"Standard arms are 715mm in length and the max droop is about 21 degrees. This means that there is 37.5% of the force pushing the vehicle forward is trying to lift the back end.
Gigglepins arms are 300mm longer which means that 31.7% of the force is trying to lift the vehicle - less than 5% difference.
I agree that 5% is significant - but in both cases, not just Gigglepin"
Have to ask how you worked this out? Is this based on a proper analysis of the roll centres etc and the anti-squat characteristics of the rear end? This is why vehicles bunny hop on climbs.
If not then it's a load of numbers and probably less valid than real world experience. What does a standard length arm (with or without fancy joints) do to the anti-squat and rear end dynamics with a 2" lift? I should think this effect is way more important than pinion rotation in producing a capable vehicle.
And why is everybody obsessed with the freedom of movement in joints? Suspension needs some roll resistance to make a vehicle handle decently (at anything over crawling speeds, oh but that's when anti-squat might become pretty important ). A rose jointed / other free joint suspension MUST have roll resistance added back in the forms of sway bars or something clever.
And as a parting shot, the design and material of the standard LR radius arm is pretty near perfect material engineering.
Right, that's my fuel poured on the fire. Bye
Tim