Marlin Crawler's New Rock Crawling Long Travel IFS Suspension System (#RCLT)

Totes. Stick is where it's at!

 

Nothing wrong with flux core. I did my SAS and Toyota axle flip with one and haven't died yet. Part design matters way more than welding anyway from a strength standpoint. And you are right the thin Toyota frames was a PITA for the 110v flux core machine, 240 would bring the suck. Probably the most used welder in this hobby is a 110v Hobart 140.

Don't look at any of my most recent welds in my build thread, I'm fighting shitty power in my garage and I'm rusty LOL!!! I was damn near stacking dimes at the end of my sas with the flux core machine, barely any splatter!

 

Nothing more than a few hours of mig practice here, and the beads are getting to be....meh.
I hadnt fired it up in awhile, and learned about the rust factor here in Florida.

The .035 had gotten rusty on the spool and was causing the feed to stutter and hang up in the gun.
I had cut and was doing a repo on the J-shift for a manual tcase swap in the 4Runner.
Managed to get it done but it was FUGLY.
Could have cost me a lot to replace that shifter.

I'll be inspecting the rig more and doing a couple of practice passes before I start on anything important from now on.

Thank God for flap disks.

 

I'm very interested in tuning my setup. Did you work with someone to make valving adjustments or figured it out yourself? Trial and error?

 

looks good, id bevel that edge to help with undercut. But not bad man!

 

14-15" is absolutely possible but you'd have to run the CV delete kit. I'm at 12" of clean travel lock to lock, with the CV binding at full droop and the shock shaft fully compressed at bump. I did limit the uptravel to have 1/4" buffer on the shock shaft, which might equate to 1/2" or so at the hub. And I'm strapped ~1/4" above where the CV starts to bind (which leaves ~3/8" of remaining downtravel in the shock, equating to ~1/2" to 3/4" at the hub). So if I wasn't running bump stops, limit straps, or CVs I'd have maybe 13 to 13.5" of travel but my shit wouldn't work for long. I would need a 1/2" diff drop to take full advantage of the Radflo coilover spec'd for the kit and I'd have 12.5" of travel but 1/2" less ground clearance. In my experience so far it's clearance that hangs me up on the rocks.

 

MC says 12.5" at the hub and 14.5" at the tire. You are getting similar numbers to me. The droop is limited by the axles binding and the up travel is limited by the wheel well clearance / shock compression.

What is this CV delete you speak of? Or you just saying cycling it without the axles in?

 

how is your travel # going to be different between the hub and the tire ?

 

Because the shock is not vertical and the axles pivot from the differential. The hub is closer to the pivot point than the tire and the further you get from pivot point the more distance there is in the arc of travel. Think of it like a triangle on its side and the pivot point is the smallest part. The shock only gives 8 inches of travel, but as you get further away from the pivot point the triangle gets bigger. So the hub would have less travel then the center of the tire and the outside of the tire will have even more travel.

 

The hub and tire have the same amount of travel. Think about where the pivot points are- upper and lower ball joints. Adding two foot spacers wouldn’t net you any extra travel. Anything extending past the hub face (or center line through the ball joints I suppose) will have the same travel.

 

He must have TTB’s

 

How are they coming up with this then?

• Our +2.75" kit achieves up to 12.5" of travel at the hub, which is 96% as much as typical +3.50" kits yet is 27% more narrow for better maneuverability in technical trails.
• Example: With 9" wide 4.06" backspace -24mm offset wheels this equates to 14.5" of travel at tire centerline, or 29" of real-world/RTI cross-articulation.

What you are saying makes sense, I just figured the further you measured from the diff the more "travel" there would be.

 

I've been wanting to say this but didn't want to open that barrel of monkeys. I am genuinely interested in the discussion. If it was an old Volkswagen, you could claim more travel at the outside of the tire but this isn't an old Volkswagen.

 

My point is that what they are saying is a line of marketing BS, nobody measures travel at the tire because there are a million variables with rim backspacing & tire sizes etc. Your travel # is measured at the hub, it is a measurement of what your suspension is capable of cycling CO installed, axles installed and NOT binding, bumped and strapped = useable travel #.

 

This is a Toyota forum we don't acknowledge Ford parts here

 

I have a buddy that used to build race trucks and I was a motorcycle mechanic in a past life and we would rebuild suspension all the time.

 

Camber change throughout the travel, measuring outside of the tire which is another 4-6 inches or so farther out than the hub. Just a bigger travel arc depending where you measure.

 

That makes perfect sense to me. I've obviously fallen for their marketing speak. Not gonna lie, this one got me "Target goal of fitting 35" tires without requiring body mount modification" I mean, yeah you dont need to modify the cab mount, but you need to cut the F out of everything else which is a lot more complicated than a cab mount relocation.

 

Trust me I understand geometry but NOBODY measures travel that way and with all of the travel measuring talk in this poop show of a thread I think it is important that we preach the universal standards IE: your usable / functional travel is measured bump to strap at the hub - anything else is BS

 

Completely agree.