Author Topic: clayton or R E long arms  (Read 1459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

officer mike

  • Guest
clayton or R E long arms
« on: May 07, 2007, 05:38:17 PM »
which long arm kit should I got with? I kinda like the clayton set up. or the rustys set ups is real nice (http://rustysoffroad.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=rustys&Product_Code=ROR550LTJ&Category_Code=sus_tj_kit)

Offline chardrc

  • Member
  • Posts: 3535
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2007, 08:43:53 PM »
i hate to bring in a 3rd party.. but my dad has a full traction long arm kit on his Rubicon and it is sweet... lots of articulation looks cool... havent had any experience with other long arm kits to compare it to but it looks beefy.
1990 YJ 4cly, ax5, 2.5 inch BDS lift, 31 MTr\'s,  Powertrax-lockers all around, track-bars removed, boomerang shackles, warn m8000 winch, electric fan. [sold but not forgotten]

2007 jk Rubicon 2dr

officer mike

  • Guest
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2007, 10:34:19 PM »
I dont believe that they offer just the long arm up grade. I already have all the lift. thanks

Offline jagular7

  • Member
  • Posts: 987
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2007, 07:56:19 AM »
When going to a long arm suspension, you need to figure out why and for what purpose you need it. LA provides greater range of articulation, droop and compression compared directly to a SA lift. Usually, the limitations of a SA are minimized with a LA, but other limitations are added with the LA and must be considered. Without modifying wheelbase and track along with a LA, all you really have done is add greater range in the suspension without the stability. SA lifts are limited to height due to the short arms. LA replaces this limitation but adds other limitations.

When you do decide to go LA, front vs rear suspension should be considered for the function, limitations, and capabilities. Front suspension has to consider the steering aspect of the axle, thus, if using a frame mounted box, there needs to be a track bar to counter against the push/pull from the box. If you are going full hydraulic front steering, there is no relation to the axle to the frame, thus a specific track bar is not necessary to an extent. its the same for the rear axle. When adding a LA in the rear, triangulating the upper and lower arms will eliminate the track bar. By eliminating the track bar in the rear, you minimize the torque steer of the rear axle. You also basically maximize the 'articulation' of the axle relative to the frame. Articulation is the movement of the axle about itself. Compression and droop is part of the the articulation formula but not exclusive.
Jagular7
97 SE - Rubbered and locked for fun
94 SE - stock, collecting parts for 37s

Offline Elyod

  • Member
  • Posts: 227
  • Sedona is red
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2007, 09:47:27 AM »
I was about to mention the triangulated rear end.  I have not done much research on the two build kits you are looking at, but rock krawler sells a long arm build kit that doesn't need a rear trac bar.  This is the kit I am working towards right now.  Here's the link for the build stuff:

http://www.discountjeepparts.com/product_info.php/products_id/27385

officer mike

  • Guest
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2007, 10:08:32 AM »
Thats the cheapest I have ever seenthat rockkrawler kit. I had the front part of that on my xj. and i canvouch that it was awesome. only problem was that the hiems were too tight to take grease for a long time.

officer mike

  • Guest
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2007, 10:23:35 AM »
So is it better to get a kit that has the triangulated rear to eliminate the track bar?

Offline Elyod

  • Member
  • Posts: 227
  • Sedona is red
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2007, 07:09:39 PM »
I haven't read anything on the internet that says otherwise, there are less points to bind when flexing so i can't think of any reason not to buy a kit like that.

I had the front part of that on my xj. and i canvouch that it was awesome. only problem was that the hiems were too tight to take grease for a long time.

So you already know the three link front suspension is good?  I have been looking for someone who was running that type of setup to get an opinion.

officer mike

  • Guest
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2007, 07:31:41 PM »
Yes I had the RK kit on the front of my xj. I had it on a fork lift one day and I was like a proud father. I do believe the droop was limitless, well atleast it seemed it. I liked it, thats for sure

Offline jagular7

  • Member
  • Posts: 987
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2007, 08:16:11 AM »
So is it better to get a kit that has the triangulated rear to eliminate the track bar?

Whenever you can take a lateral link and make it work against a combination of angles, then you are minimizing the ill-effects of the straight-line force. TJ owners can actually lift a front tire in the air in stock configuration. Turning hard left and powering from a dead stop, the left front tire will lift off the ground (depending on the droop length). What is going on is the torque is twisting the frame and pushing against the track bars for both front and rear axles. Due to the short length between the track bars, something has to give to a point, thus the lifting of the front left frame. The front track bar goes from left frame to right axle. Rear track is right frame to left axle.
Now using the same criteria and removing the rear track bar through triangular links, you basically transpose a lateral (side to side) force into a lateral and longitudinal (front to back) force. You split the force into 2. It's the same for the longitudinal force you would have with a straight link along the frame. Triangulating its now transposed longitudinal and lateral at the same time.

There are a lot more forces to consider, frame, roll cage, body stiffening, weight, etc, but you should get the idea.

Triangulating the front axle with a direct lateral link to the axle is not recommended. The lateral link needs to be compensated directly force to force. The steering box is rigidly attached to the frame as well the axle. It pushes/pulls against the frame and axle. Something has to give and usually its the friction of the tires thus you can turn. Using full hydraulic steering, you are not applying any forces between the frame and axle. You are applying force from one side of axle to the other. You generate a push/pull there. Depending on the ram force, you can actually buckle the axle tube, bend the tie rods, or break the knuckles.

Thus my comments on referring to what purpose the Jeep will be used. Going leafs in the rear of a TJ provides benefits against a 'tall' SA lift, but again, introduces different limitations to consider.
Jagular7
97 SE - Rubbered and locked for fun
94 SE - stock, collecting parts for 37s

Enjoi

  • Guest
Re: clayton or R E long arms
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2007, 03:33:11 PM »
damn jagular u know your stuff. Just speaking on the durability of the RE long arms my friend pretty much made his rockcrawler a trophy truck with load of pedal. During that trip he broke his front Ujoint, shock mounts, one shock got ejected out but his RE long arm was fine thats probably the only thing that didn't get messed up