[JrZook]

Gwagensteve wrote:

JrZook wrote:

And why so?

Reduced roll stiffness and more articulation without any effect on axlewrap or spring rate.

Steve.

Can't all of this can also be achieved by increasing spring length and modified pack to support the main. As well a less choppy ride due to the lower nautral spring frequency and less torsional bind on the bushes/shackles/hangers?

[Gwagensteve]

Yes, it absolutely can, but a longer leaf with a high static camber and a very low rate (say 130lb/") will suffer much more from axle wrap and poor axle location. This is the problem of chasing high vertical travel numbers from leaf springs in light cars, when, in fact, there's no need for large vertical travel to achieve high articulation.

Steve.

[yelozuki]

I have a stock 2inch efs kit with extended brake lines. If the cj spring is raised 2.5 inch i should be alright puting it in woth a pack removed. Once the rear is done i can take that spring and put it up front. I wouldnt of thought that the spring being longer would effect the flop of the zook if it has the same stiffness. But with the stiffness as is it still maxes out. And what do people do for extended bump stops.

[jonfromhamilton]

make dodgy ones out of 25x3 box section and cold-galv them so thye look out of place.

[KEENSY85]

jonfromhamilton wrote:

make dodgy ones out of 25x3 box section and cold-galv them so thye look out of place.

Or take some time and make some covert ones that don't look like a dogs breakfast no offence to jonfromhamilton at all

[Red89]

KEENSY85 wrote:

jonfromhamilton wrote:

make dodgy ones out of 25x3 box section and cold-galv them so thye look out of place.

Or take some time and make some covert ones that don't look like a dogs breakfast no offence to jonfromhamilton at all

So your suggestion on how to do them is ?

[jdk81]

I think jon's input contained an attempt at interweb sarcasm

[KEENSY85]

jdk81 wrote:

I think jon's input contained an attempt at interweb sarcasm

oops my post seem to sound so nasty these days (not ment to be )

i thought u could just cut and exstend ur top bump stop plate and grind it nice and neat and hit it with a flappy disc

[SierraDan]

Bolt in box section is cheap and easy. I wouldnt even say its dodgy.

If i were getting the welder out i wouldnt build off suzuki's design.

[Gwagensteve]

yelozuki wrote:

I wouldnt of thought that the spring being longer would effect the flop of the zook if it has the same stiffness. But with the stiffness as is it still maxes out.

That's not really how fitting longer springs to gain travel works.

I'm going to use some very rough numbers to demonstrate my point.

A smaller lift height CJ rear spring, as best as I can find out, has a rate of about 245lb/"
A stock sierra rear spring has a rate of about 150lb/"

A longer spring has two effects, it allows more travel because it can have more camber (or arch) and it can ride better because it has a lower natural frequency. That mens it bounces slower so makes the car less choppy.

If you started with a CJ spring that had 4" more arch than a Sierra rear spring, and bolted it in, the car would be insanely tall, and never reach the bumpstop on compression because a sierra is much lighter than a CJ.

So you keep removing leaves until the car sits at the height you want. The "extra" travel is now all possible via droop when the pack can relax back to its "free"position, providing the extra droop you're looking for.

However, here's the catch. for the spring to settle so far into its travel, the spring rate has to be VERY low, and that's why the car can get floppy.

I'll try and explain with some rough figures.

A stock sierra pack has a rate of 150lb" and settles 3" once on the car - so there's 450lb on each rear spring, which is 200kg, so that's about right.
If you fit springs with more arch to gain 4" more droop, they have to compress 7" to get the car to the same height, so the rate required is 64lb/" (remember the stock CJ spring is 245lb/") Thats crazy, crazy low. Axlewrap is going to be out of control, and the car will be very loose to drive. Remember too that as a spring get longer, axle wrap gets worse even of the rate is the same as a shorter leaf.

That's the problem with leaf springs and light cars - the rate you want to provide the travel and ride you want isn't enough rate to locate the axle.

It's exactly what we're doing with RUF. We take a 220lb/" spring out of the front, and then put in a 150lb/" spring that's be de-rated down to something around 100lb/" but has more arch. We get lots of travel and a soft ride, but spring life is short and the car can feel loose.

I hope this makes sense.

Steve.

[KEENSY85]

a bit drunk

[atari4x4]

kwality tech kenny

[atari4x4]

So no other supporting mods are required? Just bolt on drop shackles & away you go? That's awesome....

[Gwagensteve]

No, hillbilly, it's not that "one of us read something bad" it's that many of us have owned drop shackles or have seen cars with them perform poorly. About ten years ago all the cool kids were trying them. they don't run them any more. It's not because of road performance either. Maybe the rest of your suspension setup, and the terrain you drive is peculiarly well suited to them.

Are your two LJ's completely identical? Do they have exactly the same overall track width? the same springs? The same shocks? Because to gain 235mm of articulation from each axle with only drop shackles would require drop shackles that opened up to about 400mm in length.

Steve.

[shep]

My NGV flexes better then that

[atari4x4]

hillbilly wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

So no other supporting mods are required? Just bolt on drop shackles & away you go? That's awesome....

atari .....your right, as usual.....but i cant see how the 1 lt motor in the stock ,and the injected 5k in the other makes any difference (maybe we had different educations)....and my drop shacles have lock out pins...to bring them back to stock standard ....people are amazed at the performance from my modified lj, its not fast....but where it goes is another story

so your running identical springs, shocks, wheels & tyres on both LJ's?

[Matthew]

I want to know what the shocks are.

I dont know ljs, but a shock with short enough compressed length for a stocker, and long enough extrnded length for drop hackles doesn't sound feasible.

[Gwagensteve]

hillbilly wrote:

but i cant see how the 1 lt motor in the stock ,and the injected 5k in the other makes any difference (maybe we had different educations)...

Well, certainly a 1.0 and an injected 5K are exactly the same weight, so that won't make any difference to how the front flexes.

I guess you must be running some of these to get all that extra flex with stock shock mounts:



That would have to be the first LJ in the world to run them. Awesome

Hillbilly, you're not the only guy in the world with a capable car.

Steve.

[shep]

Longer springs is realy the best way to get more flex. My rears are about 100mm longer then arb springs.
This is with stiff calmini springs, long shocks with the top mounts in the centre of the car plus wt diffs and nt spring spacing, I only have extended shackles as I was having shackle inversion issues with the stock shackles.

[Red89]

Matthew wrote:

I want to know what the shocks are.

I dont know ljs, but a shock with short enough compressed length for a stocker, and long enough extrnded length for drop hackles doesn't sound feasible.

I'm picking no shocks.

[got_bar_work]

Those 6 pack shocks look like a good idea

[SierraDan]

Look bulky but.

[SuziBlu]

I think it a bit of an attitude/driving style that dictates flex.

Crawling slowly over rock may be fine with little more than stock flex, but, for racing hard over sandy/rocky ground, long flex will keep you in contact with the earth where little flex will give you a very harsh car and body breaking ride.

Flex allows you to go hard, and so get there, where no flex will mean you have to approach much more carefully, slowly, and so, no inertia to keep you going.

This applies to big side wall height in tyres, air down and go hard, use pneumatic suspension as well as your spring, twofold effect.

In my li suzi I have beaten many a much bigger car, simply because I have both flex and pneumatic suspension, the bigger car has to travel slow, if I was in a stock type suzi, I would be bouncing all over the pace, most likely uncontrollably. They have to travel slow, I just race away.

Horses for course, but to say categorically that flex is not needed is a wrong thing to say IMO, bit like saying that a Jeep is a piece of shit, where a suzi rules, or a Cruser is better than a patrol.

For my style of driving, flex rules.

[yelozuki]

I inverted my rear shocks with a bracket i made at work and got longer shocks. But not much difference in the rear either.

[JrZook]

SuziBlu wrote:

I think it a bit of an attitude/driving style that dictates flex.

Crawling slowly over rock may be fine with little more than stock flex, but, for racing hard over sandy/rocky ground, long flex will keep you in contact with the earth where little flex will give you a very harsh car and body breaking ride.

Flex allows you to go hard, and so get there, where no flex will mean you have to approach much more carefully, slowly, and so, no inertia to keep you going.

This applies to big side wall height in tyres, air down and go hard, use pneumatic suspension as well as your spring, twofold effect.

In my li suzi I have beaten many a much bigger car, simply because I have both flex and pneumatic suspension, the bigger car has to travel slow, if I was in a stock type suzi, I would be bouncing all over the pace, most likely uncontrollably. They have to travel slow, I just race away.

Horses for course, but to say categorically that flex is not needed is a wrong thing to say IMO, bit like saying that a Jeep is a piece of shit, where a suzi rules, or a Cruser is better than a patrol.

For my style of driving, flex rules.

Again I think you are confusing wheel travel and flex..

[Gwagensteve]

X infinity.

Couldn't be bothered having another argument with MrBlu over it though.

Steve.

[atari4x4]

yelozuki wrote:

I inverted my rear shocks with a bracket i made at work and got longer shocks. But not much difference in the rear either.

now fit a longer leaf spring in the rear using the same theory as RUF'ing the front & let us know you go.

[SuziBlu]

I do not have a perfect suspension, I have one built for where I play, my point was, there is no perfect, what is hard to understand about that. What is a perfect tyre, motor, suspension ffs, all i was saying was that there are as many different set ups as driving styles

now you come out and say to put my suzi against professionally built mega dollar machines.

What is wrong with you.

There is no set up that is perfect, and to say that flex is bad, or that lockers is the only way to go, IMO is somewhat wrong, that is all I am saying.

hillbilly wrote:

SuziBlu wrote:

I think it a bit of an attitude/driving style that dictates flex.

Crawling slowly over rock may be fine with little more than stock flex, but, for racing hard over sandy/rocky ground, long flex will keep you in contact with the earth where little flex will give you a very harsh car and body breaking ride.

Flex allows you to go hard, and so get there, where no flex will mean you have to approach much more carefully, slowly, and so, no inertia to keep you going.

This applies to big side wall height in tyres, air down and go hard, use pneumatic suspension as well as your spring, twofold effect.

In my li suzi I have beaten many a much bigger car, simply because I have both flex and pneumatic suspension, the bigger car has to travel slow, if I was in a stock type suzi, I would be bouncing all over the pace, most likely uncontrollably. They have to travel slow, I just race away.

Horses for course, but to say categorically that flex is not needed is a wrong thing to say IMO, bit like saying that a Jeep is a piece of shit, where a suzi rules, or a Cruser is better than a patrol.

For my style of driving, flew rules.

we have just the event for your 'perfect suspension '' in qld .....its called ''king of the rim''.....it would be good to see your ''race'' suzuki show the ultra 4's ,and the comp trucks how a well set up zuke goes

[atari4x4]

SuziBlu... i wouldn't take to much notice of old mate hillbilly, he's pretty special.

[SuziBlu]

atari4x4 wrote:

SuziBlu... i wouldn't take to much notice of old mate hillbilly, he's pretty special.

Lol sounds like it.

Maybe I do misinterpret flex and wheel travel, maybe im special, but to me, they go hand in hand, how can you have wheel travel without flex, or the other way around, regardless, IMO the is nothing set in concrete in 4wding, if it were, it would be very boring, everyone would have exactly the same set ups, same cars, motors, ignition, christ, we would even drink exactly the same brew.