i need some rear setup help

[laidout]

i made my rear 2 link with a watts link (notyet installed) but im having second thoughts i need some ideas on the setup i have and or anyidea on what i have to make it better

[jlaird]

Dude, I like that setup. When I first saw this pic in another thread, I thought it was real creative; simple but creative. I would keep going with it. The watts link is a good choice too. Have you decided on tire height. What is your ride height going to be?

[SlammedDime]

The only thing that concerns me is the lack of support on the rear side of those upper bag brackets. Otherwise, it looks nice.

[jlaird]

yea, I can't really tell what's going on with that pic, but I agree with matt. I just assumed he wasn't finished.

[Jaredm82]

Seams too narrow to me but what do I know...

[pharcydekm]

Just from my experience when you run a two link you want them farther out. I have a very simular setup on mine and it seams to be working fine. I haven't put the truck on the road yet but I'm hoping to this week. I don't have any finished pics at the moment but i will take some tomorrow.

[PBFAB.COM]

The wider the links the more stability will be created. I would make them as wide as you can, and get some good shocks to mount outboard of the rails and see how stable she feels.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by pharcydekm

I haven't put the truck on the road yet...

Is this your config? Unless the picture is deceiving me, this should NOT be put on the road for any reason whatsoever. The rearend is above the frame rails, which means the only limiter for upward travel is the top part of your front link mounts. That metal will rip right off the top before you get out of the driveway!

[bagged69c10]

I never did really understand how the frame under the rearend worked. I seen it on one other truck in a mag about a year ago.

[1lowdiesel]

2 link hmmm.... not a huge fan i've heard seme horros stories with those.

[leftcoast66]

I agree w/ porter, out side the frame is much more supportive and works better I think.

[thekid54]

I agree with the others, outside the frame rails would be more stable. However, I am biased as I'm doing a 2-link with the arms on the outside of the frame rails.

This is an old pic, and not the best angle.

[[ol'Blue]]

thats CRAZY!>?!?!??! i like that.

[pharcydekm]

Originally Posted by XXL

Is this your config? Unless the picture is deceiving me, this should NOT be put on the road for any reason whatsoever. The rearend is above the frame rails, which means the only limiter for upward travel is the top part of your front link mounts. That metal will rip right off the top before you get out of the driveway!

I apologize up front but I feel a bit attacked on this post.

Yes this is my configuration. I can't see why you would think that the axle running above or below the frame rail would make any difference on the amount of pressure applied to the trailing arm mount.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by pharcydekm

I apologize up front but I feel a bit attacked on this post.

Originally Posted by pharcydekm

I can't see why you would think that the axle running above or below the frame rail would make any difference on the amount of pressure applied to the trailing arm mount.

The location of the frame to the axle isn't the issue (though it does create some logistics issues with ground clearance, component location, body mounting, "topping out," etc.). The issue is that there's no structural component keeping the axle and link assembly from over-rotating upward. And in the case of the picture you posted, because the rotation is effectively blocked by the cap on the top of your front mount, as the assembly rotates upward, it puts exponential pressure on that cap. See pics...

The behavior of this assembly is to rotate up and forward (pic #1). So, when the rearend hits a bump (or even has weight applied to it), it moves up (pic #2). As a result, the front of the trailing arm hits the cap of the front mount (pic #3). Applying, as an example, 2000# (one rear corner of the truck probably weighs closer to 600#, but the force of hitting a bump at speed is significantly higher), with a trailing arm length of 48" (just guessing... too lazy to go out and measure one), and the fulcrum point 1" from the end (that's where the front mount bolt is), you're talking about 96,000# of force that will be pressing on the steel piece that caps the front mount. That is a non-trivial amount of pressure on the side surface of a piece of steel. I believe it will shear LONG before that much pressure is applied.

[IvelDesigns]

factory T-arms are about 57.5 inches long.

i do agree this setup is odd, but, i think the most important thing about this setup is where the bags get mounted. I would mount them as close to the rearend as possible, or at least in the middle of the t-arm.

also, XXL, i think you're assuming that his cap (where your arrow is pointing in pic 3) is touching the t-arm. even if it is, his frame is laying on the ground right now, aka, the lowest it will ever get. so there is no pressure on the top of his mount. again, if it were me, i'd make sure that even when layed out, there was at least 1/2" of clearance there just to be safe, cause you're right, if the t-arm ever touches the top of that mount, it will shread it.

just my thoughts

[XXL]

Originally Posted by IvelDesigns

also, XXL, i think you're assuming that his cap (where your arrow is pointing in pic 3) is touching the t-arm.

Yes, as the pic appears to me (and my eyes are teh crap), they are resting on the cap. In addition, the pic looks to me like the frame is a couple of inches off the ground. That too could be an incorrect assumption on my part... I was following the shadow being cast off the far rail. I stand by my position that it's a sketchy design... whether it's actually hitting right now or not.

[IvelDesigns]

Originally Posted by XXL

I stand by my position that it's a sketchy design... whether it's actually hitting right now or not.

agreed. it seems like just as much work, if not less, to build a 4 link setup vs this custom 2 link. although moving the 2 link out does seem like it would be better than the factory setup.

[pharcydekm]

The way it is designed the trailing arm mount would max out if the frame was about 8" under ground. I have put the rear wheels on 8" blocks and layed the frame onto the ground and the trailing arm still does not hit the mount in anyway. The mount and the frame are both made from 1/4" steel.

It is built to lay the frame rails flat on the ground when layed out with up to a 31" wheel tire combo.