[Fatzook]

pooh!

It was worth a shot

[zukenutter]

Fatzook wrote:

pooh!

It was worth a shot

Yeah glad i tried I can stop thinking about it now

[BertZook]

god try.. they looked good

do u have pics of the issues that you mention about it??... I just want to understand better the whole picture of the problem as Im still learning mechanical terms in english

and how different would be these issues using custom arms?

thnks

[Fatzook]

BertZook wrote:

god try.. they looked good

do u have pics of the issues that you mention about it??... I just want to understand better the whole picture of the problem as Im still learning mechanical terms in english

and how different would be these issues using custom arms?

thnks

Pics will explain more than I can, but the advantage of custom arms is that you can shape them in a way so that they don't interfere with the tie rod.

[BertZook]

Fatzook wrote:

BertZook wrote:

god try.. they looked good

do u have pics of the issues that you mention about it??... I just want to understand better the whole picture of the problem as Im still learning mechanical terms in english

and how different would be these issues using custom arms?

thnks

Pics will explain more than I can, but the advantage of custom arms is that you can shape them in a way so that they don't interfere with the tie rod.

yeah pics would help.. thats why I ask to see if he took some pics to see the issues


but know, I know when fitting big lift the axle twist so you need to correct that to try to bring it to the original position...... but know if these correction plates got issures... a custom arm wont have the same issues???.... ideally the custom arm would have to be a one piece representation of the original arm + correction plates..... so it would twist the axle at the same amount/position..... so how it wont have those issues ??

[Fatzook]

NOOB cad


The red circle is the tie rod

[steak_knife]

close Mr fat, it goes over the control arm's..
stole some pic's from Mr monkey's build..

monkey wrote:

I now know why they don't have castor bushs with more offset.

[Fatzook]

Same dealio

[steak_knife]

Fatzook wrote:

Same dealio

Not if your building arm's from your noob cad...

[Fatzook]

steak_knife wrote:

Fatzook wrote:

Same dealio

Not if your building arm's from your noob cad...

I never said they were jimny arms

[steak_knife]

Fatzook wrote:

steak_knife wrote:

Fatzook wrote:

Same dealio

Not if your building arm's from your noob cad...

I never said they were jimny arms

Coily lover!!!!!!

[BertZook]

I see I see

thnks guys







ps I though you were designing some custom arms for the Jimnys so why the wrong noob cad then

[Fatzook]

BertZook wrote:

I see I see

thnks guys







ps I though you were designing some custom arms for the Jimnys so why the wrong noob cad then

Like I said....

This problem is not unique to Jimnys. I drew this quite some time ago.

[zukenutter]

Fatzook wrote:

BertZook wrote:

I see I see

thnks guys







ps I though you were designing some custom arms for the Jimnys so why the wrong noob cad then

Like I said....

This problem is not unique to Jimnys. I drew this quite some time ago.

How far into designing the arm are you? Want a test bed?

[Trojan]

zukenutter wrote:

Failure: Now I know why these are not available for sale.
The clearance between the tie rod and the control arm is virtually non existent. The clearance between the front drive shaft and cross member is too close for my liking. There's no space for a crush tube in the upper bolt on the forward mount.

Hence, why you really need to weld the castor plates on.

I have castor plates on my coily and the radius arms are the same as a Jimny, so the issues with the tie rod are the same.

Going off your plates, the new front mounting hole should probably be about half way between your current new mounting hole and the original and that's about as far as you can rotate the housing. This obviously prevents the original hole being used to fix the castor plates in place, so the only alternative is to weld. This isn't a bad thing though, as you strengthen the mount up a lot in the process.

The other thing to pay attention to is the tie rod actually moves up and down whilst steering, combine that with the movement of the arms whilst the suspension is travelling and the tie rod clearance needs to be looked at when the suspension is at full travel and the steering is on full lock.

[zukenutter]

Trojan wrote:

zukenutter wrote:

Failure: Now I know why these are not available for sale.
The clearance between the tie rod and the control arm is virtually non existent. The clearance between the front drive shaft and cross member is too close for my liking. There's no space for a crush tube in the upper bolt on the forward mount.

Hence, why you really need to weld the castor plates on.

I have castor plates on my coily and the radius arms are the same as a Jimny, so the issues with the tie rod are the same.

Going off your plates, the new front mounting hole should probably be about half way between your current new mounting hole and the original and that's about as far as you can rotate the housing. This obviously prevents the original hole being used to fix the castor plates in place, so the only alternative is to weld. This isn't a bad thing though, as you strengthen the mount up a lot in the process.

The other thing to pay attention to is the tie rod actually moves up and down whilst steering, combine that with the movement of the arms whilst the suspension is travelling and the tie rod clearance needs to be looked at when the suspension is at full travel and the steering is on full lock.

That info is a little bit late, but thanks.

I had already realised that welding a new plate on was going to be a lot more successful (and easier) but that was not what I was wanting to do. And yes I now obviously realise that the tie rod clearance is a problem.