seanpistol's 01 Tundra

[seanpistol]

Nice bed slide. Always like those but don't like how much space it takes height wise

The deck is only about 4 or 5" above the height of the bed. Not too bad.

Next week, we will be out there from Tuesday-Saturday

I'll send you a PM.

Does that bed slide tip down or just slide out? If it tipped that could be pretty slick with the sled.

I agree with you, that would be pretty cool. It just slides out, though.

 

[spazstic]

Bed slide looks good, nice fit on the toolbox, and a great story to boot! I considered making one a few years back. Was going to make it out of aluminum, bought the material and everything. But then decided against, thinking about all the dirt, mulch, gravel, and everything else I load in the bed. I have a trailer now, so that's no longer an issue. But they are really cool, especially coupled with a camper shell.

Without cutting into the bed, you're going to have a tough time getting the rear to keep up with the front. That's a big reason why I'm not going to LT. Cantilever is probably your best bet, since you don't keep your spare under the truck anyway.

 

[seanpistol]

Yeah, I think cantilever is going to be the way to go with different springs of course. It will be a minute before I have the time and am willing to spend the money to do that, though.

 

[Blackdawg]

cantilever sucks to tune.

You'd be better off getting a full width axle and doing shock hoops outside the frame. If you did boxed shock towers it wouldn't interfere into the bed too much. Slap the Giant 64 kit on there or something.

 

[seanpistol]

I've been thinking about that more and more actually, and you are correct. That's the more appetizing option because I'd like to eventually upgrade the rear axle anyway. And like you said, with a full width axle I could easily have shocks outboard the frame and not get into the way of the bedslide, or my snowmobile, and the shock hoops will be easier and cheaper to set up than the cantilever. I check the classifieds everyday. About a month ago there was a Ford 9" axle with 4.88s, an ARB, and disc brake conversion that sold for $1400. I barely missed it. My rear axle with 4.88s and an ARB in it should be worth a few bucks to someone with a first-gen Tacoma or 3rd gen 4runner...

 

[t4rland]

************ rig!

Sent from my LGUS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smokeysevin]

The deciding factor for me on the cantilever vs outboard shocks is the way the valving changes with travel. The cantilever gets stiffer the closer you get to bump while any other suspension gets less stiff unless you have 1:1 shock travel per wheel travel. I am not sure how the valving is any more or less difficult than standard shocks, its the same principle either way. If it bounces too much add more valving, if its stiff, take it away.

Sean

 

[Blackdawg]

The deciding factor for me on the cantilever vs outboard shocks is the way the valving changes with travel. The cantilever gets stiffer the closer you get to bump while any other suspension gets less stiff unless you have 1:1 shock travel per wheel travel. I am not sure how the valving is any more or less difficult than standard shocks, its the same principle either way. If it bounces too much add more valving, if its stiff, take it away.

Sean

That isn't true at all.

The valving gets stiffer with any progressive valved shock. So, Kings/Fox/ADS, the faster the SHAFT speed the more they dampen. A Digressive shock does the opposite, Icon shocks. The faster the shaft speed, the less it dampens.

Cantilever does not change that.

What does change is the ratio. Generally you'd end up with a 10-12'' shock that is dampening 16-22'' of travel. It is harder to tune due to the way the lever ratio works on Canti setups. That is what effects how the shocks work.

 

[smokeysevin]

That isn't true at all.

The valving gets stiffer with any progressive valved shock. So, Kings/Fox/ADS, the faster the SHAFT speed the more they dampen. A Digressive shock does the opposite, Icon shocks. The faster the shaft speed, the less it dampens.

Cantilever does not change that.

What does change is the ratio. Generally you'd end up with a 10-12'' shock that is dampening 16-22'' of travel. It is harder to tune due to the way the lever ratio works on Canti setups. That is what effects how the shocks work.

Sorry to clutter up your thread Sean, I don't mind if you want to remove this stuff.


Not quite right.

The motion ratio changes across the travel, you are thinking about the overall motion ratio and not considering the angle. On my cantilever setup the angle of motion goes from 24 degrees at full droop to 90 degrees at full bump meaning that axle travel to shock travel is 1: 1:1 at full bump. For instance, 1 inch of shock travel moves the wheel 2.263 inches when the shock moves from 9 to 10 inches of extension. When the shock goes from 0 to 1 inches of extension the wheel moves 1.174 inches. This ratio also applies to velocities and accelerations as well as the position. That is basic kinematics/dynamics. In between these two points it is a transition.


Progressive valving and digressive valving of the shock itself can help to compensate for a changing shock angle but its a workaround for bad geometry. On standard shocks the damping rate is dependent on the shock shim stack and its based on the fluid pressure created when the shock moves. As you mentioned, this is dependent on the velocity of the shock itself which is ultimately dependent on the motion ratio of the shock compared to the axle. 1:1 means that if the axle moves at 13 ft/s then the shock piston is also going to move at 13 ft/s since the shocks on most vehicles are setup with a negative motion ratio ( a 10 inch shock to travel 14 inches ) they have to be placed at an angle which means that the vertical axle travel is 14 inches but the shock is not in the same axis, it becomes the hypotenuse of the triangle to deal with the increased motion. This is a less than ideal setup (I know because that is how my rear end was setup before I built the cantilever) As the axle neared full compression the effective damping rate dropped off to next to nothing regardless of how stiff it was valved.


Icon shocks are not inherently digressive since they use the same shim stack valve setup that everyone else uses. Any shock can be setup to use a flutter stack to attempt to dial out high frequency low amplitude osculations but that is not digressive valving. Bypass shocks can be digressive since they allow for position based bleeding but it is still a workaround much like closing the topmost bypass tube to create a bump zone.

As far as tuning the system, the only difficult part is making sure you don't buck the rear end when you lighten up the rebound to work well across the varying motion ratio.

Let me know if that makes sense,

Sean

 

[Blackdawg]

Sorry to clutter up your thread Sean, I don't mind if you want to remove this stuff.


Not quite right.

The motion ratio changes across the travel, you are thinking about the overall motion ratio and not considering the angle. On my cantilever setup the angle of motion goes from 24 degrees at full droop to 90 degrees at full bump meaning that axle travel to shock travel is 1: 1:1 at full bump. For instance, 1 inch of shock travel moves the wheel 2.263 inches when the shock moves from 9 to 10 inches of extension. When the shock goes from 0 to 1 inches of extension the wheel moves 1.174 inches. This ratio also applies to velocities and accelerations as well as the position. That is basic kinematics/dynamics. In between these two points it is a transition.


Progressive valving and digressive valving of the shock itself can help to compensate for a changing shock angle but its a workaround for bad geometry. On standard shocks the damping rate is dependent on the shock shim stack and its based on the fluid pressure created when the shock moves. As you mentioned, this is dependent on the velocity of the shock itself which is ultimately dependent on the motion ratio of the shock compared to the axle. 1:1 means that if the axle moves at 13 ft/s then the shock piston is also going to move at 13 ft/s since the shocks on most vehicles are setup with a negative motion ratio ( a 10 inch shock to travel 14 inches ) they have to be placed at an angle which means that the vertical axle travel is 14 inches but the shock is not in the same axis, it becomes the hypotenuse of the triangle to deal with the increased motion. This is a less than ideal setup (I know because that is how my rear end was setup before I built the cantilever) As the axle neared full compression the effective damping rate dropped off to next to nothing regardless of how stiff it was valved.


Icon shocks are not inherently digressive since they use the same shim stack valve setup that everyone else uses. Any shock can be setup to use a flutter stack to attempt to dial out high frequency low amplitude osculations but that is not digressive valving. Bypass shocks can be digressive since they allow for position based bleeding but it is still a workaround much like closing the topmost bypass tube to create a bump zone.

As far as tuning the system, the only difficult part is making sure you don't buck the rear end when you lighten up the rebound to work well across the varying motion ratio.

Let me know if that makes sense,

Sean

Okay i see what you were referring to in terms of the angle position effecting the dampening.

Never thought of the canti setup quite like that. That is is good point.

But i think even at an angle the use of triple bypasses will negate this. I mean, that is the point of the a nice triple. Add Hydros and your done.

You do point out another vital part of cantilever and that geometery. Has to be a very good setup. Or it won't work for beans haha

Great post!

I still think tuning outboard shocks is easier then doing Canti setups because while the ratio goes to 1:1 at bump..it doesn't at extension. Right? Where are the angle change of the shock on an outboard setup changes relatively little(obviously there is axle swing but again, small change) through out the motion which makes it much more predictable and easier to valve. And again, bypasses will help solve the bump zone that you were referring to earlier.

Thats just my opinion though. I am also not a fan of all the junk hanging down low in a Canti setup for crawling stuff.

 

[smokeysevin]

Okay i see what you were referring to in terms of the angle position effecting the dampening.

Never thought of the canti setup quite like that. That is is good point.

But i think even at an angle the use of triple bypasses will negate this. I mean, that is the point of the a nice triple. Add Hydros and your done.

You do point out another vital part of cantilever and that geometery. Has to be a very good setup. Or it won't work for beans haha

Great post!

I still think tuning outboard shocks is easier then doing Canti setups because while the ratio goes to 1:1 at bump..it doesn't at extension. Right? Where are the angle change of the shock on an outboard setup changes relatively little(obviously there is axle swing but again, small change) through out the motion which makes it much more predictable and easier to valve. And again, bypasses will help solve the bump zone that you were referring to earlier.

Thats just my opinion though. I am also not a fan of all the junk hanging down low in a Canti setup for crawling stuff.

Ultimately it depends on the length of shock chosen for the outboard shock setup. For a deaver g57 setup with 14" of travel you can use a 14 inch shock mounted vertically or you can use a 10 inch shock that is at an angle or anything in between, it depends on packaging like you mentioned. For me, in bed space was way more important than under bed space. I also refused to cut holes in the bed.

You can somewhat work around the angle change of a non cantilevered shock with a bypass shock but its not perfect (nothing except a vertical shock is, and even then articulation is a consideration) but its a tradeoff.

On my setup I basically determined the valving at and near ride height, that way its not too soft when it droops out or too hard when it bumps. I will eventually be switching my 10" resi shocks for bypasses but I did not have the cash at the time to do it when it was built.

hope that helps, in the end there is no perfect setup, just the one that is as close to it for you (or me) and how its used. All that said, I want to cut all this out eventually and link it lol

Sean

 

[Blackdawg]

Ultimately it depends on the length of shock chosen for the outboard shock setup. For a deaver g57 setup with 14" of travel you can use a 14 inch shock mounted vertically or you can use a 10 inch shock that is at an angle or anything in between, it depends on packaging like you mentioned. For me, in bed space was way more important than under bed space. I also refused to cut holes in the bed.

You can somewhat work around the angle change of a non cantilevered shock with a bypass shock but its not perfect (nothing except a vertical shock is, and even then articulation is a consideration) but its a tradeoff.

On my setup I basically determined the valving at and near ride height, that way its not too soft when it droops out or too hard when it bumps. I will eventually be switching my 10" resi shocks for bypasses but I did not have the cash at the time to do it when it was built.

hope that helps, in the end there is no perfect setup, just the one that is as close to it for you (or me) and how its used. All that said, I want to cut all this out eventually and link it lol

Sean

haha that is why im not bothering with a SUA setup on my rig! Just gonna do outboard with SOA to help the ride for now and then go to links.

 

[seanpistol]

No updates to the truck at all, just daily driving it as always. I have been overwhelmingly busy and unfortunately had to bail on Moab this weekend with Blender and D67. I recently installed a Racor Heavylift in the garage to be able to remove and install my bed rack and RTT without any help, and then store it up and out of the way. Need to relocate my garage lights.

 

[AaronK]

Nice hoist rig!

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[trailscape]

Must be nice being able to fit your Tundra in the garage. Haha.