CCV 80” 4 Link

[Kingfish]

Hi Guys,

Anyone had or known of anyone 4 linking their 80” Trialler for CCV? I know ALRC frown against that sort of modification but not every club is so strict especially AWDC affiliated.

[landroversforever]

Are you talking for the front or rear? The rear really isn't any benefit over the normal coiler type rear end IMO. I think you'll also struggle to package the links on the front end.

[Kingfish]

16 hours ago, landroversforever said:

Are you talking for the front or rear? The rear really isn't any benefit over the normal coiler type rear end IMO. I think you'll also struggle to package the links on the front end.

I was only thinking doing the rear to start off with and like you say not sure with such a small chassis I’d be able to fit a front setup. Why do you think it won’t be better than the standard setup especially a lot of the “challenge” boys and nearly all Ultra 4 use a a 4 link rear end?

[RedLineMike]

for vehicles with a "landrover" chassis, yes you can 4 link them, but it generally doesnt make it better ,

in relation the U4 & challenge vehicles, by having a tubular chassis it allows more room to position the links where they are benificial to the suspension geometry rather than where they fit,

[landroversforever]

8 hours ago, Kingfish said:

I was only thinking doing the rear to start off with and like you say not sure with such a small chassis I’d be able to fit a front setup. Why do you think it won’t be better than the standard setup especially a lot of the “challenge” boys and nearly all Ultra 4 use a a 4 link rear end?

I think in your application it just doesn't bring anything extra to the table. The standard coiler rear suspension layout works really well (IMO one of the things LR got right). Add in some Gwyn Lewis shock mounts and some 11.25" travel shocks and you've got a rear suspension setup that will flex beautifully.

As Mike says, with the Ultra4 and other comp cars, The links will have been (certainly not always) been set up with certain geometries for handling/behaviour. With the LR type chassis links can't always be positioned where you want them to be to see any benefit.

[landroversforever]

Is your 80" already on coils? So you're starting with a Defender/Disco/RRC suspension setup to modify? If that's the case then your best option IMO would be to look at either a 1 link or 3 link for the front. The rear setup as I mentioned above flexes really nicely. Add in some better flex on the front to balance it out and you should have a very capable and stable truck.

[Kingfish]

2 hours ago, landroversforever said:

Is your 80" already on coils? So you're starting with a Defender/Disco/RRC suspension setup to modify? If that's the case then your best option IMO would be to look at either a 1 link or 3 link for the front. The rear setup as I mentioned above flexes really nicely. Add in some better flex on the front to balance it out and you should have a very capable and stable truck.

It’s a Tomcat 80 on a cut down disco 2 chassis. I’ve already got a mostly Gwyn Lewis set up. Don’t get me wrong it’s an already capable truck but was just looking at something different, and also to wind my fellow club members up with! Will have a look at front setups but always thought they were mainly used on bigger vehicles but since your first post I see the Jeep boys have been using them for years.

Do you compete? 

[RedLineMike]

Are you currently using the D2 front radius arms? 

How have you got the rear axle set up if the vehicle is based on a D2?

[Carloz]

4 link set up has the same sort binding effect as a 2 link set up: on articulation the 4 link tries to twist the axle also. 

So in my point of view it should always be a 1 or 3 link to exclude binding.

OR 4link which has at least two links strongly triangulated to minimize bindingeffect (when doing the upper links like this makes it effectively the RRC/Defender rear setup). In this case also no panhard rod needed.

[landroversforever]

4 hours ago, Carloz said:

4 link set up has the same sort binding effect as a 2 link set up: on articulation the 4 link tries to twist the axle also. 

So in my point of view it should always be a 1 or 3 link to exclude binding.

OR 4link which has at least two links strongly triangulated to minimize bindingeffect (when doing the upper links like this makes it effectively the RRC/Defender rear setup). In this case also no panhard rod needed.

A 4 link doesn’t try and twist the axle. If it’s a non triangulated one then you’ll need a panhard which some say binds other say they don’t have any issues with. I think it has to be geometry specific. 

[Kingfish]

10 hours ago, RedLineMike said:

Are you currently using the D2 front radius arms? 

How have you got the rear axle set up if the vehicle is based on a D2?

The radius arms have been adjusted by Gwyn Lewis for camber correction etc.

The rear is as it was just with the watts linkage removed and again Gwyn Lewis trailing arms. 

 

[Kingfish]

Would using Johnny joints on all links aid to better flexing? 

[Carloz]

18 hours ago, landroversforever said:

A 4 link doesn’t try and twist the axle. If it’s a non triangulated one then you’ll need a panhard which some say binds other say they don’t have any issues with. I think it has to be geometry specific. 

That is true as long as all 4 links are equal length and parallel. 🙂

In virtualy all cases different lengths and non parallel set ups are used for many reasons and of course there will be always be some flex somewhere in the construction to compensate the binding effects because those forces are gigantic. Even when spherical joints are used on all points.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Carloz

[RedLineMike]

22 hours ago, Kingfish said:

The radius arms have been adjusted by Gwyn Lewis for camber correction etc.

The rear is as it was just with the watts linkage removed and again Gwyn Lewis trailing arms. 

 

So trailing arms & a frame? 

 

On my ultra4 buggy the upper links go from the centre of the rear diff, to basically the inside of the rock sliders, & the lower links go from the ends of the axle casing to the lower part of the belly cradle about 8-10" at a guess from the centre of the vehicle, 

 

Unfortunately with a landrover chassis vehicle unless you're doing this right at the beginning, the chassis is in the way no matter how you paint it, 

I've 4 linked a tubular chassis buggy before which had essentially a discovery chassis but made out of tube, 

Did it work? Yes it did, 

Did it work well, it was reasonable & had its flaws, like prop vibration under braking, was nice & flexible but felt like it was always trying to fall over

[RedLineMike]

In reality, a Gwyn Lewis setup is the best compromise for trialing on an 80" wheelbase, 

 

More flex will allow the rear axle to steer more under the vehicle & will probably contribute to you falling over, 

 

What length of shock were you intending to use? 

 

[Kingfish]

On 10/4/2020 at 5:52 PM, RedLineMike said:

In reality, a Gwyn Lewis setup is the best compromise for trialing on an 80" wheelbase, 

 

More flex will allow the rear axle to steer more under the vehicle & will probably contribute to you falling over, 

 

What length of shock were you intending to use? 

 

Yes a wide angle GL A frame. Currently using Old Man Emu +5.5 shocks. Not sure how much longer shocks I can use without falling foul of other issues.

I suppose what your saying is that I have a good enough setup as it is for the truck. I’m certainly not looking any further than club level trials but would like to mix it up and keep it interesting.

 

[landroversforever]

I had that setup on my 90, and am going with the same again.  I reckon it’s worth you looking at 3 link in the front if that’s allowed with the regs. Or a one-link. 

[Kingfish]

7 hours ago, landroversforever said:

I had that setup on my 90, and am going with the same again.  I reckon it’s worth you looking at 3 link in the front if that’s allowed with the regs. Or a one-link. 

Spoke to our clerk of the course for our club and he didn’t see any issues with it.

Can you recommend a setup for either a 3 or 1 front link?

[RedLineMike]

14 minutes ago, Kingfish said:

Spoke to our clerk of the course for our club and he didn’t see any issues with it.

Can you recommend a setup for either a 3 or 1 front link?

https://www.racpartsltd.co.uk/product-page/front-1-link

although its worth keeping in mind the large amount of forces being put into that cross member

 

if you were to 3 link it, theres not really any kits available off the shelf as such these days, they do come up 2nd hand occasionally,

[landroversforever]

Both are a home built thing. Especially having seen the lack of quality in the RAC parts 1 link. 

 

The only other thing, which I don't think will work on a D2 based car, is the 4xforce 4 link front that used to be available (not sure if it still is).

[Kingfish]

7 hours ago, landroversforever said:

Both are a home built thing. Especially having seen the lack of quality in the RAC parts 1 link. 

 

The only other thing, which I don't think will work on a D2 based car, is the 4xforce 4 link front that used to be available (not sure if it still is).

Just looked at both the RAC and 4xForce options and correct me if I’m wrong neither look heavy duty enough to handle a day’s trialling. Unless their made of something stronger than the existing radius arms and even they bend. 
 

Can you post any pictures of your setup or are they “trade” secrets?

[landroversforever]

I posted about the 4xforce one and it actually came up pretty strong from a number of trusted people on here. The links for example are solid. and the joints on it are steering components from a 44T truck.

As for pictures of my setup.... I'm still building it, but the best option is to have a look in the special builds section under my name for my 3 link thread. Which is spat out from the main build thread (where it's all repeated). Have a read through that, then its time for the 3 link calculator, a tape measure and your truck.

[Kingfish]

51 minutes ago, landroversforever said:

I posted about the 4xforce one and it actually came up pretty strong from a number of trusted people on here. The links for example are solid. and the joints on it are steering components from a 44T truck.

As for pictures of my setup.... I'm still building it, but the best option is to have a look in the special builds section under my name for my 3 link thread. Which is spat out from the main build thread (where it's all repeated). Have a read through that, then its time for the 3 link calculator, a tape measure and your truck.

Thanks for all you help 👍

[RedLineMike]

12 hours ago, Kingfish said:

Just looked at both the RAC and 4xForce options and correct me if I’m wrong neither look heavy duty enough to handle a day’s trialling. Unless their made of something stronger than the existing radius arms and even they bend. 
 

Can you post any pictures of your setup or are they “trade” secrets?

as with everything, if you drive with your eyes shut you can bend anything,  ive personally bent d1 /d2 radius arms both front & rear, on my current build ive bent the solid t6 aluminum links to a nice bowed shape,

 

there are several people in the challenge comunity who use the RAC one link, so i would say it would withstand some gentle cane dodging,

 

its also worth mentioning in regards to using jonny joints or heims in the ends of the front radius arms will restrict the articulation that can be achieved throught the nature of hot the front suspension twists, ive been there & discovered it the hard way 🤣

[JohnnoK]

Here is an app I found that allows you to play around with linkages.

linkage.msi