PDA

View Full Version : TOTM: Rear Suspension



rstrucks
06-02-2011, 11:05 AM
We've covered front suspensions pretty well, time to move onto the rear suspesion. If you are running a bolt on system, what works well, what doesn't. Custom or one-off suspension - what are the numbers (anti-squat, roll center height, link length)?

Post pics of your set-up if you have them.

Ken L
06-02-2011, 12:45 PM
Uppers are 35" long, lowers are 44" long. I have rod ends (RuffStuff Specialties) on both ends of all the links. Uppers are triangulated, lowers slightly angle out from the unibody to the axle but I couldn't really call them "triangluated" (33.5" apart at the unibody, 39" at the axle). Lowers are 2.5" forward of the axle centerline, uppers are 1" forward of the centerline. 9" vertical separation at the axle, 4 1/4" at the unibody.

Anti-squat is 98%, roll center is at 21".

I really like how this suspension works. I have the same length arms for the front radius arms, I'm running RE 4.5" springs. The suspension really works well, I am impressed by how it worked a couple weekends ago on Chinaman Gulch. At this point there is nothing on the suspension that I would change.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/Ken_L/rearcontrolarms2.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/Ken_L/LCAframe2.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/Ken_L/rearLCA1.jpg

I have more pics of the unibody sleeves with the brackets on, too.

SirFuego
06-02-2011, 01:21 PM
For those that have run an upper tri 4 link (like Clayton's) and a double tri 4 link -- did you notice any major improvements? Curious primarily about stability and/or if the lack of "flex steer" was noticeable.

Horus
06-03-2011, 08:28 AM
For those that have run an upper tri 4 link (like Clayton's) and a double tri 4 link -- did you notice any major improvements? Curious primarily about stability and/or if the lack of "flex steer" was noticeable.

I ran a ZJ with Clayton's front and SAs in the rear on 5 inches of lift for about a year on the street and trail. With no other changes made I swapped in the Clayton rear LA upgrade after the first year with the rig, giving me a good direct comparison between the two rear setups.

The flex steer you mention was not really a noticeable difference between SA and Clayton's single tri'ed rear LAs. The torque roll through the chassis was insane with the rear SAs in place. The whole rig would roll four or five inches if I got into the throttle. I was used to it but passengers found it very scary. This was completely remedied with the Clayton LA rear kit.

We duplicated the Clayton rear kit on my buggy. The Clayton upper arms are being reused its so close. If I was worried about flex steer I'd have located the lower arms closer together. This will eliminate the majority of the flex steer issue. I see many newer local rigs with single triangulated lower rear setups now for this reason. Triangulate the lower links so they are close at the frame end and wide at the axle. Then locate the upper parallel links about two or three feet apart.

With this design you all but eliminate flex steer and create more than enough room for rear steer without link interference to the tires. It makes sense on most rigs.

grin
06-03-2011, 11:54 AM
I'm runnning a standard Clayton triangulated 4-link rear in my WJ, utilizing Clayton's over the pumpkin truss rather than the stock D44a mounting location since I swapped in a JK D44 rear. I have noticed absolutely no torque steer, nor any significant flex steer (though my off-road seat time in this rig has been limited). I used the same location as the JK lower control arm mounts on the axle side, but elevated about 3" from stock JK location, which I believe is close to replicating the stock WJ LCA location, but spaced perhaps an inch wider at the axle end... Coming from the XJ leaf-sprung world, it has been weird to get used to having ZERO body roll offroad, since the Clayton/coil suspension in the rear just sucks up whatever obstacle it encounters. Me likes. ;)

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/cumminscd/WJ%20Build/P1220267.jpg
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/cumminscd/WJ%20Build/P1220263.jpg

Jeeptech01
06-03-2011, 01:20 PM
I have Durango bastard packs and .75" shackles. Its predictable and locates the axle quite well. No links reqd :flipoff2: ;)

rstrucks
06-10-2011, 11:00 AM
I didn't have my Grand long enough after the rear triangulated four link to give too much feedback about how it performed but it did do well the one time I wheeled it. I wish I had gotten more seat time in it with it done. Anyway, I used to run a suspension from Rusty's and it did susprisingly well but I thought it was time to upgrade. I had to notch the rear floorboards for upper link clearance to get the links sitting close enough to where I wanted them.

http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/ryanshand/ZJ%20build%20pics/IMG_2998.jpg

I have more pics of the 4 link on my home computer (I'll try to add those later) but here are my "numbers" -

anti-squat - 99%
roll center height - 26"
roll axis (oversteer) - 3 degrees

SirFuego
06-10-2011, 11:19 AM
I have more pics of the 4 link on my home computer (I'll try to add those later) but here are my "numbers" -

anti-squat - 99%
roll center height - 26"
roll axis (oversteer) - 3 degrees

How did you figure out the CG height and unsprung mass? I was planning to put together writeup for a homebrew method of estimating unsprung weight without using any scales (just need to know your spring rate).

The reason I ask (you probably know this, but I'm mentioning this for tech's sake), is that anti-squat is a function of the height of the center of gravity. So if your COG estimate is wrong, your anti-squat is going to be wrong, too. That's why it's always suggested to try to make your setup adjustable (usually by having multiple mounting holes for the uppers). The purpose is twofold -- (a) it allows you to play around with different anti-squat values and see which works best and (b) it helps compensate for any errors in estimating COG and weight.

I have a Vehicle Dynamics book (it's basically a text book) by Milliken and Milliken that has some great diagrams and simple explanations for concepts like instant center and roll axis -- and all are discussed in regards to practically any possible suspension geometry, including independent suspension and leaf sprung suspensions. It also includes a couple chapters of tuning steering/suspension to achieve desired effects.

AgitatedPancake
06-10-2011, 11:22 AM
I've heard that the height of the crankshaft is a decent rough estimate for COG height, don't know how true it actually holds but sounds good to me haha

rstrucks
06-10-2011, 11:30 AM
How did you figure out the CG height and unsprung mass?

Geusstimation method for the CoG. :) The unsprung mass is a little more exact. I had corner weighted my ZJ with scales and then estimated the weight of the axles tires/wheels.


I've heard that the height of the crankshaft is a decent rough estimate for COG height, don't know how true it actually holds but sounds good to me haha

I have heard that the cam height is the better estimate point. :smt102 I actully added a couple of inches to that for my top heavy Grand.

AgitatedPancake
06-10-2011, 11:36 AM
LOL my instant reaction to that was WTF as I was thinking about my overhead cam engine...yeah haha. You're probably right though, having it higher would account for the extra weight up high

5.9 ANDY
06-10-2011, 01:12 PM
i have heard top bolt of the tanny bell housing.

OverlandXJ
06-10-2011, 01:32 PM
Is the torque steer with SA rear something everybody is experiencing? I'm not liking the sound of that..

I was planning this with a LA front for the next year or so till i can scrape together Claytons rear setup. The front suspension is coming from my XJ, and i have everything but a tracbar for the rear currently.

IndyZJ
06-10-2011, 06:46 PM
Is the torque steer with SA rear something everybody is experiencing? I'm not liking the sound of that.

Torque steer is usually a term referring to FWD cars. I'm guessing you have a bit of lift and the panhard bars ar at exaggerated angles. When the rear end squats under weight transfer, the rear axle is pushed to the driver side by the panhard bar. Since the axle can't move sideways very easily, it pushes the ass end of the body the other way. Since the front panhard bar is opposite of the rear, the effect can be even further exaggerated. The axles are tracking parallel to eachother, but you effectively end up crab walking down the road. The only real solution is flatter panhard bars or eliminating them all together.

OverlandXJ
06-14-2011, 10:16 AM
Indy, thanks for the explanation.. it helped. Mine is not done yet, soon but i saw the mention by Horus that peeked my interest.

What i get from this is that it's to be expected, cure being triangulated rear uppers and the TB delete..correct?

UTChavok
06-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Is the torque steer with SA rear something everybody is experiencing? I'm not liking the sound of that..

I was planning this with a LA front for the next year or so till i can scrape together Claytons rear setup. The front suspension is coming from my XJ, and i have everything but a tracbar for the rear currently.


Torque steer is usually a term referring to FWD cars. I'm guessing you have a bit of lift and the panhard bars ar at exaggerated angles. When the rear end squats under weight transfer, the rear axle is pushed to the driver side by the panhard bar. Since the axle can't move sideways very easily, it pushes the ass end of the body the other way. Since the front panhard bar is opposite of the rear, the effect can be even further exaggerated. The axles are tracking parallel to eachother, but you effectively end up crab walking down the road. The only real solution is flatter panhard bars or eliminating them all together.

Great explanation. Im running radius arms up front, but short arms in the rear also. Adjustable RE lowers and teraflex uppers. The body roll is outrageous with no swaybars, a 4 link is the next project for my zj to cure this. Im used to it but when passengers ride and I take a decent turn at the normal speed like you would in your moms minivan it feels like im stuffing my 35s on one side and I get some interesting looks. To be honest with anyone debating trying to get away with short arms on 5" of lift, dont do it. Im running 5.5" coils and it seems no matter how much I tighten every bolt and recently replaced the bushings there always seems to be something loose and honestly it drives like crap.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/masterlugi/Five%20Nine%20Build/IMG_2099.jpg

SirFuego
06-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Another thing to consider is that when you are running short arms on 5+" of lift, your control arm angles are at a severe upwards angle. This has multiple effects:

1) Rougher ride because the angle is transmitting some of the force directly through the control arm onto the chassis.
2) More suspension wear because the shorter arms creates more binding (which is why many short arm people tend to go through a lot of bushings once they start to wheel their rig).
3) Increased anti-squat. This essentially means that the body should go up when you hit the gas. I'd imagine this can also contribute to the body roll since you are essentially increasing your COG a bit from the body lifting up. The effects of anti-squat are debatable as there is a wide range of AS values on successful competition rigs in the past (although I wonder how accurate the COG heights were estimated on the rigs that theoretically have high AS).

Here is a diagram I modifed to get a better understanding of what Instant Center is and how it relates to Anti-squat. You can see how to determine instant center for a linked suspension, but you can just think of it as an imaginary "pivot point" for the entire suspension. The white line from the bottom of the rear tire to the COG is simply the 100% antisquat line for reference.
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p302/SirFuego/as.png

Horus
06-16-2011, 01:17 AM
Indy, thanks for the explanation.. it helped. Mine is not done yet, soon but i saw the mention by Horus that peeked my interest.

What i get from this is that it's to be expected, cure being triangulated rear uppers and the TB delete..correct?

What I was describing was torque induced chassis roll. It is effected by squat/antisquat characteristics but is IMO a separate issue from torque steer or flex steer. If you have ever owned a solid 11 second street pounder you know what this is. Your engine's power is rotating across the width of your chassis all the way down until it is spun 90 degrees by the ring and pinion. From R@P to the tires that power (multiplied substantially of course) now works down the length of the chassis, this is controlled by control arms set at particular angles to the chassis (squat numbers.)

Before that happens the engine power is rotating across the chassis as it traverses the space between the t-case output and rear pinion. Your motor is trying to twist its way out of the chassis. The motor is bolted to the chassis, the rear pinion (axle housing) is not. The result is the axle assembly also tries to twist away from the chassis under power. The driver rear tire will push down hard into the ground whereas the passenger rear tire tries to pull up and tuck into the wheel well. When you watch a drag car launch it only appears as though the tucked side of the chassis is hooked up harder.

Horus
06-16-2011, 01:33 AM
When you have a V8 powered ZJ you already have a fun and powerfull vehicle. Add power with intake and exhaust or even cam and cylinder head mods and these things are wicked. Now put it up five inches plus the height gained from 35 inch tires and you have a recipe for a very easy to roll over rig. Ask me how I know.

I drive with a pretty heavy foot as it is. Honestly the excessive torque roll thing was fun much of the time. It was never an issue offroad nor was torque or flex steer, short arm or long. Torque roll on the street with rear SAs sucked when I had to take a left hand turn as one would through a traffic intersection. I've picked up the driver front tire a couple times just by laying into the throttle a bit hard turning left.

When I did the Clayton rear upgrade the torque roll all but disappeared. The rig felt much safer to drive on the street. I kinda missed being able to scare the shit out of an unknowing passenger with a blip of the throttle during a turn.

SirFuego
06-16-2011, 10:50 AM
One other thing that I should mention is that the parameters regarding a suspension most people talk about (anti-squat, roll center height, and roll axis) are STATIC measurements on flat ground. Meaning that as the suspension cycles, these values can change -- which a suspension designer may take into account. The newest 4-link calculator allows you to bump and droop the suspension to see how the values change.

The best way to visualize this is to look at the diagram I posted above and imagine the rear wheels drooping down a couple inches. Assuming the instant center is not at the control arm mounts (i.e. uppers and lowers mount at the same chassis height), the control arm angles will change the instant center, thus the anti-squat now changes.

I almost wonder (meaning that I don't know if it's true, but it's an unproven hypothesis I have) if this is the reason some rigs "bounce" when trying to throttle over rocks and hill climbs (whereas others just crawl right over it with no problem). My thought is if the AS characteristics change from <100% to >100% (or vice versa) that could cause the suspension to eventually oscillate back to <100% AS, then back to >100% then to <100%, etc. At each change, the suspension/body are reacting differently, so it causes the rig to bounce. Whereas the rigs that have no trouble have a suspension where AS is consistently above or below 100% throughout the travel used in that obstacle...

IndyZJ
06-16-2011, 12:52 PM
When you have a V8 powered ZJ you already have a fun and powerfull vehicle. Add power with intake and exhaust or even cam and cylinder head mods and these things are wicked. Now put it up five inches plus the height gained from 35 inch tires and you have a recipe for a very easy to roll over rig. Ask me how I know.

I drive with a pretty heavy foot as it is. Honestly the excessive torque roll thing was fun much of the time. It was never an issue offroad nor was torque or flex steer, short arm or long. Torque roll on the street with rear SAs sucked when I had to take a left hand turn as one would through a traffic intersection. I've picked up the driver front tire a couple times just by laying into the throttle a bit hard turning left.

The problem was not because of the "wicked" power of a slightly modified v8 (~300 hp). A lifted short arm 4 cyl. TJ will do the exact same thing. It is a function of the atrocious suspension geometry that comes with a moderately lifted, but otherwise stock suspension. Look at the diagrams above and pay attention to the concepts of antisquat and instant center. With a lot of lift on short arms, those values can virtually be through the roof.

An 11 second car (or any vehicle) that torque rolls like that would also have a "bad" suspension setup. It might get the job done, but it is far from optimized.

ZJ TINS
06-16-2011, 03:59 PM
So based on the drawing the ideal anti squat set up would be never over 100% and as you cycle to minimize how far below 100% it gets. (e.g stay as level as you can but rear squat a little at worst case)

True? or is there a reason to get further from 100% either way and under what condition?

SirFuego
06-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Posts 17 and 25 in the thread below may be of interest:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168577

UTChavok
08-01-2011, 10:37 AM
Thought Id bump this up. What length are you guys running on your lowers? I found a pair of RE lower arms that are 33.5 bolt hole to bolt hole and can get these a lot cheaper then buying 4 johnnys, tube inserts, jam nuts and DOM and then just make my uppers. Tomorrow I plan to sit outside with the calculator and see what I can come up with but figured id post up today and ask. I already have brackets for the frame side cut up like Claytons kit so basically was going to copy that design.

blackbeer
08-19-2011, 05:38 PM
can we get into brands? pros and cons?

i have claytons front and i have seen people remove the pasenger upper arm to make it a 3 link- ill save that for another topic,
point being im debating if i should stick w the same brand for rear LAs.

Im really digging TnT frame stiffeners vs claytons and i also like the LA setup they have as seen on AndyZJs rig being built.

thoughts on TnT vs Claytons? for all fairness you could include IRO in the debate but i absolutely refuse to use a bolt on long arm kit- + not have uni stiffeners. like to hear the experts chime in im really leaning towards tnt

5.9 ANDY
08-31-2011, 01:05 AM
well, i have seen first hand all 3 of these kits.
the claytons on agitated pancake's jeep
the tnt on my own
and the IRO on a friends of mine.

ill start with the IRO... i dont like them, at all realy... bolt on=stress points, that caster bracket is NO MORE than 3/16" thick, if that. i just would not tust it under a good hard beating.

as for the claytons, a great system, and i had lmy eyes on them for some time, however, drawbacks with those.. now keep in mind, that these are my oppinion.

i dont like how the front control arms go straight from the frame, down to the LCA mount on the axle, also. the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.

now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.

next, was the rear links are double triangulated, now... like the claytons, there is no rear track bar. but unlike the caytons, with the double tri, there is no flex steer.

i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.

now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs... also, tnt is not currently producing thier kit... so support is meah. but i am at the point now, where if i had any major failure, we would just repair/upgrade our selfs anyway.

thats my 2 cents.

can we get into brands? pros and cons?

i have claytons front and i have seen people remove the pasenger upper arm to make it a 3 link- ill save that for another topic,
point being im debating if i should stick w the same brand for rear LAs.

Im really digging TnT frame stiffeners vs claytons and i also like the LA setup they have as seen on AndyZJs rig being built.

thoughts on TnT vs Claytons? for all fairness you could include IRO in the debate but i absolutely refuse to use a bolt on long arm kit- + not have uni stiffeners. like to hear the experts chime in im really leaning towards tnt

lateralus3
09-05-2011, 12:46 AM
well, i have seen first hand all 3 of these kits.
the claytons on agitated pancake's jeep
the tnt on my own
and the IRO on a friends of mine.

ill start with the IRO... i dont like them, at all realy... bolt on=stress points, that caster bracket is NO MORE than 3/16" thick, if that. i just would not tust it under a good hard beating.

as for the claytons, a great system, and i had lmy eyes on them for some time, however, drawbacks with those.. now keep in mind, that these are my oppinion.

i dont like how the front control arms go straight from the frame, down to the LCA mount on the axle, also. the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.

now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.

next, was the rear links are double triangulated, now... like the claytons, there is no rear track bar. but unlike the caytons, with the double tri, there is no flex steer.

i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.

now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs... also, tnt is not currently producing thier kit... so support is meah. but i am at the point now, where if i had any major failure, we would just repair/upgrade our selfs anyway.

thats my 2 cents.
how did you go about getting the tnt rear longarms? im looking at planning out my rear suspension as i finish up my 8.8

5.9 ANDY
09-11-2011, 11:23 PM
how did you go about getting the tnt rear longarms? im looking at planning out my rear suspension as i finish up my 8.8

bought them off the website, they are no longer offered as far as i know, its seems to have been a limited production run.

AgitatedPancake
09-11-2011, 11:27 PM
I talked to TnT on the phone while installing Andy's kit, when I told them it was for a ZJ they were half stunned, as they only made like 4 or 5 kits from the impression I got haha.

cowboy63b
09-12-2011, 12:26 AM
well they need to start building them again, id rather have it versus the clayton kit.

lateralus3
09-12-2011, 03:49 AM
Same here that kit just looks like beeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SirFuego
09-12-2011, 10:00 AM
the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.
The flex steer was really noticeable (visually) when we had my rig flexed out on a forklift, but I'll admit that I never noticed it once I got in the rocks and never noticed it on pavement. I had asked a similar question earlier in the thread about the drawbacks. I looked into it a bit more and the main drawback to a single-tri setup is in high travel situations at high speeds (i.e. desert racing). The flex steer can pull the rig to one side if the rear axle flexes out. So if pre-running/desert racing is your goal, double tri might be more ideal, but I've yet to hear of anyone complain about a single-tri setup on pavement or in the rocks.


now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.
In my experience with Clayton's, the control arm itself has never been a hangup point -- it's always the mounts (which are going to get hit if the arms are high clearance or not). Typically, every inch counts when it comes to ground clearance (as long as your critical components aren't exposed as you mentioned), but sometimes a "sliding" design can be just as effective. So I'll just leave that up to personal preference.

I haven't looked at your front axle setup in a while -- were you able to set it up so the lowers mounted flush with the axle tube? I figured it would be, but was just curious.


i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.
Those are my two complaints about the Clayton's kit. The arm mounts hang a bit low and mine get beat up pretty good (though I have no failures). They have been hangup points for me in the past. The belly skid looks beefy, but it's just too big to not have any additional support beyond the side bends. I would recommend reinforcing a Clayton's belly skid with angle iron or something. My belly skid has taken a beating and it's bowed pretty good in the middle.


now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs...
Whether or not clayton's is stronger is sorta moot point, IMO -- all that matters is if the TNT kit is "strong enough". If it stiffens up the chassis enough to dramatically increase the life of the chassis when offroading, it has done its job. We are only talking about a small part of the chassis anyways, so there is a lot more that needs beefed up anyways regardless of whether you have Clayton's or TnT. You* would be good with either setup, so I would just go with whichever one works best with your suspension setup.

* Not you, specifically, but "you" as in the person reading this.

blackjack12982
09-12-2011, 07:12 PM
well they need to start building them again, id rather have it versus the clayton kit.

Just a note, I emailed TNT about their LA kit while I was deployed, and Rob emailed me back this-

The reason you don't see it is cause we have yet to officially release it.
Don't get me wrong, it works amazing and is an extremely durable setup. We
need to finalize some things with the bellypan cut files to insure that all
the mounting holes are correct, etc. We've just not had the time to bring
the shop ZJ back in to tear it al down.

They gave me the impression through further emails that you could purchase the kit if you were really adamant about it. When I originally started talking to them I was flush with money, now not so much so...

CRJEeP_wj
11-08-2015, 04:36 PM
I recently started mocking up my rear suspension, its gonna be single lower triangulated |/\|. Im guessing my lowers will be 40-42" and my uppers 36-38 give or take. My separation at frame will be 5" and at the axle 8-9". Has anybody dealt with this style? I expect a little less stability than a double triangulated would provide but can I expect a good strut like ORIs properly dialed to control any bad characteristics while in off camber situations?

Heres a pic of mine and below a pic of how it will be when completed.
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/d03fronty/IMG_3096_zps6kmi6vqt.jpg (http://s1382.photobucket.com/user/d03fronty/media/IMG_3096_zps6kmi6vqt.jpg.html)
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/d03fronty/IMG_3040_zpsub3uwlzz.png (http://s1382.photobucket.com/user/d03fronty/media/IMG_3040_zpsub3uwlzz.png.html)