3 Link ?...or what other options maybe ?

[dirtydiesel]

The reason i chose to use this type of 4 link was to eliminate any bending loads on the axle, and because it allowed me to do away with the panard rod.

upper 3 link would still put the axle case under a lot of strain, but by it's nature an impact on the front axle (i.e. punching bank) will cause the front suspension to cycle upwards, and as such the bending loads on the case would only then come at full bump.

Where as with lower three link a frontal impact will try and roll the axle case under the top links which will pull the axle down and the body will rise over it until the weight of the car either bends the axle or pulls the axle (tyre) over the obstacle

[bill van snorkle]

The problems I was having on my front 4-link appears to be with compression of bushes.

I've now done them up a lot tighter, and the slack does seem to have come out of the system.

Poly-bushes should cure it completely, but I wouldn't expect them to last very long.

Here is my rear suspension using a 4-link, so no reason why you can't have a front 4-link around a sump

Of course its all theory with mine at the moment.

I originally used one of those 3 bolt Rover rear trailing arm bushings at the chassis end of my upper 3rd link.

Due to my coil springs being mounted behind the axle centreline in an effort to promote additional front end squat on steep climbs, I found that the bushing was too compliant to resist the compressive forces of both vehicle weight and drive thrust. I tried OME urethane but they permanently squashed flat within a couple of days. The original rubber one retained its shape but clearance between the top link and the propshaft universal joint at the diff end was already tight and they would clash under heavy braking. To resolve this issue I modified the top link to have a Defender ''A'' frame ball joint on the chassis end. The chassis end bushes of the lower fronts didn't last very long in either rubber or urathane . I have had very good success by putting a 1'' holesaw through series landy engine/gearbox rubber/steel mounts and using those instead.

Bill.

Bill.

[SOA 93]

I

What about the first photo's in this topic did anybody of you has that setup ever seen really. Looks interresting but nobody seems to talk about that setup??

Tried to find some more of it but there isn't really much to find

I think the Dobson X-link is relatively new, I think they were making 5-link kits before but have now stopped in favour of making this new X-link, if this is true then it says something about the new set up.

Any body want to have a guess as to what there using for a pivot?

[TJ101]

I never had a problem with the custom 3-Link on the hybrid running with this lower set-up and I'm pretty sure Tim hasn't since. Other people on this forum are running with a similar set-up again on their own self-build 3-links with no problems of fatigue etc too.

Also I don't understand why people are so against the 3-Link if people use their LR's on the road too. I can't comment on the off the shelf 3-Links as I haven't driven them, but 18 months of driving the hybrid on all sorts of roads/conditions it was never been a problem handling wise. Fitting Simex has more of an impact in road use and safety in my opinion.

Cheers

Steve

Hi all, been away, and just read the previous pages,

I find the setup on the hybrid very good, no real problems, Only once got the lower center link caught up on a rock,while offroad (driver error up LFH)

On road, you do have to make some allowances for it, you tend to need a bit more of a "racing line" through the corners, as a some body roll, but I feel more down to the soft front set up, that the 3 link, but once used to the quirkiness, not a problem

The front axle etc has had a bit of a knocking, but is still straight at present !! Had to replace the rod ends on the center link after Seven sister due to a bit of play (Bish, think SteveG says you have a spare pair he gave you ??)

If I were building a vehicle up, would be in the top 10 jobs to be done

Thanks PaulW, you did a cracking job !!

[MasterSplicer]

Any body want to have a guess as to what there using for a pivot?

so what is the pivot what they have used here??

[FridgeFreezer]

John,

I'm sorry you feel that way, we seemed to get on fine when we met at Donnington & Gaydon shows. I'm also sorry that you got dragged into the issues regarding the removal of my products from the G2F website hosted by you web company following the business split. However, I was receiving calls & emails from unhappy customers desperately trying to order G2F products that were not of my product range or supply, unfortunately I could not help them.

No hard feelings mate,

Andy

Andy - no hard feelings, no. The reason behind my comments was nothing personal, just that you seem to want to drag me into issues between you & Nige that were nowt to do with me. IMHO that's not a great way to conduct business, I don't need to know about your dirty laundry and nor does anyone else really. That's why I worded my post explaining the situation of the various companies so carefully rather than just repeat all the stuff you've told me as IMHO it's between you and Nige or whoever else.

Eeeehhh I f***ing hate politics let's get back to arsing about in mud.

[Bush65]

Forgive my basics, and feel free to rip me to shreds (dons Flak jacket)

I am by no means into the modifications that you guys so ignore me if you wish.

If you had a radius arm that pivoted on 2 axis would that not help the axle droop? or prevent the bushes binding.

For example, using a standard chassis style bush and pin would allow the radius arm to rotate.

Then, immediately after the bush, use a rose joint, allowing the arm to bend.

Obviously a rose-jointed panhard rod would be required.

What you're suggesting is good for the back but does't solve the real problem at the front. Here, because each radius arm is attached to the axle by two bushes, when articulating this has the effect of the two radius arms tryig to twist the axle in opposing directions. Imagine as one arm drops and the other is raised.

imspanners,

What LR90 has said is correct.

What you have sketched, will ease the binding of the chassis bush. It is similar to the radius arms that I have for the front of my rangie. The ones I am using have more widely spaced front bushes, and my original intention was to remove the front bolt from the left radius arm for off road. Now I am seriously considering the Dobbin Engineering X-link set-up.

[Bush65]

I think the Dobson X-link is relatively new, I think they were making 5-link kits before but have now stopped in favour of making this new X-link, if this is true then it says something about the new set up.

Any body want to have a guess as to what there using for a pivot?

AFAIK, that Toyota Hilux is the first to have a X-link.

It was devised and made by Glen Dobbin (not Dobson).

Here is a link to Dobbin Engineering web site.

There is no information about the X-link there, but if you look at his products, and the A-frame kit that he sells, you may get an idea what the pivot for the X-link might look like - but I might be wrong!

That Hilux is not Glen's truck. This is an old pic of his FJ40 landcruiser

As you can see it has a little more flex at the front than Hybrid from Hell.

[LR90]

Now I am seriously considering the Dobbin Engineering X-link set-up.

NOw I can see how it works I like it. Simple but very original.

Be good to see a setup like this running on a rover axle and with a name like X-link, who knows, even those nice people at X-Eng might like to produce a kit

[GBMUD]

I friend of mine tried a similar system on his rear radius arms - using a clevis and a rubber bush rather than a rose joint but same principal. The system worked very well off-road and stopped the bush from restricting movenent. Unfortunatly, under severe compressive stress climbing a hill one day, the bush and the joint allowed movement in the same axis and (it is my theory that) they both pivoted in opposite directions, shortening the effective length of the arm and allowing the axle to rotate, diff nose up, till the propshaft U/J collided and destroyed it's self - became a bit of a Z-link . Obvoiusly the same may occur under braking on the front axle...

Nobody liked my idea of an anti-roll bar then.

Chris

[Bush65]

I friend of mine tried a similar system on his rear radius arms - using a clevis and a rubber bush rather than a rose joint but same principal. The system worked very well off-road and stopped the bush from restricting movenent. Unfortunatly, under severe compressive stress climbing a hill one day, the bush and the joint allowed movement in the same axis and (it is my theory that) they both pivoted in opposite directions, shortening the effective length of the arm and allowing the axle to rotate, diff nose up, till the propshaft U/J collided and destroyed it's self - became a bit of a Z-link . Obvoiusly the same may occur under braking on the front axle...

Nobody liked my idea of an anti-roll bar then.

Chris

I know what you are saying.

For my front radius arm, the rover rubber chassis bushes are replaced with UHMWP bushes. They have been well proven on Nissans in Aus.

As Bill has noted, in earlier posts in this discussion, when the suspension is designed to reduce binding, as a 3 link does, it is necessary to replace the very compliant bushes that are used with links that bind. Other wise you get the kind of problems described.

Bill's suggestion of using rear (axle end) bushes from rangie trailing arms is very sound for the axle end of links for a 3 link suspension. Normal radius arm bushes would be dangerous during heavy braking from highway speeds, because the compliance of the bushes would allow the axle to steer out of control.

[SteveG]

Nobody liked my idea of an anti-roll bar then.

Chris

I did and this is what I thought would enable me to put a 3-Link on the 90 and still use it often on the road.

I like the design of these Quick Silver disconnects..

Cheers

Steve

[simonr]

I friend of mine tried a similar system on his rear radius arms - using a clevis and a rubber bush rather than a rose joint but same principal. The system worked very well off-road and stopped the bush from restricting movenent. Unfortunatly, under severe compressive stress climbing a hill one day, the bush and the joint allowed movement in the same axis and (it is my theory that) they both pivoted in opposite directions, shortening the effective length of the arm and allowing the axle to rotate, diff nose up, till the propshaft U/J collided and destroyed it's self - became a bit of a Z-link . Obvoiusly the same may occur under braking on the front axle...

Thanks for not naming names Chris!

Turned out to be a stupid idea - as all those with me in 7 Sisters last year will testify! However, it did give the inspiration for an F^2 cool idea - which will rear it's head soon (probably in Argyl!).

Si

[simonr]

While I'm doing confessions.....you might as well see this too. Tried out and failed the same day!

While it gave infinite articulation, it did not allow the axle to droop or rise any further than standard. The M16 bolt holding the whole thing together proved not to be quite as strong as the Ball joint. It stretched 3mm when the radius arms folded up. Think I was lucky to get home without it breaking too!

This also lead to a design which achieves the same thing but in an F^2 cool way!

I'm working on a front 'missing link' system - which in it's incomplete state has had one outing so far - and appeared to work pretty well!

Si

[bishbosh]

To respond to Turbocharger's post form a few pages back, Auverlands have had A frames front and rear for not a little time now.....

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Si

Looking forward to the X-F^2-cool-A-Frame 'final solution'.

Hopefully never available in 'Terrys Colins chocolate Orange'

Pull yer finger out mate,............. time is ticking yerknow

Nige

[Bush65]

While I'm doing confessions.....you might as well see this too. Tried out and failed the same day!

While it gave infinite articulation, it did not allow the axle to droop or rise any further than standard. The M16 bolt holding the whole thing together proved not to be quite as strong as the Ball joint. It stretched 3mm when the radius arms folded up. Think I was lucky to get home without it breaking too!

This also lead to a design which achieves the same thing but in an F^2 cool way!

I'm working on a front 'missing link' system - which in it's incomplete state has had one outing so far - and appeared to work pretty well!

Si

If you look at the angle of the bolts through the bushings at the chassis end of the A-frame, you should see that they restrict droop of the A-frame.

[bill van snorkle]

If you look at the angle of the bolts through the bushings at the chassis end of the A-frame, you should see that they restrict droop of the A-frame.

Yes John, the pivot axis of the ''A'' frame is not concentric with the bolts. There's a bit of twisting and compressing of the bushings going on there, but the rear end works pretty well anyway.

Bill.

[simonr]

Yes John, the pivot axis of the ''A'' frame is not concentric with the bolts. There's a bit of twisting and compressing of the bushings going on there, but the rear end works pretty well anyway.

Bill.

I see that, but the A frame is also higher - to a point where at normal running height, the taper on the axle was perpendicular to the pivot bolt.

The problem only came about when the axle drooped further than the travel in the ball joint which then put a fair bit of force on the bolt.

The next version will allow the same amount of droop & rise as the trailing arms plus, as before, unlimited articulation. It could be victim of the same problem - but only when the trailing arms are at about 50 degrees - and then you have bigger (prop shaft and shock absorber) issues.

Just got my quotes back for making the joints in bulk - and it looks very promising price wise! Same ball park as most of the big rose joints.

Si

[dirtydiesel]

I just buld a new mount to take the ball joint bracket off a salisbury, and set the ball joint to the centre of it's travel at ride height.

This combined with one of simons wide angle ball joints gives more than enough travel for 15" shocks.

[Bush65]

Here is alink to pics of the X-link on the hilux in the earlier posts. Chad's Hilux

The front shocks have 14" travel and 12" hydraulic actuators on top of that.

[SOA 93]

I was thinking more like a fabricated box, now its even easier .

Looks like he's using 'Nylatron'(?) for the centre bushing, nice and easy too.

Thanks Bush, that's great a help.

Andy

[bill van snorkle]

Here is alink to pics of the X-link on the hilux in the earlier posts. Chad's Hilux

The front shocks have 14" travel and 12" hydraulic actuators on top of that.

That is a very clever setup, and elegantly simple too. Is the crosslink intended to be torsionally flexible?

Just to toss another unoriginal idea into the mix. What about a 1 link? ie a single wishbone rigidly bolted/welded to the axle, running back and centrally pivoted off the crossmember under the bellhousing. You still need a panhard rod, so technically it's a 2 link, but it would be easy to construct,there would only be one bush on the wishbone to service. Resistance to torque reaction under power or brakes would be 100%. I think most of you here would be too young to remember, but way back in medievel times, when there were few surfaced roads old Ford cars and trucks as well as some Austin 7's had this arrangement on the front axle. These cars were only 2 wheel drive but because the front axle articulated freely the rear wheels tended to stay well planted.No expense spared Unimogs to this day still use this principal front and rear in the form of a torque tube.

Bill.

[dirtydiesel]

That is a very clever setup, and elegantly simple too. Is the crosslink intended to be torsionally flexible?

Just to toss another unoriginal idea into the mix. What about a 1 link? ie a single wishbone rigidly bolted/welded to the axle, running back and centrally pivoted off the crossmember under the bellhousing. You still need a panhard rod, so technically it's a 2 link, but it would be easy to construct,there would only be one bush on the wishbone to service. Resistance to torque reaction under power or brakes would be 100%. I think most of you here would be too young to remember, but way back in medievel times, when there were few surfaced roads old Ford cars and trucks as well as some Austin 7's had this arrangement on the front axle. These cars were only 2 wheel drive but because the front axle articulated freely the rear wheels tended to stay well planted.No expense spared Unimogs to this day still use this principal front and rear in the form of a torque tube.

Bill.

I've had this very idea rattleing around in my brain for a while now, but i carn't seem to find anything that would be suitable for the chassis bush.

A solution could be to copy the mogs and have a v. large rose joint mounted on a "bushed" x-member.

[bill van snorkle]

I've had this very idea rattleing around in my brain for a while now, but i carn't seem to find anything that would be suitable for the chassis bush.

A solution could be to copy the mogs and have a v. large rose joint mounted on a "bushed" x-member.

On a 6x6 Landy I built back in the early 1980's I made a front wishbone that pivoted on a large diameter but relatively short Metalastic bush from one of the 6 torque rods off a tandem drive rear suspension on a large heavy truck(Kenworth). The pivot axis of the bush was perpendicular to the axle. There should be something similar on european trucks.

Bill