Best way to remove front shocks?

[Brian_B]

Would definitely be the envy of everyone on the trail. So hard to store though.

An enjoyable read-

https://www.enginelabs.com/news/torque-talk-pound-feet-foot-pounds-one/

Ooo that is a good read. I had it backwards originally! I fixed my post now that I am better educated

Funny because I’ve always said, and heard it spoken, “foot pound” - but that is not the convention for torque.

Although I guess ft-lb is still correct technically, but it’s common shorthand for ft-lbf (foot - pound force), which is a unit of work, not torque, and requires that the wrench actually moves. Torque can be a static force.

Sponsored

 

[SierraBronco]

Ooo that is a good read. I had it backwards originally! I fixed my post now that I am better educated

Funny because I’ve always said, and heard it spoken, “foot pound” - but that is not the convention for torque.

Although I guess ft-lb is still correct technically, but it’s common shorthand for ft-lbf (foot - pound force), which is a unit of work, not torque, and requires that the wrench actually moves. Torque can be a static force.

Seems the biggest factor is that it’s meant as a standalone unit, where feet and pounds are interchangeable. Whereas using “pounds/ft or pounds per foot” could suggest being divisible for dimensional analysis, which is not correct. Hence the lbs-ft.

I think more arguing is necessary to really find a good answer though.

 

[Brian_B]

I think more arguing is necessary to really find a good answer though.

At least 10 pages.

 

[SierraBronco]

At least 10 pages.

Paging @87-Z28, @5GENIDN, and @Ducati1098 to the chat.

 

[Ducati1098]

Paging @87-Z28, @5GENIDN, and @Ducati1098 to the chat.

lol I’ve always said foot pounds or inch pounds, even though it is listed lb. ft./lb. in. everywhere. I have no idea what is correct or incorrect though. People usually get the idea either way

 

[SierraBronco]

lol I’ve always said foot pounds or inch pounds, even though it is listed lb. ft./lb. in. everywhere. I have no idea what is correct or incorrect though. People usually get the idea either way

I really have no clue. Just being contentious and avoiding work while wifey welds up the suspension mounts.

 

[SierraBronco]

It’s lb-ft (pound foot)

Not ft/lb or ft per lb

Both units are in the numerator

That’s why 210 lbs at 1 foot is the same torque as 210 feet at 1 lb (that would be a nice cheater bar eh)

*corrected for precision!

As long as the OP torques his LCA bolts to 105 pounds of force on a two foot lever he’ll be good to go.

 

[87-Z28]

mathematically distinction between torque and work.

Torque is the vector cross product of a force and a moment arm. Both have a direction. The resulting torque also has a vector direction. The magnitude is defined by the units of force times distance. The vector nature of torque is typically ignored. Any units of force times distance are valid. So a torque value is completely defined by a direction and force-distance units.

apply a torque of 100 lbs-mm or 100 mm-lbs along the axis of the bolt is completely valid. Although no one would use those units.

work is the vector dot product of a force and a displacement. Both have a direction, but the resulting work is a scalar without direction. The magnitude is also defined by the units of force times distance.

The magnitudes of torque and work can have the same units. The magnitudes are scalar values. since multiplication is commutative then lbs-ft and ft-lbs are identical.

The distinction between torque and work is that torque is a vector quantity and requires a direction to fully quantify. Torque on a bolt is assumed to always be applied along its axis so direction is typically ignored.

there may indeed be a convention that uses lbs-ft vs ft-lbs for either work or torque. I am not aware of this. Regardless it is not necessary since one is a scalar and one is a vector.

@SierraBronco. You need to help out the Misses and get welding. Stop thinking about vector math. That’s not gonna get your rig built.

 

[Brian_B]

100 lbs-mm or 100 mm-lbs

Nothing like mixing imperial and metric. The old Ford way

 

[SierraBronco]

@SierraBronco. You need to help out the Misses and get welding. Stop thinking about vector math. That’s not gonna get your rig built.

We only have one welder though. She has dibs on anything that isn't overhead.

Nothing like mixing imperial and metric. The old Ford way

See also - $21,000 portals. Aerospace has a long, successful history of mixing metric and imperial units...wait...

 

[Ramble_Offroad]

Ok. Speaking of torque for swapping all four shocks with the LCA drop method.

I found this in the forum.
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/torque-spec-reference-list.89889/

Pulled from the link above, anything not listed below that matters? All lb/ft

rear lower shock bolt: 350 (dang)
Rear upper shock bolts: 41

Front lower shock bolts: 66
Front upper shock bolts: 41 also?? Same as rear?

Swaybay brackets: 66
Swaybay lower link / bottom nut: 122

LCA main bolts / cams: 210 (will mark)

I ordered a big boy torque wrench. I think the only tool I still need to pick up is a 12’ long breaker bar .

thanks ya’ll.
Lars

 

[SierraBronco]

Ok. Speaking of torque for swapping all four shocks with the LCA drop method.

I found this in the forum.
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/torque-spec-reference-list.89889/

Pulled from the link above, anything not listed below that matters? All lb/ft

rear lower shock bolt: 350 (dang)
Rear upper shock bolts: 41

Front lower shock bolts: 66
Front upper shock bolts: 41 also?? Same as rear?

Swaybay brackets: 66
Swaybay lower link / bottom nut: 122

LCA main bolts / cams: 210 (will mark)

I ordered a big boy torque wrench. I think the only tool I still need to pick up is a 12’ long breaker bar .

thanks ya’ll.
Lars

Sir, it’s ft-lbs.

Top of the shocks front/rear are the same size

And yeah-seems most of us are just giving it the beans for the rear shock lowers. I put my impact on setting 2 where the max is 400 lb-ft and give it three ugga-dugga as four ugga’s it ramps up to 1 pound over 400 feet.

 

[Ramble_Offroad]

Sir, it’s ft-lbs.

Top of the shocks front/rear are the same size

And yeah-seems most of us are just giving it the beans for the rear shock lowers. I put my impact on setting 2 where the max is 400 lb-ft and give it three ugga-dugga as four ugga’s it ramps up to 1 pound over 400 feet.

Ha ha ha. Thanks. I’ve read it too many times now…. Ft/lbs, lbs/ft.

Ok, thanks for your help. Noted top shock bolts are the same…not sure how I’ll torque those but whatever.

350…yeah dude. I’m not sure I’ll be able to hit 350 even with the giant torque wrench I ordered. The only one I could order quickly is spec’ed up to 600 so maybe it’s longer. Otherwise, impact driver double ugga it is until I get it into a shop for an alignment.

cheers.

 

[87-Z28]

Pulled from the link above, anything not listed below that matters? All lb/ft

rear lower shock bolt: 350 (dang)

350 ft-lbs is no problem for sierrabronco using a 1 foot wrench. that guy bends skid plates with his hands or just has the Misses do it.

of course the particular skid plate is 5 feet long and kinda thin. So putting a good size bending moment into the plate is not that hard. Bending moment is same as torque measure, FT-LBS.

Gonna beat this horse over and over.

 

[SierraBronco]

350 ft-lbs is no problem for sierrabronco using a 1 foot wrench. that guy bends skid plates with his hands or just has the Misses do it.

of course the particular skid plate is 5 feet long and kinda thin. So putting a good size bending moment into the plate is not that hard. Bending moment is same as torque measure, FT-LBS.

Gonna beat this horse over and over.

My new goal is to switch the order every time I reference torque.

OP-get a paint pen or if you want to get really fancy some of this:
https://www.kartek.com/parts/revloc...tection-paint-30ml-bottle.html?Category_Code=

(Or not even fancy but your leak proof portals leak so much that you go through a lot of brake cleaner and that stuff takes paint pen marks right off)

Sponsored