I mean, unless he posts the before and after numbers and explain why they are better, I wouldn't start bashing the product. And I know that
@Mac5005 is very knowledgeable about this stuff. He also knows that by putting a 4sp atlas in there and moving the engine 6"+ forward and changing the location of the axles, you end up moving the COG. COG which is where the whole original geometry is based on.
@rockcity I'll happily offer you a ride in my chassis with the "not great" geometry and let you feel how it works IRL. I could get more technical too, but Tim has his own (and somewhat unconventional) way to set them up and seeing it work always makes you a believer. I have a few chassis builder friends that pulled the tape measure under my rig because of how it works.
PS : It's not a secret that I'm friends with Tim from BFR, and despite the snafu of the brackets, I believe he did try to make it right by reimbursing Steve.
I really enjoy the build and seeing Scott's and Steve's take on the chassis, don't want to drag this into a geometry argument, just trying to make sure people see the product in action like it's meant to be put together in the first place before taking a stance on its performance.
Carry on.
Here is my take on the #’s.
The drivetrain length plays very little into the real geometry numbers. The height affects it, but the length completely doesn’t. Maybe slightly based on link length split front/rear, based on engine location, but not enough to make up for the deficiencies.
I ran the numbers 100% on BFR brackets, but I didn’t save the file. I don’t care to bc I saw the flaws. Mentally once I see the flaws, and potential improvements, I don’t care to have the file, bc it’s of no use to me. If Tim @ BFR wants to post his specific geometry #’s that’s on him.
it’s not my prerogative to point how the how and why of his errors. Not for free. That’s his due diligence on his product.
I’m not doing this to bash Tim, otherwise this would read very differently. There were aspects of the geometry that weren’t up to my standards, I brought them up to my standards. Steve trusts me enough to complete this, and trusts my expertise and experience for it to be correct. Steve knows my standards and my knowledge which gave me this enormous opportunity. I’m just here to share that with my Nc4x4 family, just as I do with nearly everything.
short version: too much pinion change in both front and rear. Static and dynamic anti’s were meh.
Rear had low static AS, and it increased to “ok” in droop. That’s great bc it would never hop while climbing, but also lessens the forward bite at suspension positions near ride height.
I’ll be more than happy to post screenshots of my final geometry numbers and specific locations of the links, if that is pertinent to the transparency of this thread. If it does nothing to add value, then I see no need to post.
my geometry numbers used to just be theory based on vehicle dynamics and principles based on what I found didn’t work.
After several suspension set ups that clearly worked far better, confirmed my theories. That’s the proof I need.
I have posted my theories on here in the public for years now. I wouldn’t take that risk if I didn’t have data both in principle/theory and real world application.
most of that knowledge, wasn’t publicly discussed by the people in the know until after 2008-2012 IIRC. Those that knew prior to then, weren’t talking about publicly anyway.
I’m not here to bash Tim, I’m just being transparent.
I would say if Tim would like to have a chat about how to make his setups better, I’d be willing to chat for free.
However after the bolt/ holes/misrepresentation and other items that were sold as ready to go, however fell short, I doubt Tim wants to talk to me, and I really don’t give .02 to talk to him. The response that the zinc coating on the bolts was the likely culprit solidified my position.
so back to progress. Here are the lower shock brackets, on the outer “forward” side of the mount. Need to add the teardrop plates and the final fit up.
