Search results

that’s not a bad idea. Baguette tierods. They definitely won’t kill the rack and if I am not wheeling with Miss sierrabronco I am likely to take way to long to change it out. Get hungry halfway through.

No I am assuming identical materials. To be more accurate, the diameter change results in 42% decreased bending stress. Different materials will of course also change response by having different strengths. Just trying to make the point that small increases in diameter can significantly make the...

Exactly. I used the word DICTATED deliberately. Them springs are right bastards. They freakin control everything. Sons of bitches. The shock damping just responds to the overt lockdown the springs bring down upon the common man.

not trying to be difficult here. The 8112s have a mechanical spring. Linear, progressive, … regardless, the spring stiffness is dictated a priori and thus so is the natural frequency. Sure a progressive spring will increase stiffness as displacements increase. But you have significantly...

there is always a market for excessive fear. Most people don’t want to break or replace a tierod. And they won’t load steering enough to fail the rack anyway

So you carry a CNC machine on the trail. Nice. Aerospace tolerances aren’t what they used to be. Bummer on the rack. My soft ass would take all day in a cooled garage to replace rack. 84 minutes is intense. Tell the wife god job. She probably could have gotten it done in 60 if you weren’t in...

16 to 18 mm increases bending strength by 42% (function of diameter cubed). No one can say for sure you will shoot your eye out kid (break the rack). But you just increased the risk of moving failure point to rack. Ford surely did a good job in designing tierod diameter that matches rack...

If you are bombing through dessert and looking for improved suspension performance then you really need to get spring rates correct. Long version here. https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/bronco-ifs-sdof-model-why-is-spring-rate-so-important.116898/ 8112s are designed for near stock...

Here is a question for your favorite AI chat box. What is worse, AI (Almost Intelligent) providing half-ass partially accurate summaries of complex scenarios while completely trivializing the significant points of deeper understanding. OR The even lower intelligence humans that fully buy...

Only partially accurate and applicable to those that don’t really comprehend highly nonlinear stiffness discontinuities and thereby miss the more significant deeper point. I never said “the oem rack has zero play or lash during normal driving”. It most definitely does. Here is an accurate...

Not being negative here. Just passing on information. Lots of people change UCAs like my wife changes shoes. I just don’t see much of a technical reason when running the 8112s. Unless you want the displacement control of heim style joints. I do like the 8112 setup with 35s. And yeah, nothing...

This is my understanding of the 74w racks. They provide an extremely stiff housing that is intended to minimize displacements and thus protect function of the internals under high loading scenarios. The oem rack has inherent spring stiffness (yoke bearing) that allows for zero lash at zero...

The 8112s have <6” of travel in the front and have an extended length of 23.4”. Squarely within OEM kinematic design parameters. See plot. They are position sensitive to provide serious hardcore damping as shock piston velocities and displacements increase while offering more mild and manageable...

Agree. The oem UCAs are maintenance free and can get alignment dialed in for 1-2 inch lift. Not sure I would change out the UCA when running 8112s, don’t see an advantage. UCA ball joint angles are not a limiter for these, since kinematics should stay close to oem design parameters regardless.

It would be nice to know what lift height UCAs are optimized for. From response I suppose you can only assume 3” at wheel. 🤷‍♂️ Attached is a plot of upper and lower ball joint motion in absolute coordinates. X axis is for-aft direction and Z is up-down. X axis motion dominates caster. Lower...

Portals not be bad. Just no free lunch. Need to decide what lunch you want to eat and how much you pay for it. Carefully evaluate pros and cons for your use case.

I will say it out loud for others. Performance decrease and increased torsional stresses (breakage???). Leverage, leverage, leverage. Turn made a design decision to use OEM knuckle and links. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. There will be Increased loads due to altered load...

Just kidding. AI is awesome. It just quickly generated the net steering moment arm for SAS OEM and turn portals on 38s. Enjoy.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Stop… breathe…. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Take big breath… 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Absolutely. Replace the bolts. Not saying it is good practice to reuse them. I was just being lazy. Just saying Bolts don’t get all the blame. As much as you have retorqued suspension bolts they should be toast by now. 🤣