

(You can see the connecting rod is removed completely)
Moots1288 wrote:Get radflo coilovers!
Joshua, your mechanic friend is right, in a way. Though he says compression but it is actually extension.The stock length shocks won't allow as much down travel but there is no other shock option available to us (except radflo). The other part of the equation is if it did allow more down travel you would bind your CV joint. You can search for the washer mod and put a few washers on top of the shock (below the spacer) to allow a little more travel but you have to tweak the number of washers to get the optimal down travel without binding the CV.
drburke wrote:Moots1288 wrote:Get radflo coilovers!
Gimme your paypal address and I'll get right on that
Joshua, your mechanic friend is right, in a way. Though he says compression but it is actually extension.The stock length shocks won't allow as much down travel but there is no other shock option available to us (except radflo). The other part of the equation is if it did allow more down travel you would bind your CV joint. You can search for the washer mod and put a few washers on top of the shock (below the spacer) to allow a little more travel but you have to tweak the number of washers to get the optimal down travel without binding the CV.
So in other words, yes he's right but there's nothing we (as a platform) can do? I see his point, and he's afraid that either the LBJ will give out, or the nut securing the strut at the top will shear off and this, the front end will be ruined. His suggestion was to use the stock spring and utilize the Bilsteins/mark's upper mount. I plan on getting a full steel bumper once orders are accepted again, so I feel this spring is necessary and, as such, I am resisting using the original spring.
navigator wrote:Joshua, your mechanic friend is right, in a way. Though he says compression but it is actually extension.The stock length shocks won't allow as much down travel but there is no other shock option available to us (except radflo). The other part of the equation is if it did allow more down travel you would bind your CV joint. You can search for the washer mod and put a few washers on top of the shock (below the spacer) to allow a little more travel but you have to tweak the number of washers to get the optimal down travel without binding the CV.
TBYODA wrote:navigator wrote:Joshua, your mechanic friend is right, in a way. Though he says compression but it is actually extension.The stock length shocks won't allow as much down travel but there is no other shock option available to us (except radflo). The other part of the equation is if it did allow more down travel you would bind your CV joint. You can search for the washer mod and put a few washers on top of the shock (below the spacer) to allow a little more travel but you have to tweak the number of washers to get the optimal down travel without binding the CV.
Does using the radflo shock's have the same extension issues that could bind the CV joint?
Opeth wrote:TBYODA wrote:navigator wrote:Joshua, your mechanic friend is right, in a way. Though he says compression but it is actually extension.The stock length shocks won't allow as much down travel but there is no other shock option available to us (except radflo). The other part of the equation is if it did allow more down travel you would bind your CV joint. You can search for the washer mod and put a few washers on top of the shock (below the spacer) to allow a little more travel but you have to tweak the number of washers to get the optimal down travel without binding the CV.
Does using the radflo shock's have the same extension issues that could bind the CV joint?
Yup, you can only lift the front so much without high angle cv shafts or going SAS.
mikekey wrote:Why hasn't anyone built custom control arms? It's fairly simple and straight forward from what I've seen.
mikekey wrote:Why hasn't anyone built custom control arms? It's fairly simple and straight forward from what I've seen.
The Roadie wrote:Our suspension design is a "zero sum game". Meaning everything is a tradeoff whose sum is the same. You can't get more suspension travel due to the design of the upper and lower ball joints and the inner CV joint.
So all you can do (with either springs or an internal spacer - no difference) is change the resting height. If you get more downtravel from resting height to fully compressed on the bump stop, you have traded that increase for an identical decrease in uptravel.
Increasing total travel would also require new upper and lower control arms, because they are unequal lengths now, and changing the rest height screws up the camber.
One advantage our design gives us, that's a huge benefit on tight trails with rocks and trees, is the superior turning radius. Even before I decided to mod and wheel the Roadiemobile, the turning radius was one of the things that sold us. Mrs. Roadie also values a tight turning radius.
JamesDowning wrote:you can't gain much besides correcting ball joint angles and increasing strength without addressing the elephant in the room... the real limiting element... the inner tripod joint.
dvanbramer88 wrote:Up here in NY; Jason (v7guy) has big plans brewing. Waiting on parts last I talked to him..
fishsticks wrote:Because solid front axles are a thing.
JamesDowning wrote:Mike, I think there are some people looking into some custom arms, but again, you can't gain much besides correcting ball joint angles and increasing strength without addressing the elephant in the room... the real limiting element... the inner tripod joint.