| |
| |||||||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-10-2007, 12:03 PM
| #1 |
| Newbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 10
|  Tri 4 Link? Pics of my set up...
Has anyone done a tri 4 Link? I also need to know if you think this would work? Every one of the builds I see dont use a tri 4 Link and I'm thinking it would work but I dont think it would. Here are some pics of the set up I plan on runing, what you think? Sorry for the links on the pics I do plan to pay for a membership soon.      Last edited by paulinslc; 05-10-2007 at 12:07 PM. |
|  |
| Sponsored Links | |
| | |
|
05-10-2007, 12:37 PM
| #2 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: On the yellow dummy dumper
Posts: 447
|
Tri meaning triangulated? That's all I run on my 4-link trucks. I tried having parallel lower links, but ended up with flex steer. Triangulating the lower links fixes the problem and performs well also  |
|
| |
|
05-10-2007, 12:48 PM
| #3 |
| Newbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 10
|
triangulated is what I mean. Got any any pics?
|
|
| |
|
05-10-2007, 12:53 PM
| #4 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: .
Posts: 314
|
looks good
|
|
| |
|
05-10-2007, 02:49 PM
| #5 |
| Picky Fab'r/Acetal Junky   Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Arizona Desert/AJ
Posts: 3,073
|
That's pretty much what 90% or more of the rigs on this site are. The other 10% are scaler's with leafs. The lower links don't have to converge at the same point on the chassis to be considered triangulated. As long as they have some triangulation in them, what you have is a dual triangulated 4-link. My lowers on both my rigs are far from parallel but also no where near converged together at the chassis....and I get so little flex steer that I can't even tell.   The first is a good pic of what I did on my super. The second...even though I am running a wishbone 3-link on it now, is the setup on my WK crawler...kind of hard to see, but I don't have any overhead shots of this rig with those links on it. Last edited by Offroader5; 05-10-2007 at 03:00 PM. |
|
| |
|
05-10-2007, 05:58 PM
| #6 |
| RCC Addict  Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Penngrove
Posts: 1,809
|
I ran a similar set up on a Nylint build and found that the problem was the the variable wheel base during suspension flex . Your upper and lower links need to be parallel (looking from the side) to keep the axles from moveing outwards during flex 1/18 Nylint (notice links are not paralell wheel base chages from 11.75 to 12.25")  2.2 TLT (links are parallel, wheel base is always 12.5")  when the axle moves forwrd on climes you loose forward progress of the vehicle (they oppose) |
|
| |
|
05-10-2007, 07:48 PM
| #7 |
| Picky Fab'r/Acetal Junky Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Arizona Desert/AJ
Posts: 3,073
|
Yup, I try to keep the uppers horizontaly parallel with the lowers...or very close, and also use the same lengths when possible. This makes it so wherever the suspension is in it's arc of travel...the pinion angle or axle/steering caster doesn't change. IMO, this is ideal with Clod axles since you have no driveshafts to worry about....where on the other hand, on a shafty rig, you would be better off with the upper and lower mount points at the chassis being closer together like in Mad4rnr's first pic there. This makes it so that throughout the travel, the axle pinion will point at the trans output...like a swing arm type that you'd see on the rear of alot of prerunners. Here's some side shots of both of mine for comparison:  Click Me  Click Me |
|
| |
|
| |
Linear Mode
