1st Gen Tacoma 12" OSR Outboard Shock Relocation - Outside Frame Rails

I like what you guys did with it! It's clean how he followed the OE bumper lines and tucks up nicely.

We all have our strong points.

 

I found in my recent rear shock relocate that cycling the suspension (I too have Alcan's and removed all but the top leaf - I don't care about warranty, I'm going to wear them out ) is not the right way to go about figuring out travel/positioning.

I have yet to write this all up and post in my thread, but the more I think about it, the right way to figure out placement is actually to load up the truck as it'd be on a trip, and then position the shock so that it's approximated at the midpoint of it's travel at resting height.

So, with a 12" travel shock, you want 6" of shaft showing when the truck is fully loaded. Doesn't matter (or matters a lot less) where you are in your leaf spring cycle.

 

While yes this makes some sense. It still doesn't.

If you cycle the pack, you should be able to calculate the mid point of the travel and that is how you go about determining where to place the shock. It would be wise to measure your ride height as well to figure out where you sit in terms of your suspension travel. If you pull 9'' at the leaf pack lets say and you figure out that your ride height loaded down is only 3'' up travel. Thats a problem with spring capacity. Your shock mounting point should not change as 3'' up is still only 3'' up you want the shock to go and that means you have 6'' down to cover as well.

 

Super clean! I really like it.
Thats the same guy who made those bed rails yeah?!

What did you have them build your springs at?
I had them do 400# over load cap with 3" of lift and then i have the adjustable shackles set at 1" for now. Will probably adjust that down the line after adding a rear bumper.

That all does make sense, but it seems like theres a lot more to it like @Blackdawg mentioned below.

 

Monte's right on this one. (can't believe I just said that)

The leafs have a certain amount of travel, doesn't mean you're sitting in the middle of that at ride height.

 

No matter what you should cycle the suspension. Cycling tells you where to bump and strap, and it tells you where you can get the optimal placement of the shocks between full bump and droop. You need to know your ride height as a starting point, but cycling it all to check clearances etc is very important.

your shocks should be set up to optimize their ability to damp the spring through it's full range of travel. If you set the shocks up just based on loaded ride height, you could be limiting your performance in a number of ways. if your shocks are set up for 50 up and 50 down depending on their full range of motion, and you don't have 50/50 at ride height, you need to reconsider your spring rates or your suspension needs.

 

Interesting. Zane and I did the single leaf, full cycle on mine when we did the relocate. We then mounted everything based on that and the shocks were exactly at mid-travel (5" of shaft showing) when the springs were in the midpoint of that full cycle.

The problem is that once we loaded everything back into the truck, the leafs compress (as expected) and so ride height is much lower (say ~3" lower than empty, but still ~3" above stock), giving me only 2" of uptravel before the shocks bottom out. (10" travel shocks)

So are you guys saying that this is a problem with the leafs, and they should be holding the truck up more at ride height? I feel like the back is already as high as I'd like it...

My leaf springs are 600lbs over stock, with 3" of lift.

 

Just a facet of the setup.

Your options are more lift, a willingness to let your leafs go more negative, or spring under.

 

My first reaction is why are your shocks your limiting factor on bump? Shocks should never bottom out. That’s why you cycle.

 

I don't follow, sorry (my fault, I'm sure). Since the shocks are at mid travel when the leafs are at unloaded mid cycle, how do I account for the fact that the springs cycle even more when the truck is loaded?

Said another way - with a single leaf, the furthest "up" my axle can go (starts lifting the truck off the jack stands) leaves ~3" of space before the bumps hit. However, loaded and flexed, the full pack cycles even further - I can get into the bumps. Obviously, this means the pack is going more negative on the trail than we can cycle with the floor jack...

How do you account for that?

I agree - they shouldn't be the limiting factor and I don't want them to bottom out. The question is how to ensure that the case. Cycling the suspension (just the top leaf) clearly didn't work for me... Because it suggested that my leafs wouldn't flex as much as they actually do.

 

your bump stops should be set to limit uptravel to protect your leafs from negative-arch, right? so how do they go more negative when loaded than the bump will allow? Did you not get to the point where you compressed the bump when you cycled?

 

1st gens typically have a lot of negative arch. The way the suspension geometry is on those trucks makes them go negative early in the travel.

It sounds like he never got to the point where his bump stops made contact when cycling. That is the only logical thing I can come up with when referring to bump travel. That would also cause his issue being he mounted the shock too low for the amount of up travel he has.

 

we're on the same page here - thinking he didn't compress the bumps when he cycled..

 

I'm not sure you're following.

Agreed that your shocks shouldn't be your limiting factor. You cycle to see the range of travel of your leafs, and you setup your shocks to work within those parameters.

Short answer - the leafs don't cycle more when the truck is loaded. You did something wrong if they do. As I mentioned previously, some weight on the back would have helped you.


That being said, the total amount of uptravel you have depends most upon where you limit it. Ignore the shocks for the time being, that's the last step. IMO, it should be limited when the leafs are flat. Do not base this uptravel limiting point on wherever your bumps hit before any measuring, as that's probably not the right spot. You can let them go negative and get more up, but there's negatives to that. Step one should always be to set that point and measure from there.

You cycle to measure the distance from a fixed point between the frame and the axle from where you decide to bump it, to all the way down (also make sure you jump up and down on the axle or the shackles might be holding if from full droop). Then get shocks mounted that will work based on those measurements. Ride height only dictates where you are in this range the leafs move.

Don't mean to clutter up Archives thread too much, feel free to move this elsewhere if you want to dive into it further.

 

I’m following just fine.

If you’re point is you cycle to figure out the range of the leaf pack travel via a fixed point, then take that information and mount your shocks accordingly then we are arguing the same point.

If you know what your leaf pack cycles and where/if you want to limit that travel then your shocks should not be your limiting factor at bump and ideally not at full extension.

The problem with 1st gens is they go flat very early in the travel and pretty negative at bump so if you want to prevent this you need to limit up travel a fair amount.


Aditionally,

More lift won’t solve a bottom out issue, it’ll only change the ratio of the shaft exposed.

He can’t let his leafs go more negative if he’s already having a bottom out issue. The shock is the limiting factor.

Spring under will allow more bump travel but you sacrifice weight bearing capabilities. That’s up to the user to decide depending on their build application but being he went 600# over on the leaf pack, I have a feeling he is not using it as a go fast truck.

 

While not the first time a surprise indeed! Haha

You should have loaded the back end. I guarantee you have more up travel then measured it's also why Zane's first attempt was off on his own setup.

It's also the nature of SOA. With Frank I've found about 4" or so is good travel wise. But it's really tall ride height wise

 

We're arguing the same point.

All I'm saying is he doesn't have a bottom out issue so much as a issue with his setup, or a lack of understanding how much uptravel is possible with SOA.

My main point is shocks should be ignored for all these measurements, as the leafs are what dictate travel.

 

And ride height.

Dial that in can be a pita with custom shock setup

 

You’ve mentioned ride height a few times. I’m not following the relationship between ride height and shock location. Can you elaborate?

Ride height is based of the leaf pack no?

 

@desertjunkie760 @Blackdawg @Squeaky Penguin @Willbeck @erice @eimkeith

hang on, I'm creating a thread for us so we get out of @ARCHIVE's thread (my fault). Give me 5 minutes.



Thread is over here: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...ment-for-maximizing-shock-utilization.583280/