More travel, more clearance, and no gearboxes?

[TruckCamper]

Your 3 link design looks much better than the dog bone design (from a strength standpoint - way less stress on joints).

IFS setup does resemble RCLT... I think if it could utilize ball joints and more factory style tie rods it would be much more functional for longevity and daily multipurpose use (which is really why we own Broncos and not Jeeps or buggies)

Fun to watch you work through the process. You've learned a ton!

Sponsored

 

[Valhalla]

Yeaaa you made grapes less good, way to go.

 

[Valhalla]

I still want to do a double triangulated rear. I am just getting to replacing the diffs though. I guess I'll go walk my baby nuts around the block...

 

[SierraBronco]

Your 3 link design looks much better than the dog bone design (from a strength standpoint - way less stress on joints).

IFS setup does resemble RCLT... I think if it could utilize ball joints and more factory style tie rods it would be much more functional for longevity and daily multipurpose use (which is really why we own Broncos and not Jeeps or buggies)

Fun to watch you work through the process. You've learned a ton!

Yeah the wishbone/dogbone/yoke three link does work well with how I have the swaybar set up on her rig. To get the swaybar where I wanted it I cut the arms and welded them to go around the coilovers, and the clearance is tight! As a result we need as little movement as possible. I’ll need to redo the driver side swaybar arm to accommodate the conventional three link.

I haven’t had any trouble with the uniball stuff we’ve been running, but I get the desire for less potential maintenance with the ball joints. If there’s one thing I have come to discover about Vasher is that he’s very clever and will come up with a creative solution if you have something special you want.

 

[SierraBronco]

I still want to do a double triangulated rear. I am just getting to replacing the diffs though. I guess I'll go walk my baby nuts around the block...

@Max1h is working on this as well

 

[87-Z28]

It is very refreshing to see Vasher doing these things and putting out different design options. Unlike others that just claim their stuff has no drawbacks and is bulletproof. Every design has its goals and resulting compromises. That is the point of design intent.

The 3 link with Panhard allows for the links to be long and not restricted by the fuel tank. Long links provide motion that is closer to linear. The longer the link the less curvilinear. Earth has a massive radius (long link) and Kansas is pretty damn flat (linear). The flat earthers surely concur.

The goal is always to give the axle as much freedom of motion as possible in the vertical direction. Hence increased articulation and travel. The vertical motion is constrained by the coilovers, which can then be dialed in to provide desired travel and articulation.

All would be great if that was all that was needed. But what prevents the axle from moving laterally or for-aft? Enter the links. It is always best to grab the axle on top and bottom to restrain it. You don’t want to restrain any vertical motion. So links along the for-aft direction are introduced. Both upper and lowers. They allow vertical motion, although curvilinear based on length, but they constrain for-aft motion. They are rods with pinned ends with high axial stiffness, which prevents for-aft motion.

Downside is they are long and bend very easily, so no stiffness or constraint of axle in lateral direction. Now enter two different solutions for lateral constraint. 1) classic Panhard bar and 2) some triangulation of the for-aft links.

Panhard provides the most robust lateral constraint since loads are axial along Panhard, the stiff direction. Downside is now vertical motion is further constrained along yet another curvilinear path. Hence make Panhard as long as possible.

Triangulated upper links provide greater axle freedom and no additional curvilinear path. Downside is long slender links have little bending stiffness, hence triangulation is required to force axial loads through the links. Without good triangulation the links will bend and not constrain lateral movement very well. The major difficulty for our platform is the lack of real estate to allow for proper triangulation on passenger side upper link due to the fuel tank. Hence upper links are going to see real bending loads which is not ideal. One way to deal with poor triangulation of the upper links is to also triangulate the lower links.

Grabbing axle at two locations for a triangulated 4 link (like rock crawler), splits the lateral axle loads into both joints. Hence each joint sees half the load (much like double shear). The vasher wishbone upper only attaches to axle at one location. This results in all the lateral load going through one joint and into the wishbone link. The benefit is greater freedom of axle motion in vertical direction during articulation.

Lots of tradeoffs with different design intents. Wishbone 3.5 link is aggressive towards articulation and vertical axle freedom but comes at cost of significant lateral loads to deal with all at one joint and into a weakly triangulated wishbone. Classic 3 link with Panhard easily handles lateral loads but comes at cost of greater axle constraint and hence decreased articulation

Again it is great to see lots of different designs with varying intents and associated tradeoffs.

 

[SierraBronco]

Quoting @87-Z28 “Again it is great to see lots of different designs with varying intents and associated tradeoffs.”

I originally wanted to try a horizontal watts link for the rig equipped with the conventional three link, but again-packaging constraints prevented this turning into reality.

 

[87-Z28]

I originally wanted to try a horizontal watts link for the rig equipped with the conventional three link, but again-packaging constraints prevented this turning into reality.

The long travel 3 link Panhard with 6 million inches of wheel travel and only 1” of lateral motion from the Panhard is really impressive. Very curious to hear how that does as you get more trail miles.

 

[SierraBronco]

The long travel 3 link Panhard with 6 million inches of wheel travel and only 1” of lateral motion from the Panhard is really impressive. Very curious to hear how that does as you get more trail miles.

I really want to get that one out on the trail but it’s gotta wait, unfortunately. Too busy using it as a work truck. Haven’t even hooked up the rear locker

 

[87-Z28]

Yeah. I did the m190 to m220 fdu swap 3 weeks ago. Probably won’t get to wiring the locker for another month.

 

[SierraBronco]

https://www.currie4x4.com/CE-8000X5...-FMzHYqqdNQHXRdktXsxqVJY-yTwOLP2jFCtJxHVcq1mp

Or

https://branikmotorsports.com/99-04-super-duty-unit-bearings-6-on-5-5-35-spline/

Of coarse YOUR favorite 17welds has them available with the correct brake encoder film built in, but no link to their stink.

Vasher said he could make those work with no problems

 

[SierraBronco]

Yeah. I did the m190 to m220 fdu swap 3 weeks ago. Probably won’t get to wiring the locker for another month.

Buddy just did this swap and fried his lockecoils. Swapped over to the Ford harness and no more issues.

https://www.ford.com/product/bronco...92289&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20643481100

 

[87-Z28]

Buddy just did this swap and fried his lockecoils. Swapped over to the Ford harness and no more issues.

https://www.ford.com/product/bronco...92289&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20643481100

I went back and forth on getting that harness. Stupid cost but ended up getting it. I am a little tariffed of electrical voodoo magic. I still don’t understand how the kitchen lights come on when I flip a switch.

 

[GI_Jo_Nathan]

Yeah. I did the m190 to m220 fdu swap 3 weeks ago. Probably won’t get to wiring the locker for another month.

Buddy just did this swap and fried his lockecoils. Swapped over to the Ford harness and no more issues.

https://www.ford.com/product/bronco-elocker-wiring-kit-p2823901902?gmcid=marketplace-gs-cta-accessories&searchid=20643481100|157311292289|pla-293946777986&fcid=pse_20643481100_google-pla&ef_id=CjwKCAjwvZHTBhAlEiwA1ug5P49eP_aWKEvhcOUfy1nqsvtvhHiN-9HGFx53EWHM4v4UA30NJmP26xoCTTcQAvD_BwE:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!2519!3!676763613569!!!g!293946777986!!20643481100!157311292289&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20643481100

Strange, there's nothing special about the Ford wiring kit. Plug, relay, fuse and switch is all. And if you have the aux switches doesn't make sense to add another switch.

Heck in a pinch to go directly to ground and battery and it would work no problem.

I've had mine hooked up for a couple years now with no problems. Definitely cost less than 300 bucks.

Sponsored