with the brakes locked all the weight on the front as it falls down the ledge. This has mangled many main leafs on my front and was my reason to need front links.

Here is a video of what kinda wheelin would likely brake that Nth degree setup as a 4 link onteh front:
http://wheelingarizona.com/forums/download.php?id=6026


3-parallel 4 link: Upper and lower links parallel on the pinnion side 8in or more seperation, one Link on the other side centered (4in between other links), and a panhard bar.

A double triangualted 4link (if hydraulic steering) is best because all links share forces no single point failure.

 

[wrecked]

I had it in mind for the rear as opposed to the front which is what I believe you were desribing Ashman.

What advantages do you gain running one triangulated arm as opposed to 4 parallel links and a panhard?

-Kevin

 

[ashmanjeepxj]

What advantages do you gain running one triangulated arm as opposed to 4 parallel links and a panhard?

-Kevin

One less link so less material and cost.

With a single triangulated 4link, double triangulated 4 link or wishbone 3 link on up travel the axle will move in a straight line. With a 4 parallel 5 link on uptravel the axle will move along the arc or the panhard bar. The Panhard bar is desirable on a front axle with a drag link but not on a rear axle. also a panhard bar has one axle attachment and one frame attachment. the triangulated 4 link spreads that same load to two axle and two frame mounts, That alone would make it a stouter design.

rear steer is minimized on a good double triangulated 4 link design with long flat links.

You have to built what you can fit. even within XJs all different link styles could work good on a different build.

 

[wrecked]

One less link so less material and cost.

With a single triangulated 4link, double triangulated 4 link or wishbone 3 link on up travel the axle will move in a straight line. With a 4 parallel 5 link on uptravel the axle will move along the arc or the panhard bar. The Panhard bar is desirable on a front axle with a drag link but not on a rear axle. also a panhard bar has one axle attachment and one frame attachment. the triangulated 4 link spreads that same load to two axle and two frame mounts, That alone would make it a stouter design.

rear steer is minimized on a good double triangulated 4 link design with long flat links.

You have to built what you can fit. even within XJs all different link styles could work good on a different build.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure I follow. I havent ever seen someone run only one triangulated upper and then 2 parallel lowers and a parallel upper. If they can do this is there really any reason to run the wishbone 3 link? As far as what I can see it would provide the same results correct. The only advantage that I can see to the wishbone 3 link is there is one less heim join needed.

Are the vertical and horizontal separation still the same for the 3 different types of setup? I suppose horizontal wouldnt be, but vertical at the frame and axle?

I guess I really need to start using a link calculator, but I've only seen them for 4 link and I'm not quite sure what to fill in for each area.

-Kevin