Upper Links On Buggys

[CHOP SHOP]

I have noticed the NW upper link trend tends to lean towards parralel uppers.

Most of the guys that run proffesionaly and back in the midwest with massive horsepower seem to run triangulated uppers.

Dont parralel uppers put a ton more stress on the lowers (lowers doing all the side to side locating) than an dual tri setup (both uppers and lowers locating sideways)?

What do you have and why did you choose it? Would you do something different if you could?

 

[CHOP SHOP]

Also when you have parralel lowers you end up with alot of "axle steer".

Wouldnt this happen with the uppers parralel too?

 

[CHOP SHOP]

No one?:corn:

 

[Corey Y]

Dual triangulated is the way to go. There is tons of good info on Pirate, including the link calculator program.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

Dual triangulated is the way to go. There is tons of good info on Pirate, including the link calculator program.

Thats what I have been thinking/leaning towards.

I just wonder why so many smart folks around here run the other setup? just to be different or why?

 

[Money Mark]

I just do what I'm told is the "hot ticket" at the time.:redneck:

I have straight uppers and would like some more triangulation one day.......for no other reason but to just try it for awhile.

I have driven many cars and while there are differences in handling........MEH.

 

[Corey Y]

Sometimes front straight uppers are easier to clear the engine oil pan.

 

[mjp1080]

The reason I have straight upers is because when I built them I honestly didnt know any better. I had seen many monster trucks run that setup and figured "hell if it works on those things why not?" Granted I plan on changing it on the new chassis but, it still works to this day.

 

[darius]

I have noticed the NW upper link trend tends to lean towards parralel uppers.

Most of the guys that run proffesionaly and back in the midwest with massive horsepower seem to run triangulated uppers.

Dont parralel uppers put a ton more stress on the lowers (lowers doing all the side to side locating) than an dual tri setup (both uppers and lowers locating sideways)?

What do you have and why did you choose it? Would you do something different if you could?

If you look, I would say that 60ish% run parallel uppers.

You are 100% wrong, the upper's do all of the side to side loading, adjust your axle to center using the lower link's and tell me how it work's:;

I could indeed use a different suspension layout, But the most practical for rockcrawling/4x4ing IMO is the inverted 4 link because it offer's a ton of stability vs an upper triangulated 4 link. The only other suspension that offer's more stability is also an inveted 4 link, but with the lower link's converging at the rear diff.

Using a dual triangulated 4 link offer's a loose flippy floppy feeling suspension for the most part as you are pivoting in the dead middle of the car. It does indeed help save suspension joint's, but unlike a single triangulated 4 link it does not play much of a part in helping stability.

The trend in the NW follow's what S&N FAB build's, show me something local that work's better, maybe that will become the new trend

 

[Jason C]

Dual triangulated is the way to go. There is tons of good info on Pirate, including the link calculator program.

why do you say that? what is it that makes it better? how is it superior to other link configurations to make you come to this conclusion? which cars have you used it on to see this performance gain? or whos car was it on that made you decide it was the best configuration?

How is it that the link calculator helps and how can those numbers help someone in designing a suspension. and what numbers would you be shooting for? I know the guy on pirate wrote the program but when he tells someone that their numbers look good who decided what was an acceptable range to shoot for? was it a booming voice from the sky? or is it something or #'s they got from race car handbook that says AS should be this and roll axis should be this and rol center this? who decides this stuff and makes it the right answer?

 

[Binder]

Jason C has forgotten more about this then most of us will ever know..........
I've run all different setups for a longer period of time and in my experience straight uppers and lowers converging at the belly is by far the most stable and predictable for the kind of wheeling I do. You can get into a car with poor geometry and drive it for a short time and may not be able to tell but drive it for a longer time, get it into the wrong scenario and then you will know.

 

[Corey Y]

why do you say that? what is it that makes it better? how is it superior to other link configurations to make you come to this conclusion? which cars have you used it on to see this performance gain? or whos car was it on that made you decide it was the best configuration?

How is it that the link calculator helps and how can those numbers help someone in designing a suspension. and what numbers would you be shooting for? I know the guy on pirate wrote the program but when he tells someone that their numbers look good who decided what was an acceptable range to shoot for? was it a booming voice from the sky? or is it something or #'s they got from race car handbook that says AS should be this and roll axis should be this and rol center this? who decides this stuff and makes it the right answer?

You know way more than I do about link suspension. It seems that the suspension design S&N builds works pretty good. Almost every chassis builder has a different link setup. I shouldnt be giving 4 link design advice, it was just my opinion, all my junk uses leaf springs.
:corn:

 

[Brian H]

Dual triangulated is the way to go. There is tons of good info on Pirate, including the link calculator program.

:haha:

why do you say that? what is it that makes it better? how is it superior to other link configurations to make you come to this conclusion? which cars have you used it on to see this performance gain? or whos car was it on that made you decide it was the best configuration?

How is it that the link calculator helps and how can those numbers help someone in designing a suspension. and what numbers would you be shooting for? I know the guy on pirate wrote the program but when he tells someone that their numbers look good who decided what was an acceptable range to shoot for? was it a booming voice from the sky? or is it something or #'s they got from race car handbook that says AS should be this and roll axis should be this and rol center this? who decides this stuff and makes it the right answer?

:awesomework:

You know way more than I do about link suspension. It seems that the suspension design S&N builds works pretty good. Almost every chassis builder has a different link setup. I shouldnt be giving 4 link design advice, it was just my opinion, all my junk uses leaf springs.
:corn:

Probably should stick to leaf springs and mud bogs thats your thing.....:redneck::stirpot:

 

[Corey Y]

:haha:
:awesomework:


Probably should stick to leaf springs and mud bogs thats your thing.....:redneck::stirpot:

You should stick to leafs too, your link set up is not so hot
:fawkdancesmiley:
:awesomework:
:stirpot:
:corn:

 

[Boosted]

I cant wait to link my junk so I can have all the testosterone thats goes along with it....

haha, jk. Only reason I haven't linked yet is because I dont know enough about it to do it right. I will probably wheel the crap out of my current setup this season and then have S&N do their magic. :awesomework:

 

[Jason C]

You know way more than I do about link suspension. It seems that the suspension design S&N builds works pretty good. Almost every chassis builder has a different link setup. I shouldnt be giving 4 link design advice, it was just my opinion, all my junk uses leaf springs.
:corn:

My point is not bag on any configuration or leafs for that matter. Every suspension has a place and a "use" the inverted 4 link is by no means the "end all be all" of suspension designs. but having tried every configuration it seems to offer the most predictability and driveability to the end user. I just wanted to make it a point on the info on Pirate. he info is good it just matters how you want to apply it. according to the link calculator my old car would not work and had AS #'s through the roof. it worked fine... infact was one of the best Cars I have drivin (mostly because it was mine :redneck. But I was use to it's "quirks" and took advantage of them.

the link calculator... Oh boy.... is it a good tool?.... Could be... has a ton of potental. Fantastic for giving numbers on flat ground. the only things it can give you is your push pull points roll axis, roll center, and anti squat..... all those points only matter on how and where they are pushing on your COG... where is that?... and when most ppl use the calculator how are they figuring the COG. and if you think about it they will only build one buggy in there life so where would they start on figuing this out when most the time they are designing a suspension first. if that is the case than how can you figure out how to apply these push parameters to the COG when it is TBD or a "best guess" so how does this help the end user? I guess it gives them a false sense of security knowing that they "ran the numbers" and some guy on pirate that talks in every suspension thread said it was good. what has that person built? what made him the higher power to givethe nod. I know this is long winded but the point is do not believe ANYthing you read on there. Ues the info than find out for yourself. Watch other configurations (which I assume you do) and drive them and draw your own conclusion to what you want and like. I have tried every configuration and planted my feet on what I liked performance wise. is it the best? For me yes but not for everyone. 2 examples... here is Daves KOH car.... dual triangulation (with out inverted lowers) http://www.snfab.com/projects/daves/daves037.JPG

and here is mine (invrted 4 link with slight upper triangulation)

http://www.snfab.com/projects/jasonc/jasonc101.JPG


dave tried something on his last car and wanted to carry it on to this one. Does it work better? depends. his is smoother on the the fast chop since he has lower AS but his roll center is different but he prefers the feel. what he gave up is the ability to crawl verts My car was un changed in the rocks but I get beat a little harder in the fast stuff. we each have to drive around a different flaw. but his car has some lighter parts and his motor is back 4" further than mine.. all those play into the equasion. I think the biggest flaw in suspension building that people miss is not seeing the project as a whole.. and just focusing on one part. being the suspension or the power or the look or architecture of the rig. you have to comprimise everywhere so the rig works in unison or it will not work at all. There is a big difference between a guy that talks about suspension all day and the guys who actually build them all day. :smile:

 

[Boosted]

Ok, I know what the word inverted means, but what does inverted lowers mean in terms of a 4 link setup?

Thanks in advance.... :awesomework:

 

[Brian H]

You should stick to leafs too, your link set up is not so hot
:fawkdancesmiley:
:awesomework:
:stirpot:
:corn:

Material failed..... set up is perfect. Works great and is copied off S&N's set up.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

I agree with Jason here. Putting numbers in that thing all night has made my head spin.

I plan to learn this as binder has I assume. By trial and error.

I dont want to build a setup because I feel a computer has said it looks ok.

I would like to learn all I can. I can tailor my driving around a couple flaws and change for the better if needed. I think I would like to learn whats good and bad and what makes it good or bad, instead of only knowing what it says on some program.

It sounds like you have learned from experience and experiments also, not from a tech page on pirate. This how I like to learn. Instead of only knowing what is supposed to be best, Id like to have a better feel for what happens when things are changed in one direction or another, good or bad.

Just the way you have been offended by the calculator makes me feel better. Thanks for taking some time to help out a link rookie.:beer:

 

[Jason C]

Ok, I know what the word inverted means, but what does inverted lowers mean in terms of a 4 link setup?

Thanks in advance.... :awesomework:

It is actually just a 4 link but is called an inverted 4 link to describe only the configuration. what it means is the lower links meet in the center of the chassis and angle outward towards the ends of the axle and the upper links run less or no triangulation heading back to the axle housing generally having fairly tall towers. So "most" of your triangulation happens on the lower links. look at the 2 link configurations in the links I posted above and study their differences. Even though Daves lowers head from the chassis outward it still follows a conventional link configuration. Hope that helps.