Help with rear articulation

[udlose]

I was out today and noticed that my rear articulation leaves much to be desired. My current set up entails F9/ Pro Spec/ Vanquish Anti Rock. The VQ bar limits side to side travel and the over all travel when compressed at center is horrible. I have included some pics to see if I could get some set up/ position help. I also have a set of BMR and JEC Wraith rear arms if you think it would help. This is a pure Crawler. TY in advanced!

[hiluxxury]

Ditch the sway bar if you want flex

[MasteroFlego]

If you want to keep your sway bar you need to shorten the length of the lower sway bar links (the vertical links), the anti rock sway bar is designed for the yeti, the bomber needs shorter links.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Jboucher]

Originally Posted by MasteroFlego

If you want to keep your sway bar you need to shorten the length of the lower sway bar links (the vertical links), the anti rock sway bar is designed for the yeti, the bomber needs shorter links.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

This
3 Racing (I think it's the name) makes a nice pair of Titanium links that are about perfect for the bomber with the antirock bar.

It's in my build thread on this forum.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Crawler Cads]

What's actually wrong though?
Too little articulation?
If it's hindering performance then perhaps it's the shocks rather than the bar which is there to remove torque twist. Shouldn't impact articulation..
If it's looks you're after then ignore me!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Jim85IROC]

I feel like my Bomber crawls better with a rear sway bar. Torque twist prevented me from climbing, and too much rear articulation made the body tumble when off camber. With the rear swaybar, the body motion is much more predictable, and the front axle still articulates enough to keep tires on the terrain.

[broadside]

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC

I feel like my Bomber crawls better with a rear sway bar. Torque twist prevented me from climbing, and too much rear articulation made the body tumble when off camber. With the rear swaybar, the body motion is much more predictable, and the front axle still articulates enough to keep tires on the terrain.

this. and the shorter links for the sway bar help clearances (I am running some 32mm traxxas links)

[gottorque]

The end links on my bomber are two revo rod ends directly tied together with a long M4 set screw.

[udlose]

TY for the responses. Have some short turnbuckles on the way

[Davey]

Originally Posted by Crawler Cads

What's actually wrong though?
Too little articulation?
If it's hindering performance then perhaps it's the shocks rather than the bar which is there to remove torque twist. Shouldn't impact articulation..
If it's looks you're after then ignore me!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I tend to agree with Crawler Cads...From the pics, I think it’s the shock set up that is to blame...those Pro Specs are awesome, but their not very long..even a little shorter than their PowerStoke brethren. They are limiting the droop so much that it’s reducing the the ability to articulate...Especially when set to the center trailing arm hole as shown in the picture.

I recommend picking up the Pro-Line PowerStroke scaler shock rebuild kit #6060-01 ($9), and using the extra long rod ends from it. It adds extra length to the shock, improving travel (* does not increase actual travel, but increases shock length), helping to better fit the ProSpecs to the Bomber, when mounted to either the forward or center trailing arm mounting holes. Of course you would need to move the limiting straps forward as well, to see the improvement.

Should help quite a bit with droop, which will free up your articulation.

Davis


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[altd896]

Originally Posted by Davey

I recommend picking up the Pro-Line PowerStroke scaler shock rebuild kit #6060-01 ($9), and using the extra long rod ends from it. It adds extra length to the shock, improving travel, and helps the shock to fit the Bomber well, when mounted to either the forward or center trailing arm mounting holes.

Adding a longer end on the shock changes it's over all length (both extended & compressed) & increases the ride height

does not add travel,

does not increase droop

[Davey]

Originally Posted by altd896

Adding a longer end on the shock changes it's over all length (both extended & compressed) & increases the ride height

does not add travel,

does not increase droop

Thanks for the clarification. Correct, a longer rod end won’t add travel to a shock, but in this case, it should improve the travel situation / help the shock better fit and work with the OP’s Bomber. In the second and third pics, when the rear suspension is fully compressed, they seem to show an amount of unused travel in the shock. Maybe about a quarter to a third of the shock shaft is still visible? From the pics, it looks like the upper rear axle components are contacting the rear bumper portion of the roll cage, before the shock has a chance to fully compress.

By adding length to the shock, the trailing arms are able to “droop” lower, since they are not as “limited” by the shorter rod ends. Although the travel of the shock shaft is not increased, the shock now has the ability to use more or all of its up travel before the rear axle tops out into the roll cage/rear bumper.

This then frees up the rear axle and suspension to compress and articulate more fully.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk