Project "is it finished yet?" build thread

[Even]

[Even]

I was very uncomfortable with how much thread engagement i had after i cut up my rusty's upper control arms, so i just decided to make some new ones with that peice of tubing i had lying around.

[Pedro]

why did you cut he upper control arms to begin with?

[Even]

why did you cut he upper control arms to begin with?

my lowers angled outward so much the uppers wouldn't line up with the truss, i had to cut the ears off and weld them back on at an angle

[grundlepunch]

my lowers angled outward so much the uppers wouldn't line up with the truss, i had to cut the ears off and weld them back on at an angle

im not picturing this, why would this happen?

[Even]

the bolt holes have to line up exactly or else there is no way you would ever be able to get both radius arms on, this is a 2nd grade quality drawing, and extremely exaggerated angles but here you go

[XJtheXtremeJeep]

That is a fucking ghetto drawing.... but it gets the point across

[grundlepunch]

i was asking why the angle would get so fucked up. what bent?

[ninetysix-ex-jay]

Is that an accepted way of doing it? From my engineering courses I can tell you you're putting an enormous moment on that upper "U" that connects to the truss. It could just be the drawing but I'm seeing a huge sheering force all over that thing

[XJLI]

It could just be the drawing but I'm seeing a huge sheering force all over that thing

radius arms are a binding design, so its not just the drawing. but ideally the mount on the long lower should be at an angle with mounts in double shear (duh) so you dont have any stress across the upper itself, which should be going straight to the UCA mount.

but...

arent you running a bolt on long arm kit?? you shouldnt be modifying it to fit your truss, which is also essentially bolt on, or weld on rather since its made for your specific application. something isnt right methinks.

[Buffalo Phil]

radius arms are a binding design, so its not just the drawing. but ideally the mount on the long lower should be at an angle with mounts in double shear (duh) so you dont have any stress across the upper itself, which should be going straight to the UCA mount.

but...

arent you running a bolt on long arm kit?? you shouldnt be modifying it to fit your truss, which is also essentially bolt on, or weld on rather since its made for your specific application. something isnt right methinks.

We will find out when he goes to flex and his arms get ripped off.

Right Fred???

[crosbike]

He is doing it because he welded the LCA mounts on the axle too far out so he is doing that. I think it is retarded personally but whatever i just have bolt in shit

[XJLI]

so youre increasing the size of the "y" in the y link on the x plane? terrible idea.

[Even]

Steve was the one who gave me the idea for it and he didn't mention anything being wrong trying that setup. The drawing is completely exaggerated, the angles are no where near that. The lowers were moved out maybe 1/2" of where they were supposed to be. The upper mounts are wider than stock, so the lowers are designed to go out wider the way TNT designed it originally anyways. I don't think a half inch really is making a huge difference in the setup but i guess we will see.

I could see more stress being put on the welds where the ears connect to the arm, but other than that i don't see how there will be a way bigger difference in how much binding is in the setup. Like i said TNT's upper/lower mounts on the truss are way wider than stock, a way bigger difference than the 1/2" i changed on the lowers. If there is going to be a shitload more binding, most of it was going to be there to begin with. Maybe this calls for a RK 3-link

[crosbike]

nearing 2 months and no updates. give up?