OME ~9" front ~10.5" rear travel

Also that link you provided you are comparing front shocks collapsed lenghts on the fox's to rears on the OME.

again, going by other numbers is not the way to go about this..... measure the lenghts you need on YOUR truck. i can GUARANTEE you that if i were to put those fox shocks on my truck the shocks would bottom before hitting bump stops because i have actually MEASURED in the real world on my truck the lengths i need.

Same goes for the front. Pull the shock out, and cycle the suspension by hand and take measurements.

FYI, the stock UCA will hit the coils at full droop and the upper ball joint is the next limiting factor shortly after.




the FRONT OME 90000/900021 have an extended / collapsed length of 543 413 respectively.

FRONT 5100's are 573 / 432.5 (that collapsed length is nearly the same as stock and 10mm longer extended than stock)

So if you were to get yourself spaced down with a 20mm spacer on the OME shock to get yourself at stock collapsed length... you still get less droop than a 5100.

 

Why are you doing a suspension lift as well as a spacer lift up front?

 

using the spacer (32mm) in conjunction with the 883 coil (-20mm) to gain about 12mm lift & uptravel at the coil and 20mm down travel at the coil

 

the coil length has NOTHING to do with extended and collapsed lengths of the shock.

Using the OME front shock with a 32mm spacer nets a collapsed length of the shock thats 10mm LONGER than stock which MIGHT be ok... but you would have to cycle the suspension to make sure and account for bump stop compression.

 

Really?

Need I go on?

 

you never made any designation on front or rear sir. FYI fox may or may not measure their shock the same way... they might be measuring all the way to the top hat... so you cant compare apples to oranges.

Keep your ducks in order. Either way.... cycle the suspension, measure for yourself.... everything is different... im done with this thread and the attitude.

 

Go ahead and run the spacer with the OME kit. When shit starts to break because you already know everything don't come running back here.

 

^ ^

How would you possibly end up with less unless you over limit it? I could understand if you said potential not any more.

looks like more than half an inch to me?
Was gonna link to a another thread on TW with a guy suggesting that his OME rear shocks where limiting him about 4". It had pictures of the truck being flexed with the shock unbolted but I can't seem to find it.

Wouldn't a u bolt flip make the bump stop further from the stop opposed to the stock mount offered with the superbumps they offer without the u bolt flip?

Obviously coilovers are better. they also cost 2x as much.

 

^ ^
I was wondering about this aspect of things, no one has seemed to comment on this?

 

All I'm trying to do is share with you all an idea that I have researched and thought to be pretty valid. But I guess that's what I get for trying to share some ideas, is being called a dick and being meet with only objections.

 

Your basic math doesn't equate to everyone's individual trucks. Each truck is different with different tolerances. The measurements of travel from each mfg's claims should be taken with a grain of salt and you should get your own travel numbers when you've installed 'x' brand of suspension. The amount of knowledge you've dumped in to this thread for a little over an inch of down travel and you didn't look up the catastrophes that can happen when you stack lifts. Here is a run down, broke CV's, broke lower ball joints & broke struts. So I am asking you Mr. Engineer, what is the point of going through the hassle for an inch of down travel? I've run 4 or 5 different suspension setups but never stacked lifts and I did 100% completely fine off road, on obstacles and trails and have not broken anything to which I didn't accommodate. Seems pointless IMO and an accident waiting to happen.

 

Because experience will trump a degree any day of the week.

 

Your all done with this thread?
I am.
I tried to show you guys the possibility to do something better for little coin and instead of investigating the feasibility you just go straight to it'll never work.
By my investigation everything about the setup entailed should work just fine with the exception of too much front down travel, which I indicated I was unsure about.
You have all the information I wanted to bestow upon you, if you find it objectionable, don't use it, it you find it intriguing I'm glad to have provoked some thought. Either way there is no point in continuing to argue with you all because you clearly will think as you will.
If I was trying to be a dick I wouldn't give a flying f**k and not post anything in the first place
Thats what I get for trying to share, eh?

 

@urban

This statement is why you may never become a good engineer. I say may, hopefully you will figure it out and make a correction in your attitude... I previously worked in the Air Force with engineers daily in flight test trying new ideas. The whole reason the government spends billions of your tax dollars on test is because you have to get your hands dirty. Math can only go so far. We had a high failure rate when it came to test, in fact I can't think of a single design or theory that didn't have to get revisited. Even when it comes to cars, there is still a huge test period and learning curve. Example "A" the Ford Pinto... Or consider what a factory recall is... An engineered item that was tested still failed. You have to embrace the effort and get out there. I have been in the offroad business for over a decade and it never works perfect. Ok I think I have beat this horse to death.

As others have stated before it is your approach. The best designers and engineers I have ever worked with take input from all areas and actually consider the impacts. It test we always pair engineers with highly experienced people because as a team they constantly produce the best results. I can tell you are a young man and I commend your enthusiasm. Stay hungry and stay excited. But I urge you to eat a few pieces of humble pie, and open your mind to learning from others, just not those with a title before their name.

Don't be defeated. The best way to silence the critics is to prove them wrong. Try your ideas and report back. Don't come on here and cuss people out for not drinking your cool-aid right away. Do you hate the attitude people are giving you, do the right thing and don't give it back unless truly warranted. Treat others how you want to be treated and this can become a positive thing for you still...


Now as far as my input on this idea of yours. Technically you are correct, providing a spacer would adjust your bump position down which would allow for more travel. And in the rear yes longer shocks will give more travel as well if you can adjust the bump position in order to stop the shock from bottoming out first. When working with the angles that our rear shocks are mounted it's not a 1 for 1 change, as a 1" longer shock does not give 1" of travel.

You are however missing some key items other may have noted, I didn't read every word here. First, which I saw semi addressed is down travel in the front with CV and steering angles. One key topic missed is bump steer. With the stock suspension you cannot continue to drop out that far without experiencing too much bumper steer. As it drops and the tie rod reaches it's limit the front tire will begin to turn inward and give big alignment problems that will make your truck hard to drive. Also as mentioned is CV health. The stock CVs on these trucks suck and will wear much faster and more than likely break in a high stress situation, which is where you wanted that extra travel and performance. The cost of the stress is not worth a small amount of down travel. And the biggest thing missed in this when comparing the big shocks like FOX and others is dampening. Shock oil volume and the ability to dampen correctly far exceed the importance of travel. Control of the wheel is key in all offroad situations! I have worked with FOX for many years and I can assure you John Marking who is the man over at FOX knows more about shocks and suspension than 99.99% of people on this planet. If he chooses to forgo 1/2" of down travel for a stronger CV situation, I take his experience all day.

Good luck with your idea here. I hope you can find the positives people are trying to provide you with. Even if someone is knocking your idea most are trying to provide feedback you can use. A good engineer will take this info, do some more computations and make some adjustments. I am sure you can figure out a happy medium if you are committed to forgo the hardships, enjoy!

 

OP you came in here with a new idea worked out only on paper. No real world testing, and you are telling people from the get go how good this set up is.

Only problem with that is there are people here that have lifted or taken part in lifting more 2nd gens than you. Just about everything has been tried at one point or another. So these people come in with advice/questions. You get your panties in a wad at these people and then go all high and mighty with "I tried to show you guys the possibility to do something better". You don't even know it's better as you haven't tried it.

Go into the suspension section and start this in the mid travel bs thread and you will be crucified by people that may not be engineers but have actually built mid/long travel trucks.

If you ever get around to getting your own hands dirty and testing this setup come back with the results. If it truly is a good as you are saying tacoma world will have new greatest member. If we even have one of those.