Ever seen a "radius arm" setup like this before? Thoughts? Subscribe and stick around if you want to see how this front end performs with a 1200 lb cummins on top of it once I get this beast running! 👍🥳👍
Can u make the arms maybe half the length to gain a bunch more clearance? And the mount are crazy hanging down rt wher ur sliders etc are bashing rocks.. the overall box that mounts ur parellegram 4 link needs to be three times as beefy to support Cummins torque over crawling and trail. But rad principle. Ther is a rule to what ur trying to do I just can't remember. U can email whats his name with the fab studio he is a sick fabricator that is master in beam theory. Watch episodes of terracrew and ul find a lot of what ur doing
@@thrillbillyjp1 I'll answer all your comments here instead of on each one 😉 The shorter the arms the more front to back movement I get meaning the less potential travel and worse dynamics. They could be shorter but I thought this was a good compromise for length. As for the mounts they hang only slightly lower then the leaf spring mounts in the rear. It isn't optimal but I'm hoping it will be acceptable. if they get in the way I'll figure out a way to move them to the outside of the frame and relocate that body mount. I could have bought threaded bungs but if they're 23 bucks each and I need 8 it was easier for me to just make some, costs a lot less. I'm just being cheap haha. You say it's old news but I haven't actually seen this type of "radius arm" done before, if you have a link of a build I'd love to see it! Most of these builds use the normal style of radius arms rather then a parallel link setup like this. You're right Terracrew has some awesome ranger/explorer builds like this but most of them are 2x4 not 4x4. They have some 4x4's but I've never seen them use a dana 50 instead of a dana 44 (they're more worried about travel then strength I think, better for them to build up a 44). I think some buggy and sand guys might have though - but haven't seen this type of link setup anywhere. Thanks for the input!
@@BuildSomethingAuto Twin I Beam and TTB operate on the same geometry principles so they translate well. The biggest problem with TTB parallel 4 link is axle binding. Your caster should change as the axle lowers to reduce binding potential. Often TTB setups have a large amount of caster (10-12 degrees at ride height) to make up for this (with radius arms). Center mounted radius arms are popular to reduce caster change through the cycle arc, but with 4x4 packaging becomes far more difficult. I recommend Mike Cox's Build Battle Explorer for an awesome reference, or check out TTB builds on dezertrangers.com or pirate4x4.com.
A few years ago I was at the Baja 1000 and there was a class 8 Ford there with twin equal-length I-beams(2wd) with a parallel radius arm setup like you've built here. The owner said it was built by the Ford off road race program back in the early-mid 90's when the factories took this stuff really seriously. Obviously their goal was the same as yours but I have to guess the other reason for this not being more widely adopted is due to the susceptibility of long tube segments to bending in extreme cases such as off-road racing. Comprehensively boxed and trussed arms continue to be the preferred option for this reason. I have no doubt it will be more enjoyable to drive though.
I've always been a fan of TTB setups. I've owned several but never modified one. This setup will certainly fix some issues, but the biggest complaints are always with the camber. I went to college for industrial design though I work as an aircraft mechanic. I have been working on some hybrid TTB/long and short arm IFS designs that I'd like to prototype and eventually if I can ever find time build one out on a ranger. I like to see people think outside the box. Keep up the good work
I did this a few years ago on a ranger prerunner. Works good, but you want some castor gain in bump travel to compensate for chassis pitch during braking. Otherwise castors goes away and the truck can feel twitchy. Good luck with the build!
I don't know how I just stumbled upon your channel. I'm also a mechanic but a senior in mechanical engineering. I really like your idea of parallel links on a dana 50--I have a 97 f250HD which these axles came on stock, and while I'm not sure when I'll get to it, I'd LOVE to do something similar to this! This has me hooked on it--I better start designing and running some FEA ;)
"dive" is also something to consider when setting this up. You can drasticly reduce breaking dive e. g. when one arm is longer / connection points not the same distance as front.
Yes antidive is important! The same thing can be achieved with parallel links, however calculating the instant center of rotation is slightly different. If/when the rear ends up with links I'll most likely go more into depth on suspension geometry. For anyone wanting videos on it in the meantime I'd highly recommend dirt lifestyles 4 link videos.
I have a cut and turned 4inch lift with long hiem joint and the chomoly radius arm brok from the beam on a poker run shakedown with the wheel wedged in a hole with tree root. I rebuilt that radius aem to beam both sides and added a vertical connection that also connected the top and bottom to beam connection. I gusseted and plated and a little more the beams. I aded a F250 slipshaft pass axle too with big U joints. I cycled and cleared it turning and spining wheels. Then I set a new set of limit straps to protect my king Shocks that work GREAT1 I get permagrin off roading with my TTB
I've always been a fan of Ford's ttb and twin-I-beam, and always wondered why Ford didn't do this radius arm setup. I'm sure it had to do with cost, though. If I knew how to fab, I would most definitely do it on my Bronco. Very cool video!
I agree, cost is likely a huge factor. Additionally with stock suspension travel numbers it probably just isnt necessary, stock trucks actually work pretty well. Its only once we start trying to mod things that the limits show through haha. No time to learn to fab like the present! A welder and an angle grinder can get a surprising amount done.
@@BuildSomethingAuto I'm okay with the cutting and grinding, it's the welding I need to get started on. Your Explorer videos are certainly very inspiring as well as informative.
Been looking for weeks for someone else who has done this. Bent my broncos axle and radius arm and was cheaper to do heims and new driver side axle. Can't wait to start building it
some reasons why I wouldn’t do this are 1: ground clearance of the chassis mount 2: caster change at droop and gain at bump is not the big flaw with beams since caster is only in effect when force is applied. 3: is strength. The single tubes are weaker than a boxed and gusseted radius arm. Also those hiems are Smaller than what i would recommend. Also fewer moving parts, fewer hiems which means fewer places to break. I would also use bungs for your hiems, they will be much stronger than a nut welded on the end of a tube. Not trying to be the negative nelly but im just sharing what i know. Its nice to see someone carry out their idea however 👍🏼
Youre not wrong on most these points 😉 (1) The ground clearance issue is definitely a consideration, if its too much of an issue when I test drive it I’ll endup moving the mounts but if I do so Antisquat will have to be a design consideration (helps braking under speed but ALSO can change how well the front end wants to climb rocks). Keep in mind they hang about as low as the rear leaf mounts already do. (2) caster is a minor consideration but its still a consideration. It can definitely contribute to bump steer which I want to avoid (of course steering geometry is a bigger factor). Ultimately its easy to do and IMO is an upgrade even if minor so why not. (3) you arent wrong boxed would be stronger but I dont see strength as a major factor for the design itself given that linked front and rear ends are kinda the gold standard for solid axles. If it works there it should work here on TTB. Granted Its possible I’ll have to increase the sizes, I’ll know when I test it. My calculations made me think itd be fine, but cost mightve swayed me more than it should have. Also remember that I didnt just weld the nut to the end of the tube, I welded it to a sleeve and then welded the sleeve into the tube, similar design as a bung. Thank you for your input! 👍 i really do appreciate people sharing what they know!
My first gen explorer is a beast. Has an atlas, 4.88 gears and front and rear ARB's! I kept the front Dana 35 and it's kept up just fine. Maintenance is key.
Sounds like an awesome explorer! As long as you keep stock power levels there's nothing wrong with the dana 35 or the 8.8, it's only once you start doing engine swaps and power adders that the axles start to be a limit 😅
Hey this is pretty cool and the first time I have seen this type of setup on ttb. Personally I feel like your frame mounts leave the bottom link way too low, if you try to slide that link on a rock with a Cummins over it, it's going to bend it.
It's highly likely your tires will scrub hard on your 4-link bars at full lock. This, of course, is assuming you plan on running larger, off-road oriented tires. Why didn't you buy weld in bungs for your size heims and tube? I think I paid $12 a piece for 1.25-12 tpi bungs for 2x2x1/4 square tube when I built the extended radius arms for my Ranger.
That is a fair concern. I have one of the 31.6"x10.5 tires from the ram bolted on the front right now and at full lock there's about 3" of clearance to the arms. Could be due to how much wider the dana 50 is. I was originally thinking 33's which would likely fit 👌 but now I'm considering going a tiny bit bigger then that so I may have to address it (I'll know what size for sure once the bodies back on). As for weld in bungs I was going to do that originally but even at $12 each for 8 of them it's a lot more expensive then a few nuts and another stick of tube so I just opted to do it cheaply 😉. Got the whole setup for under $200 with a little bit of material and hardware leftover. Thanks for the input!
A few thoughts. A big part of the front suspension geometry is “anti dive”. I wonder if your parallelogram can even be calculated for anti dive. Also, especially with the torque of the Cummins, link separation is very important so you don’t tear off the mounts.
Good question! You can calculate a parallel link setup for antidive, the geometry looks slightly different but in reality it's all just special cases of the same calculation. Technically the calculation you're doing is finding the roll center (also called instant center of rotation since it isn't stationary, it technically moves over time as the suspension cycles) and seeing if the line of action of the force through the suspension is above or below that roll center. ctrl F the following link for "parallel" if you want some pictures and a better explanation, I've learned explaining technical things never comes across right for me in comments 😅 www.crawlpedia.com/4_link_suspension.htm Also that reminds me, it's important to remember that all these angles change as the suspension cycles. In reality a proper anti-dive or anti-squat calculation would take a few different points into consideration. For example full bump, full droop, and ride height, and calculate it for each position to get an idea of the dynamics. Yes link separation can certainly help contain the torque on the axles from the cummins, definitely a critical dimension!
Pretty slick idea there. I may have to copy this at some point once I get my truck all done. I’m not using a Cummins though but a 460 weighs kinda close to one.
I used 1 1/2", however if I were to do it again I'd use 2" with 1/4" wall thickness on the bottom tubes (the top is fine with 1 1/2" on TTB, on a solid axle where the top helps triangulate probably 2" for both). The bigger wall thickness on the bottom tube would help with dragging them over rocks. Keep in mind the longer they are the bigger they need to be. When I built this I was broke and unemployed so I went with minimum viable and cheap😅
Great question! On a solid axle nothing stops side to side movement so you would need either triangulation in the links, or a track bar, to prevent that motion. HOWEVER on TTB the beams are bolted to a pivot in the middle. Any side load gets taken by the center pivot so beams naturally can not move side to side. It's a little different than a traditional solid axle 😅
How did this workout in terms of ride, highway stability and off road practicality? I’ve got an 85 F-250 6.9l with TTB & leaf springs, that I’m thinking of converting to coils with a 2.5-3" lift and I’m still in the squinty eyed, eyebrow raised, chin in hand phase.
I’ll let you know once I get it running and test it 😅. If you already have a leaf sprung TTB though I think a coil swap is definitely worth considering, could be a big upgrade for offroad and highway. There are even aftermarket kits to do it if you want to go that route! 2 biggest concerns with lifting TTB is one making sure you have enough adjustment to get camber to factory spec (look into “cut n turn” on beams if you get too tall) and two getting the steering geometry right. My newest video gives some examples of fixing the steering (tie rod flip, drop pitman arm) but I wouldnt recommend you use the GM 1 ton tie rod ends like I did, probably not worth the effort.
The only issue I see is clearance and more brackets a lot of guys make them longer and angle them in to the center to eliminate some of the caster change
I guess a radius arm setup is pros. in const drive shaft joint angle. Parallel setup is pros. In const castor angle. Which setup is for universal drive?
Possible to put that bracket INside the frame rails? That way the tires don't rub at full lock/articulation? I don't mean in the actual beams, but opposite side of where you have them now. Maybe pivot/angle a bit on the axle bracket to avoid binding the hiems.
I definitely considered it. However there's a few issues, first the links would collide with the frame sooner limiting my up-travel (17:10, notice how the upper link actually moves above the bottom of the frame). Second the links would be VERY tight on the driveshaft. I could avoid both these issues if I decided to make the links have some curves in them rather then straight, but that would have complicated the design quite a bit if I still wanted to keep the adjustability. The dana 50 is really wide which helps my tire clearance a lot. With a 31" tire on there at full lock still have about 2-3" of clearance before I rub on the link, but that's with a pretty ridiculous amount of steering angle that I could limit if I chose to. Overall I think this ended up being the best compromise! EDIT: Just to be clear I'm planning on going bigger then 31's haha, that's just what I had sitting around from the ram to test with
just my 2 cents here but ive always heard of the 1/4th rule of thumb for link spacing. Your link tubes should be spaced apart 1/4 the overall tire diameter desired for strength and wear life of the links.
I'm having issues with my leaf sprung version moving under acceleration and am considering this as a option, how long would you say your tubing is, and what size?
If it's leaf sprung I'm assuming it's an F250 or F350, I would say use 1/4" wall tubing to be safe on a bigger rig. 1 1/2" or larger. I'd use a length between 18-36" depending on how much travel you're shooting for. One thing I didn't mention in the video is how high you put the bracket on the chassis will affect anti dive. The higher you put the bracket the less the front end lifts under acceleration and dives under braking, the lower you put it the more the suspension lift in acceleration and dives under braking. Higher chassis bracket is better for hill climbs or accelerating on steep stuff but worse for hard braking on rough terrain. If you're thinking of keeping the leaves instead of swapping to coils you have to be careful to get the arc of the radius arms as close to possible to the arc of the springs, otherwise the spring will go S shaped trying to follow the radius arms. I wouldn't expect a lot of travel and you might stiffen the front end if you leave the leaves and use the radius arms. Honestly I would consider just using a traditional traction bar if you're planning on keeping leaf springs since you want to allow the axle to follow the leaf springs, don't want to constrain it's motion as much (could do a similar setup but with 1 link instead of two). Let me know if you go through with it and how it turns out!
That is awesome! I'm just trying to get front and rear drive shafts the complete ttb 4x4 axle and brackets the transfer case and the shifter and boot! It is a 1988 f150 2wd automatic transmission aod 5.0l(302) not sure what rear diff I have yet! I want to take the center chunk from the 4x4 to match the front ttb 4x4 axle! I just want stock 4x4 parts! What vehicles will work? Ford explorer\moutianeer bronco 2 full size bronco f150 and e150 vans (rear end parts) is all I have to work with and some light duty f250! I want to stay with the five lug pattern! The truck was my grandfather an my dads and then my first truck so I'm not interested in just buying a old 4x4! I want to take my time rebuild the axles before I put them in new bushings u joints seals bearings brakes ball joints Sand blast and paint! It is a short bed! Will the bronco full size 4x4 directly bolt driveshafts and all? I have the cab off bed off sanded the frame to bare metal and painted it! New cab mount bushings! Also 31x50r15 will they be perfect for stock travel and daily driving? I just put new front bed panel and tail gate on the bed! The car has no rust Georgia truck so I have all dents fixed primed! Ordered new carpet headliner door panels new heater core an original stock radio to go back in! Only no factory mod is the pass through window and 351w stroker GT40p heads cam rockers elderbrock intake upper plenum and larger throttle body! Trans rebuilt heavy duty parts and cooler output shaft form 4x4 and adapter! Waiting to find a transfer case in good serviceable shape to rebuild! Any suggestions on what to look for and the best stock parts to get?
Im sorry, for some reason youtube marked your comment as spam and I didnt notice. I just allowed it to be posted. For an f150 4x4 swap Id recommend a dana 44. These come in f150s and broncos. Explorers had a dana 35 which is smaller you probably dont want this, some rangers even had a dana 28. F250s and f350s had dana 44HD and dana 50 which is what I used, but this will be much harder to get to work (you would need to fabricate all your own center mounts like I did in my “leafs to coils” video). I think vans were the same way, you can tell by the driver member being really short compared to a dana 44, also a 50 is stamped on the third member. Id recommend f150 or bronco parts instead. If you get all the 4x4 stuff from the same generation f150 (4x4 transmission and transfer case included) it will most likely bolt up. Otherwise you could use bronco parts but the driveshaft would need recut, a local machine shop could probably do this for $200 or so. Here is some more info on different TTB setups, this website can be a very good source. www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/dana-44-dana-44hd-ttb-front-axles/
How do you only have 60 subs? Well now I'm 61... :) This is awesome! How are you determining the strength of those tubes? They seem... thin (walled). Are they going to be strong enough? I get that they aren't load bearing and most of the forces they should experience are compression and tension... but I dunno... they just seem thin.
Thank you! Each tube should hold about 10,000 lb static load (compressive strength in pounds per square inch multiplied by the area of the tube). They are a little thinner then they'd normally be since there's 2 in conjunction on each arm. My biggest concern would be if the lower tube gets dented they'd be likely to bend so once I can test this thing I'll see if that ends up being a problem or not and if I need to reinforce the lower arms.
@@BuildSomethingAuto yeah, dented or bent could lead to some scary failure under hard braking as the tube wouldn't be handling to force purely compressive anymore. Thoughts?
I think if I were to bend them the failure would happen offroad when I'm shoving my tires up against some rocks, not on the road on the way home. Either way if I start to notice dents in the tubes then I will definitely reinforce them or remake the lowers with thicker tube. Definitely something I intend to keep my eye on!
@@BuildSomethingAuto If you would have kept the inner tube full length, nothing would bend that doubled-tube. That is how I build my small trailer tongues with double-tubes and they are strong as hell!
Here's what you might do next time if the radius arm ever fails. After welding the nut to the inner sleeve grind the weld down till it fits in the outer tube. Cross drill the outer tube, insert the nut flush to the end of the radius arm. Weld the nut to the outer sleeve, then weld the inner sleeve through the cross drilled holes in the outer tube. That way the nut is fixed on both ends and you're not putting the weld under nearly as much load.
Dude, the bungs are made to fit thick wall DOM for a good reason lol. Using thin wall is a baaaaad move but hey..... And nobody uses this style geo in racing as it don't hold up.
I am using solidworks, they have a hobby version thats much less expensive than what I have. The cheapest option is fusion 360 since the hobby version is free, IMO some features are better in fusion, some in solidworks, but I personally prefer solidworks. Either one would work great.
Two problems. 1 rocks. I use ttb in rocks and the closer you keep the arm to the frame the better. Two the biggest problem is the drag link. I use a straight drag link and tie both tie rods to it.
The problem is that you are losing ground clearance (which is important)--- to gain better caster, which is not that important when offroading...... Also, you should have put a triangle gusset behind your bracket--- and not that angled brace that is going to break off.
It all depends on the application. For desert racing ground clearance doesn't actually matter and suspension dynamics does. This is a "jack of all trades" type of build, not necessarily a full blown rock crawler, things like antidive also matter. I imagine it'll only spend 10-20% of it's time in the rocks, I don't live in MOAB and I don't plan on trailering this thing. For now I want to test the mount as is and see how in the way it is. If it ends up being an issue I'll sacrifice some antidive and some more fab work in order to gain the ground clearance by moving the mount. Keep in mind like I said in the video the rear leaf spring mount hangs down just as low as this front linkage mount does.
Its a great design for keeping caster aligned. But i question the overall strength for off road use. Generally theres some sort of gusseting between the two bars. Obviously you would lose your desired movement. But i feel this designs engineering is flawed. Curious to see it perform on the trails.
Keep in mind people use 4 bar link axle setups on offroaders all the time 😉. If they endup being too weak I can always simply replace the links with thicker ones, that wouldn’t change the design itself. Thanks for the input.
Solidworks, but its pretty expensive. I only use it because I got it for free from work. Id recommend fusion 360 as they give it out free for hobbyists. I also think creo might be free for hobbyists/students as well and if thats true thatd be even better.
Ask your ME department what software they use and if its something you can get on your personal laptop for homework, thats probably the best way to go IMO 😉
I actually started on mig, but when it came time to buy my first welder my partner used to be a welder and had a prejudice against MIG welding. She calls it "barby playhouse welding" 😅. To keep her happy I had to buy a tig stick machine first, but mig is super useful especially when you need to do a lot of welding in a short time. Ill definitely be buying a mig next! The way I see it if you can only have one welder, tig does more than mig, but its a lot slower so if you can have 2 welders mig is definitely worth it.
It shouldn't, but just to be sure at the very end I made sure to cycle the suspension a few times without the coils or shocks to make sure nothing unexpected happened. Other then the frame moving side to side a bit from the cheap jackstands everything seems to move smooth!
I make killing off people who don't understand the ttb. The geometry your using is correct for a solid axle with coil springs BUT the ttb is a triangle mounted on 2 corners the wheel never moves back (like a solid axle) and caster never changes from full droop to full bump.camber is set with shims on bearing snout. The radius arms don't move up and down they rotate as the ttb cycles. With a heim you will only get 7 degrees of rotation which is less than factory 18 degrees if you use Jonny joints you will get 20 degrees of rotation or misalignment. This equals 30 inches of wheel travel. Also remember that to get 30 inches you will have to extend the ttb beam 3 to 6 inches and lengthen radius arm accordingly and use coil over shocks set at 18 degrees in and 0 degree front to rear.
It sounds like you have experience working on dana 44's on broncos and similar, thanks for the input. However keep in mind this is a dana 50 in an explorer so all the numbers might be a little different, for example the dana 50 is already that much wider than the dana 35 that came stock. There are a couple things I don't necessarily agree with though. Would you say there was something incorrect about the model I used at 4:30? Unless there is something horribly wrong with this model the axle does in fact move front to back to a small degree (as you stated it moves in an arc, an arc by definition moves up and down AS it moves front to back otherwise it's a line not an arc). Additionally the caster does change with a single radius arm member (which is what is fixed by using 2 equal length parallel radius arms instead). Stock both of these movements are accounted for by misalignment in the rubber bushing where the TTB beam mounts (the rubber bushing can support misalignment in multiple directions). You can watch both of these movements happen at 4:30. If you disagree with the way it was modeled though let me know, otherwise it can be seen clearly at 4:30 that both these movements (front to back, caster change) exist. I did not address the camber issues in any meaningful way yet, except for the fact that the beams are longer than stock dana 35 beams, but as I'm sure you know the ultimate solution would likely be a cut and turn if camber is deemed to be a significant enough issue. The heim's I am using allow for 24 degrees of misalignment (much like a johnny joint) and of course full rotation on the axis transverse to the axis of the radius arm/thread. I'm not claiming I would get the full 24 degrees without a misalignment spacer, however even without I still have adequate misalignment as to not worry about it (both theoretically and as measured). This is partially due to how long the radius arms are helping out with misalignment. Keep in mind this misalignment is only there to prevent binding as the beam moves left to right (this is the second arc TTB suspension travels through, one arc front to back and one arc side to side). edit: at 14:07 you can see how much misalignment it is capable of, when I pick the bracket off the table I move it over 12"+ which is much further then would ever be required Admittedly I probably should have used johnny joints for strength. I looked at the static loads on the heim's I used and thought it would be plenty adequate and would save time over special ordering johnny joints, but I may still go back and upgrade them later. Thanks again for your input.
The only difference between the 44 and 50 are the outers everything else is 44 you’ll notice the inner axle has step down to fit the 44 center. I have and modified lots mostly bronco and bronco 2. Yes the numbers will be different angles fitting to a explorer. Honestly I would solid axle swap it to Dana 44s off a jeep rubicon
There's 3 distinct TTB's of interest here, dana 44, 44HD, and 50. The 44HD and 50 look nothing like the regular 44, the driver side members aren't nearly as long and bolt up in a different place to makeup for it, their overall width is slightly more (and all of these are much wider than the 35 the explorer came with stock), etc. the 44HD and 44 are more similar on their internals like you mentioned but the 50 is much more stout. The 50 uses a 9" ring gear, larger ujoints and axles, hubs the same size as a dana 60, etc. Most people don't bother with 50's is probably why there's a lot of misconceptions. www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/ford-dana-50-ttb-front-axle/
Yes the housings are application specific but the 44hd 44 and 50 all share the same internals except for seals and the geometry is all the same .I use 50 outer on reinforced cut and turned 44 beams. Cromoly cv axles in every build and I've never had one come back broke yet.
@@richardallen8209 Checkout the link I gave above, there's a few other differences between 44HD and 50 such as the 9" ring gear, ujoints, and hubs. Doesn't matter as much for the conversation about TTB but matters a lot as to why I picked a dana 50 and wouldn't trust a dana 44 to holdup the same 😉.
It has it's advantages 😉. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm hoping with these modifications most of the disadvantages that matter will be taken care of.
I prefer TTB for this build (in fact I swapped in 3/4 ton TTB to replace the explorers TTB). Solid axles have their advantages and disadvantages, and so does TTB, and I personally think TTB is better for my use case. Plus I like a challenge. One day when this is complete I’ll make a video going much more in detail comparing the two.
You can see visually in the video with stock radius arms the caster flips from positive to negative in 10” of travel or less. As this angle changes the sensitivity of the steering also changes with it getting twitchier the less positive and downright unruly if it goes negative. On top of this the caster axis is is the axis the steering rotates around so if you hold the steering wheel steady, but the caster changes, then you get a form of bump steer. Im not trying to claim thered be unmanageable amounts of bump steer or anything like that though. Some of the biggest benefits are just the adjustability i had talked about. In the end it was a simple solution and I didnt see any major downsides to doing it - either way I had to make new radius arms/linkages.
Agreed. Technically the way to do this would be with full IFS, equal length control arms (which is one reason they do that). However for me personally thats where I draw the line, at that point there’s too many cons. IMO TTB is right in the sweet spot between a solid axle and independent suspension.
Bro ur aware that this is all like completely old news. Yes ur correct in some ways and kinda stuck on others. All axels move some forward and back the further its drooping out. This is why we use slip yokes. And what u could do is use homes and create a J beam set up thats what we would make in this case.
A parallel 4 link with TTB? I've never seen it, but I'd love to see examples if you have any. It's used on solid axles all the time, but beam suspension is a different animal. No idea what the golden rule is in reference to.
At this point I have A LOT of stuff welded to the frame including it being boxed 😅. As far as I'm aware, unless you're working on commercial trucks, most of these frames are mild steel so they're conducive to welding. It sure seems to weld alright at least!
You seem intelligent and quiet motivated in life. Just do yourself a favor , quit drinking all that crap soda especially Mt Dew. Just saying,, it's your life. Live like you want too.
Thanks for the concern Joshua, I made sure to be positive it was a 50 not a 44HD before I grabbed it. Theres a few ways to tell the difference. On a 50 the hubs are almost 4” across, there is a 50 stamped under the pinion yoke, and they didnt make a 44HD for the year of truck I pulled it out of. However this is definitely something that could catch someone up so its important to check! www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/dana-44-dana-44hd-ttb-front-axles/
Yeah I do. Just like all setups TTB has its advantages and disadvantages and I prefer the advantages of TTB to the disadvantages of a solid axle 🤷♀️. But everyone should do whats best for their own particular build.
It came stock with 7.3 powerstrokes. Its a 9” ring gear with a high pinion. 30 spline shafts (like some dana 60s). Its a 3/4 ton front end just like the ram 2500 the cummins came out of is a 3/4 ton truck. It is an oddball though so I dont expect everyone to know all that about it. On top of all that the explorer weighs much less than a 3/4 ton truck anyways 😉
Don't do this unless your off-roading only. seriously bad idea for average truck owner. The one thing not included is how the camber and caster were engineered to make the twin I beam not go into the death wobble. Steer axels are different, This video is treating it like a rear axel. Front axels need caster to change with load/ height. Don't feel too bad, Dodge , Jeep and several others got it wrong same as you. Why you would head that way is understandable but just draw it out on paper, you should never push a tire without caster, then camber and toe to keep it pulling out just a fraction....more caster lighter feel in the wheel, less heavier wheel feel but faster response.... Be careful what you post some might think you know what you doing.
As you know, I am NOT creating a system with no caster nor negative caster. I am creating a system with constant caster which is very different than what you are describing here. I will be able to make the caster as positive as I like with this setup. Imma need some sources for why you think constant caster would increase the odds of death wobble, or atleast an explanation of what physical mechanism youre suggesting would cause this exactly. It is very common on TTB to extend the radius arms which greatly reduces the rate of caster change. By your logic this would increase the likelihood of death wobble on every modified ttb that does this. What I am doing is not so different from what almost every other modified TTB does by extending their radius arms, I am simply taking this concept to a larger extreme. I am going to take a good faith interpretation of your comment (which is more than you did for me) and assume you know something about the kinematics of these systems that I do not. If so please explain to me what physical mechanism would cause the death wobble youre worried about when caster is held constant through the travel. The first step in fixing a problem is understanding it and then measuring it.
So you think yr a Genius,,,lol 1. As the TIB axle cycles up and down the way it’s mounted doesn’t let it the caster change as much as you think,,, the stock travel on anything does not have that much up or down travel as you think or yr Diagram shows... the arms where they attach to the frame not the knuckle don’t move much to let the caster change like you think,,,The fords have been using this for 30 years 1966-96 and Dominate the desert racing scene
Buy some bungs and bigger heims , please don’t drive this on the road and endanger other people. That is a heavy engine you are putting in. Not trying to be a dick but it’s just not safe.
Why would bungs be stronger than the sleeve method I used? Keep in mind that side loads are captured by the center mount on a TTB. Also keep in mind theres twice as many mounting points and thus twice as many heims compared to a stock like radius arm setup. A larger number of small things is often stronger than a smaller number of large things.
Ever seen a "radius arm" setup like this before? Thoughts?
Subscribe and stick around if you want to see how this front end performs with a 1200 lb cummins on top of it once I get this beast running! 👍🥳👍
Can u make the arms maybe half the length to gain a bunch more clearance? And the mount are crazy hanging down rt wher ur sliders etc are bashing rocks.. the overall box that mounts ur parellegram 4 link needs to be three times as beefy to support Cummins torque over crawling and trail. But rad principle. Ther is a rule to what ur trying to do I just can't remember. U can email whats his name with the fab studio he is a sick fabricator that is master in beam theory. Watch episodes of terracrew and ul find a lot of what ur doing
I'm not being rude to ur build im being blunt and honest. I to have many yrs building trucks and crawlers and high speed dezert set ups
@@thrillbillyjp1 I'll answer all your comments here instead of on each one 😉
The shorter the arms the more front to back movement I get meaning the less potential travel and worse dynamics. They could be shorter but I thought this was a good compromise for length. As for the mounts they hang only slightly lower then the leaf spring mounts in the rear. It isn't optimal but I'm hoping it will be acceptable. if they get in the way I'll figure out a way to move them to the outside of the frame and relocate that body mount.
I could have bought threaded bungs but if they're 23 bucks each and I need 8 it was easier for me to just make some, costs a lot less. I'm just being cheap haha.
You say it's old news but I haven't actually seen this type of "radius arm" done before, if you have a link of a build I'd love to see it! Most of these builds use the normal style of radius arms rather then a parallel link setup like this. You're right Terracrew has some awesome ranger/explorer builds like this but most of them are 2x4 not 4x4. They have some 4x4's but I've never seen them use a dana 50 instead of a dana 44 (they're more worried about travel then strength I think, better for them to build up a 44). I think some buggy and sand guys might have though - but haven't seen this type of link setup anywhere.
Thanks for the input!
@@BuildSomethingAuto Twin I Beam and TTB operate on the same geometry principles so they translate well. The biggest problem with TTB parallel 4 link is axle binding. Your caster should change as the axle lowers to reduce binding potential. Often TTB setups have a large amount of caster (10-12 degrees at ride height) to make up for this (with radius arms). Center mounted radius arms are popular to reduce caster change through the cycle arc, but with 4x4 packaging becomes far more difficult. I recommend Mike Cox's Build Battle Explorer for an awesome reference, or check out TTB builds on dezertrangers.com or pirate4x4.com.
@@paulallegrezza9266 heck yes man I'm watching those right now too... about to start a gen 1 exploder build soon.
This dude needs way more views/subscribers. Considering the garbage that has millions of viewers, this is UA-cam gold. Awesome work.
I appreciate that, thank you!
@@BuildSomethingAuto digging these vids while building my 93 Full-size Bronco.
A few years ago I was at the Baja 1000 and there was a class 8 Ford there with twin equal-length I-beams(2wd) with a parallel radius arm setup like you've built here. The owner said it was built by the Ford off road race program back in the early-mid 90's when the factories took this stuff really seriously. Obviously their goal was the same as yours but I have to guess the other reason for this not being more widely adopted is due to the susceptibility of long tube segments to bending in extreme cases such as off-road racing. Comprehensively boxed and trussed arms continue to be the preferred option for this reason. I have no doubt it will be more enjoyable to drive though.
I've always been a fan of TTB setups. I've owned several but never modified one. This setup will certainly fix some issues, but the biggest complaints are always with the camber. I went to college for industrial design though I work as an aircraft mechanic. I have been working on some hybrid TTB/long and short arm IFS designs that I'd like to prototype and eventually if I can ever find time build one out on a ranger. I like to see people think outside the box. Keep up the good work
I did this a few years ago on a ranger prerunner. Works good, but you want some castor gain in bump travel to compensate for chassis pitch during braking. Otherwise castors goes away and the truck can feel twitchy. Good luck with the build!
Great video man. This is one of those channels that totally underrated. It has Way better content then what the damn algorithm tries to shove to us.
Dude this is awesome. Please keep it up on updates
I don't know how I just stumbled upon your channel. I'm also a mechanic but a senior in mechanical engineering. I really like your idea of parallel links on a dana 50--I have a 97 f250HD which these axles came on stock, and while I'm not sure when I'll get to it, I'd LOVE to do something similar to this! This has me hooked on it--I better start designing and running some FEA ;)
This is an incredible build. I'm going to binge watch
I thought i had an original idea untill i saw this video
I wish I could like this twice. Great job. Now I want to do this to my truck.
Best Ever explanatory of suspension and build video.
"dive" is also something to consider when setting this up.
You can drasticly reduce breaking dive e. g. when one arm is longer / connection points not the same distance as front.
Yes antidive is important! The same thing can be achieved with parallel links, however calculating the instant center of rotation is slightly different.
If/when the rear ends up with links I'll most likely go more into depth on suspension geometry. For anyone wanting videos on it in the meantime I'd highly recommend dirt lifestyles 4 link videos.
I have a cut and turned 4inch lift with long hiem joint and the chomoly radius arm brok from the beam on a poker run shakedown with the wheel wedged in a hole with tree root. I rebuilt that radius aem to beam both sides and added a vertical connection that also connected the top and bottom to beam connection. I gusseted and plated and a little more the beams. I aded a F250 slipshaft pass axle too with big U joints. I cycled and cleared it turning and spining wheels. Then I set a new set of limit straps to protect my king Shocks that work GREAT1 I get permagrin off roading with my TTB
I've always been a fan of Ford's ttb and twin-I-beam, and always wondered why Ford didn't do this radius arm setup. I'm sure it had to do with cost, though. If I knew how to fab, I would most definitely do it on my Bronco. Very cool video!
I agree, cost is likely a huge factor. Additionally with stock suspension travel numbers it probably just isnt necessary, stock trucks actually work pretty well. Its only once we start trying to mod things that the limits show through haha.
No time to learn to fab like the present! A welder and an angle grinder can get a surprising amount done.
@@BuildSomethingAuto I'm okay with the cutting and grinding, it's the welding I need to get started on. Your Explorer videos are certainly very inspiring as well as informative.
Been looking for weeks for someone else who has done this. Bent my broncos axle and radius arm and was cheaper to do heims and new driver side axle. Can't wait to start building it
You inspired me to try this on my..Van! When I get to this point in my build, I'm gonna throw you a shout out in my video. Thank You!
That's awesome! Let me know when you upload the video 😁
@@BuildSomethingAuto Thanks again for taking the time to educate. ua-cam.com/video/rfgB-TJo_Gk/v-deo.html
Good show!! I remember ridin in the ol mans 86 F100 ttb...damn that front end felt amazing...shame they never kept it going!!
I had TTB in my 2012 F250 work truck. It sucked badly.
some reasons why I wouldn’t do this are 1: ground clearance of the chassis mount 2: caster change at droop and gain at bump is not the big flaw with beams since caster is only in effect when force is applied. 3: is strength. The single tubes are weaker than a boxed and gusseted radius arm. Also those hiems are Smaller than what i would recommend. Also fewer moving parts, fewer hiems which means fewer places to break. I would also use bungs for your hiems, they will be much stronger than a nut welded on the end of a tube. Not trying to be the negative nelly but im just sharing what i know. Its nice to see someone carry out their idea however 👍🏼
Youre not wrong on most these points 😉
(1) The ground clearance issue is definitely a consideration, if its too much of an issue when I test drive it I’ll endup moving the mounts but if I do so Antisquat will have to be a design consideration (helps braking under speed but ALSO can change how well the front end wants to climb rocks). Keep in mind they hang about as low as the rear leaf mounts already do.
(2) caster is a minor consideration but its still a consideration. It can definitely contribute to bump steer which I want to avoid (of course steering geometry is a bigger factor). Ultimately its easy to do and IMO is an upgrade even if minor so why not.
(3) you arent wrong boxed would be stronger but I dont see strength as a major factor for the design itself given that linked front and rear ends are kinda the gold standard for solid axles. If it works there it should work here on TTB. Granted Its possible I’ll have to increase the sizes, I’ll know when I test it. My calculations made me think itd be fine, but cost mightve swayed me more than it should have.
Also remember that I didnt just weld the nut to the end of the tube, I welded it to a sleeve and then welded the sleeve into the tube, similar design as a bung.
Thank you for your input! 👍 i really do appreciate people sharing what they know!
Finally, somebody I can relate to or comprehend!
All ways search UA-cam for 8 lug swap on ttb and never seem to find anything til this day thx for that i will definitely watch this build
My first gen explorer is a beast. Has an atlas, 4.88 gears and front and rear ARB's! I kept the front Dana 35 and it's kept up just fine. Maintenance is key.
Sounds like an awesome explorer! As long as you keep stock power levels there's nothing wrong with the dana 35 or the 8.8, it's only once you start doing engine swaps and power adders that the axles start to be a limit 😅
Awesome that instead of saying babe bring me a beer he's able to say can you weld this up for me. Awesome!!
Man I need a set for my 96! Amazing work. New subscriber here.
Hey this is pretty cool and the first time I have seen this type of setup on ttb.
Personally I feel like your frame mounts leave the bottom link way too low, if you try to slide that link on a rock with a Cummins over it, it's going to bend it.
That is amazing. Why has no one done this before?
It's highly likely your tires will scrub hard on your 4-link bars at full lock. This, of course, is assuming you plan on running larger, off-road oriented tires. Why didn't you buy weld in bungs for your size heims and tube? I think I paid $12 a piece for 1.25-12 tpi bungs for 2x2x1/4 square tube when I built the extended radius arms for my Ranger.
That is a fair concern. I have one of the 31.6"x10.5 tires from the ram bolted on the front right now and at full lock there's about 3" of clearance to the arms. Could be due to how much wider the dana 50 is. I was originally thinking 33's which would likely fit 👌 but now I'm considering going a tiny bit bigger then that so I may have to address it (I'll know what size for sure once the bodies back on).
As for weld in bungs I was going to do that originally but even at $12 each for 8 of them it's a lot more expensive then a few nuts and another stick of tube so I just opted to do it cheaply 😉. Got the whole setup for under $200 with a little bit of material and hardware leftover.
Thanks for the input!
@@BuildSomethingAuto I love your budget-oriented angle. Makes it a lot more relatable for us average joes
A few thoughts. A big part of the front suspension geometry is “anti dive”. I wonder if your parallelogram can even be calculated for anti dive. Also, especially with the torque of the Cummins, link separation is very important so you don’t tear off the mounts.
Good question! You can calculate a parallel link setup for antidive, the geometry looks slightly different but in reality it's all just special cases of the same calculation. Technically the calculation you're doing is finding the roll center (also called instant center of rotation since it isn't stationary, it technically moves over time as the suspension cycles) and seeing if the line of action of the force through the suspension is above or below that roll center. ctrl F the following link for "parallel" if you want some pictures and a better explanation, I've learned explaining technical things never comes across right for me in comments 😅
www.crawlpedia.com/4_link_suspension.htm
Also that reminds me, it's important to remember that all these angles change as the suspension cycles. In reality a proper anti-dive or anti-squat calculation would take a few different points into consideration. For example full bump, full droop, and ride height, and calculate it for each position to get an idea of the dynamics.
Yes link separation can certainly help contain the torque on the axles from the cummins, definitely a critical dimension!
Hell yeah! Also overhead and vertical arc welding are probably my least favorite things on this planet so I don’t blame you
Great stuff man. I might do this on my 71 ranchero 2001 f250 suspension swapped Frankenstein off roader.
Pretty slick idea there. I may have to copy this at some point once I get my truck all done. I’m not using a Cummins though but a 460 weighs kinda close to one.
I’m very curious on what size tubing you used for the links. 1 1/2 inch or 2 inch pipe?
I used 1 1/2", however if I were to do it again I'd use 2" with 1/4" wall thickness on the bottom tubes (the top is fine with 1 1/2" on TTB, on a solid axle where the top helps triangulate probably 2" for both). The bigger wall thickness on the bottom tube would help with dragging them over rocks. Keep in mind the longer they are the bigger they need to be.
When I built this I was broke and unemployed so I went with minimum viable and cheap😅
Absolutely legendary. I am going to do this as well if yours works out
What is Stopping your TTB from wandering Side to Side? With those Hiem Joints moving all around
Great question! On a solid axle nothing stops side to side movement so you would need either triangulation in the links, or a track bar, to prevent that motion. HOWEVER on TTB the beams are bolted to a pivot in the middle. Any side load gets taken by the center pivot so beams naturally can not move side to side. It's a little different than a traditional solid axle 😅
So So happy I saw this!
Why do you sound so familiar? If this works out good this would be awesome on my 97 F250HD.
How did this workout in terms of ride, highway stability and off road practicality? I’ve got an 85 F-250 6.9l with TTB & leaf springs, that I’m thinking of converting to coils with a 2.5-3" lift and I’m still in the squinty eyed, eyebrow raised, chin in hand phase.
I’ll let you know once I get it running and test it 😅. If you already have a leaf sprung TTB though I think a coil swap is definitely worth considering, could be a big upgrade for offroad and highway. There are even aftermarket kits to do it if you want to go that route!
2 biggest concerns with lifting TTB is one making sure you have enough adjustment to get camber to factory spec (look into “cut n turn” on beams if you get too tall) and two getting the steering geometry right. My newest video gives some examples of fixing the steering (tie rod flip, drop pitman arm) but I wouldnt recommend you use the GM 1 ton tie rod ends like I did, probably not worth the effort.
This guy is a little genius
The only issue I see is clearance and more brackets a lot of guys make them longer and angle them in to the center to eliminate some of the caster change
I guess a radius arm setup is pros. in const drive shaft joint angle. Parallel setup is pros. In const castor angle. Which setup is for universal drive?
Possible to put that bracket INside the frame rails? That way the tires don't rub at full lock/articulation?
I don't mean in the actual beams, but opposite side of where you have them now. Maybe pivot/angle a bit on the axle bracket to avoid binding the hiems.
I definitely considered it. However there's a few issues, first the links would collide with the frame sooner limiting my up-travel (17:10, notice how the upper link actually moves above the bottom of the frame). Second the links would be VERY tight on the driveshaft. I could avoid both these issues if I decided to make the links have some curves in them rather then straight, but that would have complicated the design quite a bit if I still wanted to keep the adjustability.
The dana 50 is really wide which helps my tire clearance a lot. With a 31" tire on there at full lock still have about 2-3" of clearance before I rub on the link, but that's with a pretty ridiculous amount of steering angle that I could limit if I chose to.
Overall I think this ended up being the best compromise!
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm planning on going bigger then 31's haha, that's just what I had sitting around from the ram to test with
just my 2 cents here but ive always heard of the 1/4th rule of thumb for link spacing. Your link tubes should be spaced apart 1/4 the overall tire diameter desired for strength and wear life of the links.
Nice job man Awesome video
Also featured in Off Road mag years ago there was a beamed T-100 with a 4 link in place of the radius arms. Albeit 2wd but same concept and reasoning.
Definitely a good mod in my opinion 👌
I'm having issues with my leaf sprung version moving under acceleration and am considering this as a option, how long would you say your tubing is, and what size?
If it's leaf sprung I'm assuming it's an F250 or F350, I would say use 1/4" wall tubing to be safe on a bigger rig. 1 1/2" or larger. I'd use a length between 18-36" depending on how much travel you're shooting for. One thing I didn't mention in the video is how high you put the bracket on the chassis will affect anti dive. The higher you put the bracket the less the front end lifts under acceleration and dives under braking, the lower you put it the more the suspension lift in acceleration and dives under braking. Higher chassis bracket is better for hill climbs or accelerating on steep stuff but worse for hard braking on rough terrain.
If you're thinking of keeping the leaves instead of swapping to coils you have to be careful to get the arc of the radius arms as close to possible to the arc of the springs, otherwise the spring will go S shaped trying to follow the radius arms. I wouldn't expect a lot of travel and you might stiffen the front end if you leave the leaves and use the radius arms. Honestly I would consider just using a traditional traction bar if you're planning on keeping leaf springs since you want to allow the axle to follow the leaf springs, don't want to constrain it's motion as much (could do a similar setup but with 1 link instead of two).
Let me know if you go through with it and how it turns out!
That is awesome! I'm just trying to get front and rear drive shafts the complete ttb 4x4 axle and brackets the transfer case and the shifter and boot! It is a 1988 f150 2wd automatic transmission aod 5.0l(302) not sure what rear diff I have yet! I want to take the center chunk from the 4x4 to match the front ttb 4x4 axle! I just want stock 4x4 parts! What vehicles will work? Ford explorer\moutianeer bronco 2 full size bronco f150 and e150 vans (rear end parts) is all I have to work with and some light duty f250! I want to stay with the five lug pattern! The truck was my grandfather an my dads and then my first truck so I'm not interested in just buying a old 4x4! I want to take my time rebuild the axles before I put them in new bushings u joints seals bearings brakes ball joints Sand blast and paint! It is a short bed! Will the bronco full size 4x4 directly bolt driveshafts and all? I have the cab off bed off sanded the frame to bare metal and painted it! New cab mount bushings! Also 31x50r15 will they be perfect for stock travel and daily driving? I just put new front bed panel and tail gate on the bed! The car has no rust Georgia truck so I have all dents fixed primed! Ordered new carpet headliner door panels new heater core an original stock radio to go back in! Only no factory mod is the pass through window and 351w stroker GT40p heads cam rockers elderbrock intake upper plenum and larger throttle body! Trans rebuilt heavy duty parts and cooler output shaft form 4x4 and adapter! Waiting to find a transfer case in good serviceable shape to rebuild! Any suggestions on what to look for and the best stock parts to get?
Im sorry, for some reason youtube marked your comment as spam and I didnt notice. I just allowed it to be posted.
For an f150 4x4 swap Id recommend a dana 44. These come in f150s and broncos. Explorers had a dana 35 which is smaller you probably dont want this, some rangers even had a dana 28. F250s and f350s had dana 44HD and dana 50 which is what I used, but this will be much harder to get to work (you would need to fabricate all your own center mounts like I did in my “leafs to coils” video). I think vans were the same way, you can tell by the driver member being really short compared to a dana 44, also a 50 is stamped on the third member. Id recommend f150 or bronco parts instead.
If you get all the 4x4 stuff from the same generation f150 (4x4 transmission and transfer case included) it will most likely bolt up. Otherwise you could use bronco parts but the driveshaft would need recut, a local machine shop could probably do this for $200 or so.
Here is some more info on different TTB setups, this website can be a very good source.
www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/dana-44-dana-44hd-ttb-front-axles/
I'll keep straight axles under my wheelers, for where go & what do using a longarm coil as well as adjustable trackbars works best for me,
To each their own. Solid axles certainly have their place as well
It didnt take long for all the suspension "experts" to chime in!
amazing
keep up the good work
How do you only have 60 subs? Well now I'm 61... :) This is awesome! How are you determining the strength of those tubes? They seem... thin (walled). Are they going to be strong enough? I get that they aren't load bearing and most of the forces they should experience are compression and tension... but I dunno... they just seem thin.
Thank you! Each tube should hold about 10,000 lb static load (compressive strength in pounds per square inch multiplied by the area of the tube). They are a little thinner then they'd normally be since there's 2 in conjunction on each arm. My biggest concern would be if the lower tube gets dented they'd be likely to bend so once I can test this thing I'll see if that ends up being a problem or not and if I need to reinforce the lower arms.
@@BuildSomethingAuto yeah, dented or bent could lead to some scary failure under hard braking as the tube wouldn't be handling to force purely compressive anymore. Thoughts?
I think if I were to bend them the failure would happen offroad when I'm shoving my tires up against some rocks, not on the road on the way home. Either way if I start to notice dents in the tubes then I will definitely reinforce them or remake the lowers with thicker tube. Definitely something I intend to keep my eye on!
@@BuildSomethingAuto If you would have kept the inner tube full length, nothing would bend that doubled-tube. That is how I build my small trailer tongues with double-tubes and they are strong as hell!
Here's what you might do next time if the radius arm ever fails. After welding the nut to the inner sleeve grind the weld down till it fits in the outer tube. Cross drill the outer tube, insert the nut flush to the end of the radius arm. Weld the nut to the outer sleeve, then weld the inner sleeve through the cross drilled holes in the outer tube. That way the nut is fixed on both ends and you're not putting the weld under nearly as much load.
Yes this is good advice. I planned on plug welding these and frankly just forgot, theyll get plug welded if I ever have them apart.
You should do traction bars so I know how I'm doing mine also have an explorer on one tons
Just subscribed! I loved this video thanks
Looking good
Dude, the bungs are made to fit thick wall DOM for a good reason lol. Using thin wall is a baaaaad move but hey..... And nobody uses this style geo in racing as it don't hold up.
Awesome rig
Thanks. Learn a lot
What software are you using?
I am using solidworks, they have a hobby version thats much less expensive than what I have. The cheapest option is fusion 360 since the hobby version is free, IMO some features are better in fusion, some in solidworks, but I personally prefer solidworks. Either one would work great.
Two problems. 1 rocks. I use ttb in rocks and the closer you keep the arm to the frame the better. Two the biggest problem is the drag link.
I use a straight drag link and tie both tie rods to it.
My man invented a multilink suspension
The problem is that you are losing ground clearance (which is important)--- to gain better caster, which is not that important when offroading...... Also, you should have put a triangle gusset behind your bracket--- and not that angled brace that is going to break off.
It all depends on the application. For desert racing ground clearance doesn't actually matter and suspension dynamics does. This is a "jack of all trades" type of build, not necessarily a full blown rock crawler, things like antidive also matter. I imagine it'll only spend 10-20% of it's time in the rocks, I don't live in MOAB and I don't plan on trailering this thing.
For now I want to test the mount as is and see how in the way it is. If it ends up being an issue I'll sacrifice some antidive and some more fab work in order to gain the ground clearance by moving the mount. Keep in mind like I said in the video the rear leaf spring mount hangs down just as low as this front linkage mount does.
Why don't u order urself up a threaded bung that is made to accept the him but ther literally 23 bucks
Its a great design for keeping caster aligned. But i question the overall strength for off road use. Generally theres some sort of gusseting between the two bars. Obviously you would lose your desired movement. But i feel this designs engineering is flawed. Curious to see it perform on the trails.
Keep in mind people use 4 bar link axle setups on offroaders all the time 😉. If they endup being too weak I can always simply replace the links with thicker ones, that wouldn’t change the design itself. Thanks for the input.
What’s the 3D design software name ?
Solidworks, but its pretty expensive. I only use it because I got it for free from work. Id recommend fusion 360 as they give it out free for hobbyists. I also think creo might be free for hobbyists/students as well and if thats true thatd be even better.
@@BuildSomethingAuto I am a university student studying mechanical engineering. I asked for software to do as a hobby
Ask your ME department what software they use and if its something you can get on your personal laptop for homework, thats probably the best way to go IMO 😉
@@BuildSomethingAuto thanks brother
Can I send you my f250 power stroke and have you do this haha
😅 no, but I believe in you I bet you can do it yourself!
You should try MIG welding, it can be used for both chassis and bodywork, and with CO2 as shielding gas it is quite affordable.
I actually started on mig, but when it came time to buy my first welder my partner used to be a welder and had a prejudice against MIG welding. She calls it "barby playhouse welding" 😅. To keep her happy I had to buy a tig stick machine first, but mig is super useful especially when you need to do a lot of welding in a short time. Ill definitely be buying a mig next!
The way I see it if you can only have one welder, tig does more than mig, but its a lot slower so if you can have 2 welders mig is definitely worth it.
Look into ranger builds .
I fixed mine by doing a solid axle swap
I’m not scared of a little suspension design 😉.
Horses for courses
Wouldn’t the parallel arm setup cause binding tho?
It shouldn't, but just to be sure at the very end I made sure to cycle the suspension a few times without the coils or shocks to make sure nothing unexpected happened. Other then the frame moving side to side a bit from the cheap jackstands everything seems to move smooth!
I make killing off people who don't understand the ttb. The geometry your using is correct for a solid axle with coil springs BUT the ttb is a triangle mounted on 2 corners the wheel never moves back (like a solid axle) and caster never changes from full droop to full bump.camber is set with shims on bearing snout. The radius arms don't move up and down they rotate as the ttb cycles. With a heim you will only get 7 degrees of rotation which is less than factory 18 degrees if you use Jonny joints you will get 20 degrees of rotation or misalignment. This equals 30 inches of wheel travel. Also remember that to get 30 inches you will have to extend the ttb beam 3 to 6 inches and lengthen radius arm accordingly and use coil over shocks set at 18 degrees in and 0 degree front to rear.
It sounds like you have experience working on dana 44's on broncos and similar, thanks for the input. However keep in mind this is a dana 50 in an explorer so all the numbers might be a little different, for example the dana 50 is already that much wider than the dana 35 that came stock.
There are a couple things I don't necessarily agree with though. Would you say there was something incorrect about the model I used at 4:30? Unless there is something horribly wrong with this model the axle does in fact move front to back to a small degree (as you stated it moves in an arc, an arc by definition moves up and down AS it moves front to back otherwise it's a line not an arc). Additionally the caster does change with a single radius arm member (which is what is fixed by using 2 equal length parallel radius arms instead). Stock both of these movements are accounted for by misalignment in the rubber bushing where the TTB beam mounts (the rubber bushing can support misalignment in multiple directions). You can watch both of these movements happen at 4:30. If you disagree with the way it was modeled though let me know, otherwise it can be seen clearly at 4:30 that both these movements (front to back, caster change) exist. I did not address the camber issues in any meaningful way yet, except for the fact that the beams are longer than stock dana 35 beams, but as I'm sure you know the ultimate solution would likely be a cut and turn if camber is deemed to be a significant enough issue.
The heim's I am using allow for 24 degrees of misalignment (much like a johnny joint) and of course full rotation on the axis transverse to the axis of the radius arm/thread. I'm not claiming I would get the full 24 degrees without a misalignment spacer, however even without I still have adequate misalignment as to not worry about it (both theoretically and as measured). This is partially due to how long the radius arms are helping out with misalignment. Keep in mind this misalignment is only there to prevent binding as the beam moves left to right (this is the second arc TTB suspension travels through, one arc front to back and one arc side to side).
edit: at 14:07 you can see how much misalignment it is capable of, when I pick the bracket off the table I move it over 12"+ which is much further then would ever be required
Admittedly I probably should have used johnny joints for strength. I looked at the static loads on the heim's I used and thought it would be plenty adequate and would save time over special ordering johnny joints, but I may still go back and upgrade them later.
Thanks again for your input.
The only difference between the 44 and 50 are the outers everything else is 44 you’ll notice the inner axle has step down to fit the 44 center. I have and modified lots mostly bronco and bronco 2. Yes the numbers will be different angles fitting to a explorer. Honestly I would solid axle swap it to Dana 44s off a jeep rubicon
There's 3 distinct TTB's of interest here, dana 44, 44HD, and 50. The 44HD and 50 look nothing like the regular 44, the driver side members aren't nearly as long and bolt up in a different place to makeup for it, their overall width is slightly more (and all of these are much wider than the 35 the explorer came with stock), etc. the 44HD and 44 are more similar on their internals like you mentioned but the 50 is much more stout. The 50 uses a 9" ring gear, larger ujoints and axles, hubs the same size as a dana 60, etc. Most people don't bother with 50's is probably why there's a lot of misconceptions.
www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/ford-dana-50-ttb-front-axle/
Yes the housings are application specific but the 44hd 44 and 50 all share the same internals except for seals and the geometry is all the same .I use 50 outer on reinforced cut and turned 44 beams. Cromoly cv axles in every build and I've never had one come back broke yet.
@@richardallen8209 Checkout the link I gave above, there's a few other differences between 44HD and 50 such as the 9" ring gear, ujoints, and hubs. Doesn't matter as much for the conversation about TTB but matters a lot as to why I picked a dana 50 and wouldn't trust a dana 44 to holdup the same 😉.
Most people hate them independent ford 4x4 set up I prefer strait axle
It has it's advantages 😉. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm hoping with these modifications most of the disadvantages that matter will be taken care of.
Why not do a solid axle swap? It’s obvious that your extremely knowledgeable, a SAS would’ve been better don’t you think?
I prefer TTB for this build (in fact I swapped in 3/4 ton TTB to replace the explorers TTB). Solid axles have their advantages and disadvantages, and so does TTB, and I personally think TTB is better for my use case. Plus I like a challenge.
One day when this is complete I’ll make a video going much more in detail comparing the two.
When are you going to experience that much travel that maintaining caster is important?
You can see visually in the video with stock radius arms the caster flips from positive to negative in 10” of travel or less. As this angle changes the sensitivity of the steering also changes with it getting twitchier the less positive and downright unruly if it goes negative. On top of this the caster axis is is the axis the steering rotates around so if you hold the steering wheel steady, but the caster changes, then you get a form of bump steer. Im not trying to claim thered be unmanageable amounts of bump steer or anything like that though.
Some of the biggest benefits are just the adjustability i had talked about. In the end it was a simple solution and I didnt see any major downsides to doing it - either way I had to make new radius arms/linkages.
Its too bad the other swing (camber) isnt so easy to parall
Agreed. Technically the way to do this would be with full IFS, equal length control arms (which is one reason they do that). However for me personally thats where I draw the line, at that point there’s too many cons. IMO TTB is right in the sweet spot between a solid axle and independent suspension.
Bro ur aware that this is all like completely old news. Yes ur correct in some ways and kinda stuck on others. All axels move some forward and back the further its drooping out. This is why we use slip yokes. And what u could do is use homes and create a J beam set up thats what we would make in this case.
This video won’t play for me?? All the other (5-6) vids play no problem.
Tried again and it worked. Great content 🤘🏻
I don't get it, you think we don't already do this or?? The Golden rule is basicly what u just made
A parallel 4 link with TTB? I've never seen it, but I'd love to see examples if you have any. It's used on solid axles all the time, but beam suspension is a different animal. No idea what the golden rule is in reference to.
You could have bolted those plates to the frame and the axle. Honestly welding to the frame usually ends up bad down the road.
At this point I have A LOT of stuff welded to the frame including it being boxed 😅. As far as I'm aware, unless you're working on commercial trucks, most of these frames are mild steel so they're conducive to welding. It sure seems to weld alright at least!
@@BuildSomethingAuto If you don’t plan to take it off road much and do a lot of rock crawling and cruising in the desert you’re probably fine
@@cpt.moroni3092 i do, if I have any issues I'll report back and we can all learn from it 😉
@@BuildSomethingAuto The only issue I could see is the radius arm brackets.
чувак придумал 4-х рычажку...аплодисменты в студию
You seem intelligent and quiet motivated in life. Just do yourself a favor , quit drinking all that crap soda especially Mt Dew. Just saying,, it's your life. Live like you want too.
Dana 50? That should be a Dana 44HD.
Thanks for the concern Joshua, I made sure to be positive it was a 50 not a 44HD before I grabbed it. Theres a few ways to tell the difference. On a 50 the hubs are almost 4” across, there is a 50 stamped under the pinion yoke, and they didnt make a 44HD for the year of truck I pulled it out of.
However this is definitely something that could catch someone up so its important to check!
www.blueovaltrucks.com/tech-articles/dana-44-dana-44hd-ttb-front-axles/
You don’t want to use stock ford junk in anyway. Thanks
Yeah I do. Just like all setups TTB has its advantages and disadvantages and I prefer the advantages of TTB to the disadvantages of a solid axle 🤷♀️. But everyone should do whats best for their own particular build.
@@BuildSomethingAuto trailing arms is what I mean. Dana 50 didn’t use trailing arms. Thanks
Bruh.. lol.. You need a DANA 60
The TTBs biggest fault is the bean counters who turned innovative engineering into crap
A Dana 50 TTB is "heavy duty"? And up to "carrying" a Cummins?
ROFLMAO.
It came stock with 7.3 powerstrokes. Its a 9” ring gear with a high pinion. 30 spline shafts (like some dana 60s).
Its a 3/4 ton front end just like the ram 2500 the cummins came out of is a 3/4 ton truck. It is an oddball though so I dont expect everyone to know all that about it.
On top of all that the explorer weighs much less than a 3/4 ton truck anyways 😉
Don't do this unless your off-roading only. seriously bad idea for average truck owner. The one thing not included is how the camber and caster were engineered to make the twin I beam not go into the death wobble. Steer axels are different, This video is treating it like a rear axel. Front axels need caster to change with load/ height. Don't feel too bad, Dodge , Jeep and several others got it wrong same as you. Why you would head that way is understandable but just draw it out on paper, you should never push a tire without caster, then camber and toe to keep it pulling out just a fraction....more caster lighter feel in the wheel, less heavier wheel feel but faster response.... Be careful what you post some might think you know what you doing.
As you know, I am NOT creating a system with no caster nor negative caster. I am creating a system with constant caster which is very different than what you are describing here. I will be able to make the caster as positive as I like with this setup.
Imma need some sources for why you think constant caster would increase the odds of death wobble, or atleast an explanation of what physical mechanism youre suggesting would cause this exactly.
It is very common on TTB to extend the radius arms which greatly reduces the rate of caster change. By your logic this would increase the likelihood of death wobble on every modified ttb that does this. What I am doing is not so different from what almost every other modified TTB does by extending their radius arms, I am simply taking this concept to a larger extreme.
I am going to take a good faith interpretation of your comment (which is more than you did for me) and assume you know something about the kinematics of these systems that I do not. If so please explain to me what physical mechanism would cause the death wobble youre worried about when caster is held constant through the travel. The first step in fixing a problem is understanding it and then measuring it.
So you think yr a Genius,,,lol 1. As the TIB axle cycles up and down the way it’s mounted doesn’t let it the caster change as much as you think,,, the stock travel on anything does not have that much up or down travel as you think or yr Diagram shows... the arms where they attach to the frame not the knuckle don’t move much to let the caster change like you think,,,The fords have been using this for 30 years 1966-96 and Dominate the desert racing scene
Buy some bungs and bigger heims , please don’t drive this on the road and endanger other people. That is a heavy engine you are putting in. Not trying to be a dick but it’s just not safe.
Why would bungs be stronger than the sleeve method I used? Keep in mind that side loads are captured by the center mount on a TTB.
Also keep in mind theres twice as many mounting points and thus twice as many heims compared to a stock like radius arm setup. A larger number of small things is often stronger than a smaller number of large things.