vertical separation guidance please (front)

marty79

marty79

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Location
Newton, NC
need a little help on my front axle. I've got a great plan on my upper triangulated links for my mounty, it's kinda the only way I can do it with the high clearance lower link frame mounts I did. Problem is on the axle end, I have about 7" vertical separation and with current "plan" on uppers on the frame side, I would end up with 3"(ish) vertical separation. I'm well aware this isn't "ideal" and anti-dive would be little worse but was wondering if it would be ok given there are times when achieving the "ideal" numbers just doesn't quite happen. thanks for the help
 
oh and the lowers are 42" on the front (like the rear) and the uppers with this "plan" would be 38"...that's as much as I can squeeze in there lol
 
Most people are going to say you need at least 10” separation at the front axle. I would follow that advice.
 
Pretty sure the rule of thumb is 25% of your tire size at the axle, frame side will vary depending on what A/S your targeting and link length.
 
NickMaul said:
Most people are going to say you need at least 10” separation at the front axle. I would follow that advice.
Click to expand...
shoot...with like a foot of lift lol and I wasn't asking about the front axle seperation but the frame side of the front. I know what my front is, what it "should be" but I'm not building a comp buggy nor am I building a chassis where I have the luxury of achieving those "ideal" numbers. I'm going for the best I can get with what's there without also lifting it a mile.
I said I'm well aware of this and the "numbers" ...
most full bodied rigs built don't get close to those "calculator numbers" with triangulated link setups, especially in the front unless you're lifted sky high which I'm not. I'm not looking for the answer that's in the "book", I was more wondering if it's doable with my kinda numbers and looking for some real world numbers that maybe some have "tried and trued" and if not, then no biggie I'll go back to the planning board but I don't want to just scrap the plan just cause it's not "in the book"...just sayin and no I don't wanna go down that road of arguying of book numbers and calculators and metallurgy and all that science of metals bs. I just wanted to see if something was possible to run a certain setup
 
Jody Treadway said:
It's a shame there isn't an online calculator for this sort of thing. That would take the guess work out.
Click to expand...
haha yeah yeah, that calculator doesn't always help when you're trying to package a custom setup with stock frame and stock motors/etc. We all know more times than not you just package the best you can and roll with the best "numbers" or "setup" the vehicle/frame/body allows
 
Build a "subframe". That will give you somewhere to "mount" the links at a "proper" angle if you're "concerned" about getting it "right".
Really, that's about the best way to allow better link angles/numbers on an OEM frame and body.
 
Drunktaco said:
Are you planning on driving this shitbox over 25 mph?
Click to expand...
that was a "goal", even though I'm not stern on it but so far it would be very road worthy as long as front comes out good.
Jody Treadway said:
Build a "subframe". That will give you somewhere to "mount" the links at a "proper" angle if you're "concerned" about getting it "right".
Really, that's about the best way to allow better link angles/numbers on an OEM frame and body.
Click to expand...
that thought has been on the radar...along with lowering my lower links to match the axle side even though they would hang below frame much lower but suppose that's better than ending up with too much anti-dive and possible axle wrap from what I've been reading
 
marty79 said:
that was a "goal", even though I'm not stern on it but so far it would be very road worthy as long as front comes out good.

that thought has been on the radar...along with lowering my lower links to match the axle side even though they would hang below frame much lower but suppose that's better than ending up with too much anti-dive and possible axle wrap from what I've been reading
Click to expand...
If you get axle wrap in a link set up you did something wrong. Go back and read some of the knowledge @Mac5005 has dropped and it'll get you close enough to where you need to be.
 
marty79 said:
that was a "goal", even though I'm not stern on it but so far it would be very road worthy as long as front comes out good.

that thought has been on the radar...along with lowering my lower links to match the axle side even though they would hang below frame much lower but suppose that's better than ending up with too much anti-dive and possible axle wrap from what I've been reading
Click to expand...
That's why the calculator works
Plug the numbers in, see what you have. Determine what the lengths and angles need to be. Reverse engineer until goal is attained .
 
Chris_Keziah said:
If you get axle wrap in a link set up you did something wrong
Click to expand...
I got that from reading up I was doing and they were saying you can get axle wrap or rip upper frame mounts off if you don't have enough or any vertical separation...that's where that came from. but no worries, I'm going to replan this out thanks
 
marty79 said:
haha yeah yeah, that calculator doesn't always help when you're trying to package a custom setup with stock frame and stock motors/etc. We all know more times than not you just package the best you can and roll with the best "numbers" or "setup" the vehicle/frame/body allows
Click to expand...

Find what measurements work for your set up and enter them into the calculator and see where you end up. Play with the numbers that align with available space for your rig and see where your happy medium is and go that route. Basically, work backwards because your frame Mount locations are restricted. So use that as a starting point and fine tune the numbers as best as you can given your restrictions.
 
there are some good vids on youtube
 
Back
Top