TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:20 pm

kbwakesk8 wrote: let me correct my self. when i said slide the trany back they do not slide it all the way back so the axels are straight you do not want the axils straigt with that much travel you do want the tires kicked back some. because when the suspention cycles and the cv's are straight across from each other they the distance between the cv's are at the shortest your axils will hit the flanges if there to long or at full drop or compresion you may run out of plung on your cv's causing them to lock up instant failure.

two of my friends build race buggys i do not know what the magic numbers are, but i heard there's a spread sheet out there that calcs it out for you off the arm dimentions . i have seen the one for makeing 4 links.

Ok, the drive flange and the stub axle should line up with each other only at full droop. When the car is sitting at ride hieght, usually around 30% less of the total travel, the wheels and axles will have kick back and backward angle.

Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:47 pm

thats more less the idea i have been trying to find the numbers

Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:23 pm

There is definately some math involved in the arm length equation. We were thinking, at first, of building 4x6 arms but found they had less travel due to the compound angle on the CV than the 4x6. I think the same could be said for a 3x3 vs 3x5 trailing arm. There is a sweet spot that you get maximum length and travel. As soon as you get outside that you start limiting travel due to the angles.

There are a number of considerations in figuring travel as well. The type of axles, CV's, stubs, and location of tranny all play a part and what looks good on paper may not always look good in practice. I can't tell you how many great ideas I have penned only to scrap them when trying to implement them.

-Mark

Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:20 am

Biggest single practical issue with something this wide is that states commonly want at least some of the tire covered with a flap or fender.

Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:04 am

That, and the car might not fit on a trailer.

Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:47 pm

But 3X3s with standard offset 7" wheels and 10.50 wide tires shouldn't have any problems right?

Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:42 pm

Mine fits in the trailer fine.My rear width is around 73 inches i think.

Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:10 am

Ok so here's a question. What is the biggest arm you can run without moving the trans?

Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:52 pm

I run a 5x5 on my car with no problems

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:23 pm

65BAJA wrote: Ok so here's a question. What is the biggest arm you can run without moving the trans?

It will var a lot. After thinkin about it, it does not depend on how far the arms go back or out, the engle is what matters.

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:26 pm

Tacoma_Kyle wrote: it does not depend on how far the arms go back or out, the engle is what matters. BINGO!

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:29 pm

dan how much travel are you gettin out of the 5x5? and what angle/cv's are you useing?
i have 3x3's with 930's running a strap at 22* just to be safe. i am getting about 14 or maybee juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust a hair under like 13 3/4"

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

I'm getting 17 1/2" out of them with a limit strap at 25 degree on the 930's with race-cages

Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:50 pm

whats the max angle race prep 930's can handle

Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:55 pm

I have read 28*.
Ben

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:03 am

Ok. what will give more travel with the same CVs. 3x3 microstub, or 5x5 standard.

Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:27 pm

try some axles with u joints. they should give you alot more travel.

Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:52 pm

What's the axle length difference?

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:26 pm

The 5x5's with micro stubs, the axles are 24" long with a bus trans

Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:19 am

are you running micro stubs on those 5x5's?