Mid Travel BS 2.0

How about 5125s, those go up to a 14" stroke

 

I assume he's just referring to the 5100s. Which are indeed hammered dog shit.

I have 7100 remote resis on the back on my rig. I'm somewhat curious why higher-end Bilsteins like 7100s and 9100s don't get much attention.

 

So you're telling me that my pro comp 3" spacer lift isn't mid travel? HA. Fuck you guys, y'all don't know anything.

 

My possibly incorrect understanding, though I've read it more than one place, is that at least for the front coilovers both the OEM and most aftermarket shocks are actually designed to be the limiter for the down travel. Hence the reason that "extended travel" after market front coilovers are often the exact same shock as normal travel but with a smaller spacer to allow for more down travel and why you shouldn't install such a shock with the OEM UCA.

This, again for the front, seems to contradict point 3 above. As written it implies you would need limiters on a bone stock Tacoma since in fact if you tested a truck straight off the dealer lot as described you would find the shock was at its limit when jacked as described. That doesn't seem correct, we aren't all suppose to add limit straps to stock Tacomas. I believe for the front it is the conditions in 4, 5 and 6 that determine if we need a limit strap and that if the shock is at maximum extension and all other components are not contacting or binding then you don't need the limit strap. Point 3 very much could be important for the rear, I'm not as familiar with the rear.

Obviously I could be wrong, but I really thought this is the way the OEM shocks and most aftermarket work on the front.

 

Yup, wrong. Needing straps is a simple matter of preventing wear and tear and yes even on a stock truck...no suspension is designed to withstand the wheel coming off the ground repeatedly even if it is just when crawling at slow speed. Think about it this way, your spring is putting 600lbs of rebound force on every connecting point in your front end when it droops. The wear and tear of that force is not good for anything, ball joints, uniballs, misalignment spacers, misalignment bolts or your CO's. Go look at how wimpy a stock UCA is, how wimpy that little connecting point from the stock LCA to the ball joint adapt is, how weak an OE style CO is etc...none of those parts are designed to hold up to the force that is applied when the front end in unweighted.

 

OK, just so I understand then in what condition would you NOT need limit straps then? What part of the suspension should be limiting down travel? Not trying to be argumentative, trying to understand. The stock design is for the coilover to limit the downtravel. Now you say that isn't proper. But you also say you might not need limit straps. In the case you don't need limit straps what is limiting down travel instead of the coilover?

EDIT: I see from Jason's post there are good reasons to want a limit strap regardless, which may be what you are saying here. See my reply to Jason for a recommend revision of the FAQ post. Curious if you think that's better.

 

OK, excellent thanks! That does make perfect sense.

However, getting back to the original FAQ post I quoted it still doesn't seem written quite correctly. If you follow item 3 that I quoted then you are in fact not testing for *if* you need a limit strap, rather have decided you *will* put on a limit strap since something from items 3-7 will *always* be limiting the down travel. So there might be room for clarification here.

I might suggest saying a suspension following the OEM design concept will limit at the coilover and one can decide whether or not they want to add a limit strap for increased durability if this condition is met (i.e. coilover limits downtravel). However, if items 4-7 fail that is never right and you need a limit strap no matter what in order to protect the binding/limiting suspension component.

Does that seem sensible?

 

Jason, I completely get what you are saying and agree 100%. My only point was improving that post (which I realize isn't yours) for clarity. Right now as written I think it is self-contradictory. It proposes a method to test if you need a strap that will *always* result in you needing a strap - even on a stock truck because of the first test (does coilover limit).

I'm just suggesting it be edited to somehow make clearer that:

• The OEM design limits down travel with the coilover
  
• You might decide to take the same approach with an aftermarket MT upgrade and have the shock limit the downtravel, but for durability reasons it would be wise to consider adding a strap so the shock does not limit the down travel.
• If anything *other* than the shock is limiting the down travel then you *need* a limit strap no matter what.

Does that seem like a sane edit for the FAQ?

And as always, thanks for sharing all your knowledge here. I'm happy to see the 2.0 thread focusing on getting some great info together for noobs like me to find stuff a lot quicker with hopefully less repeat questions.

 

I shall order straps then

Some screenshots ive been stealing of good information.

CMC



Valving


Deaver u402 leafpack, courtesy of @ryanjboutin

 

@zscott

If there needs to be some editing to the linked post in the FAQ than zscott needs to update. Assuming the information is valid.
Beef Supreme (JBerry) makes a good point with the "do I drive like an asshole" statement when it comes to straps.

I added a few more builds to the list. I'm not sure how I missed @NYCO or @Adamar85 from my subbed list.


As always Thank you to all who continue to support the new version of this thread. It's moving a long nicely and we have a good collection of useful information.

 

@ChandlerDOOM has a nice MT setup. Truck is badass

 

Alignment recommendations courtesy of @jberry813

 

That sounds logical to me. I will make the edits to my post throughout the day to clarify.

 

Thanks Zach! You guys are all awesome to take the time to help the rest of us get a better understanding of this stuff.

 

When speed bump rear go clank

 

Can anyone shed some light on the rear shock mount relocation? Is it as simple as changing the shock angle to be more verticle, thus allowing more travel?