Three Link or Indy?

Which suspension should I build?

  • Build the three linked, air bag suspension.

    Votes: 14 46.7%
  • Build the independent, air bag suspension

    Votes: 14 46.7%
  • Build them both, but build the independent first.

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Build them both, but build the three link first.

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • I'd rather not see any of them built.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

GeoTracker90

Adventurer
What do you guys think? I could go either way on this one. I've started on the independent suspension with a bushing jig, but I also have materials that I could divert to a three link set up. Which style would you rather see built. This won't be a speed build by any means, just some thing to keep me out of trouble.

Independent Suspension

ExpoTrailerFramecopy.jpg


CamberPlates.jpg


DSCF4649.jpg


Three Link Suspension

LinkedAxleFront.jpg


LinkedAxleSide.jpg


LinkedAxleRear.jpg


Mike
 

Tucson T4R

Expedition Leader
I vote for independent. Here's a shot of the KK Trailer suspension. Mine has Drum instead of the disk brakes but the suspension is similar. I am constantly amazed at how well it does on high-speed washes or washboard dirt roads.

At slower speeds crawling over obstacles it probably doesn't make that much difference but when running down open dirt roads with washboard or bumps, it's simple amazing how much control you maintain.


Chassis_Shot.jpg
 

AFSOC

Explorer
I voted three link just because I was unable to acheive satisfactory results on my own project fab'n up trailing arms. It wasn't a trailer though, it was a buggy. I never got the exact geometry. There is a degree of movement when you weld up the pieces that I never did overcome. To this day I would swear I was jigged up perfectly...my resulting arms didn't show it though. The three link will be much easier because of the solid axle. The element that scares me about an indy for the trailer is that the slightest geometry difference will result in poor handling. At the very least, accelerated tire wear. That's just my 2 cents. I am just a novice faber upper though. A good indy is obviously acheivable and is being done with success. Just go into it with your eyes open.
 

motomech

Adventurer
I vote for the three link with a watts link instead of a panhard bar.

It will be much easier to build and get aligned properly, my .02
 

masterplumber

Observer
I really really like the independent if you can get all the angles worked out - which shouldn't be as hard for you as some of the rest of us due to your mad fab skills:bowdown: I talked to the AT guys about doing their's for me when I build a teardrop but at this point it's a little to costly for me - mostly due to what they have to pay for those awsome airbag over shock setups. One low dollar idea Martyn gave me that I might try is to use very soft long leaves to locate a solid axle & then use air bags to adjust the ride height. Just an idea to throw out there.
Doug
 

GeoTracker90

Adventurer
I guess a little more detail on each of the designs may be in order.

Three Link

The three link set up is designed so that it would be easily reproducible by others and still retain the benefits of having an airbag suspension. The brackets for the links could be designed on a CAD program so that it would be a simple matter of sending the file to a local fabrication shop with either CNC plasma or laser. This would provide some great brackets to weld on to the axle tube for locating the trailing arms.

For the three link design I'm inclined to stay with the panhard bar instead of a Watts link. Advantages include less moving parts, less to fail, and simpler to fabricate. The panhard bar would be mounted parallel to the axle to minimize the side to side shift as the suspension cycles. It would also have adjustable rod ends, one RH thread and one LH, so that you could just loosen the jam nuts and turn the center part of the link to center the axle under the trailer. Lock the jam nuts and the setting is, well set.

The trailing arms would use poly bushings at the axle end and rod ends at the frame end. The poly bushings would be fixed and the rod ends would be threaded to adjust the location of the axle front to back and make up for any inconsistencies in manufacturing the trailing arm.

Independant

The independent suspension would be more involved and more difficult to reproduce. The overall parts count for bushings and joints would be less than the three link. Angles, alignment, and adjustability do become a lot more critical though. In order to mitigate these items I would do the following:

Camber plates - in the second picture that I posted I have designed a form of camber adjustment.

Just for the sake of full disclosure I must say that these are of my own design and are not proven at this point. I have an associates degree in Automotive Technology (aka - mechanic) and have performed hundreds of passenger car and truck alignments. I also currently work in an engineering firm with Mechanical Engineers on a daily basis, although I am not a Mechanical Engineer. All this means is that I feel like I understand fairly well the angles and how they interact with the design of the suspension.

The camber plates are a way of moving the outboard joint of the trailing arm either above or below the centerline of the inboard joint. This in effect either tilts the top of the tire in or out changing the camber of the suspension. The center hole of the larger plate will actually be slotted to allow for this adjustment. The smaller plate will bolt on to the larger plate to provide the correct positioning for the outboard trailing arm joint.

The inboard joint will have a threaded rod end style joint. This will allow for the adjustment of toe-in / toe-out in the suspension. If you extend the rod end further out from the trailing arm this will move the front of the tire closer to the centerline of the trailer and increase toe-in. Reduce the rod end extension (screw it in some) and you are in effect moving the front of the tire away from the centerline of the trailer and inducing more of a toe-out posture.

To make these adjustments work with out binding the suspension I will probably have to go to a rod end arrangement at all the attachment points between the trailing arms and the frame.

I had thought about fabricating the trailing arms from components, but the more I think about it the more I believe that it would be better to order a 3,500 lb axle tube and using a jig weld up the trailing arm pieces. The two trailing arms could then be cut loose from each other.


Other Thoughts

As far as shocks go I'm interested in exploring a bell-crank and linkage assembly that would lay the shock down parallel to the trailer frame. I see that some of the Jeep and full-sized truck lift kit companies have sucessfully used this arrangement in their designs. The trick to doing this will be getting the ratio of the lever or bell-crank correct as well as packaging it all in the limited space.

Well I've ramble don way too long, so i had better quit before I think of anything else.

Mike
 

ntsqd

Heretic Car Camper
I think that either could be made to work effectively. One or the other may have a slight edge depending on your use bias.

Three Link:
IMO the longer the panhard rod the better. There just isn't enough room for it to be too long. Roll center will be determined by the height of the rod at the chassis centerline, so mounting it high would be advantageous. Watts would be cool, but I'd not go there for the same reasons noted.

Consider using only one triangulated trailing arm for controlling brake reaction forces. Make the other a simple link. This will free up some articulation, which could be good or bad depending. I can see an argument for going either way.

Alternately consider going to an A shaped locating link and two simple link trailing arms. Eliminates the lateral motion of a panhard rod entirely, frees up the articulation, and locates the Roll Center up high if the A-Arm is at the top of the axle.

Indy:
The kink in the inner legs of the arms is a bending point. Large dynamic loadings will cause the arm to flex there. If this is the design intent then all of the welds and tube sizes need to be carefully laid out with this in mind.
Otherwise I'd eliminate it. Triangles are particularly important here.

Rocker Arm:
This can be a large can of worms if you're not careful. The building and pivoting of them isn't super difficult, but you need to pay attention to the starting and ending points of each respective arc of motion and be careful about the rocker's motion ratio. It is very easy to build something that is not so easy to tune the springing and damping of.
They have the space so it's easier for them, but no current known to me off road race design uses a rocker arm. They get their motion ratio in the rear from mounting on the lower control arms at roughly the mid-point, and standing the spring and damping elements up behind the cab.
 
Last edited:

IH8RDS

Explorer
I would build the three link. I remember Martyn talking about the problems of the indipendent, even when using a jig. He said the fabrication results where not easily obtained.
 

ExpoMike

Well-known member
I would go three link as well and about 100% sure I will on our trailer when the time comes.

I was talking to Mario about suspension and I recall him saying they have a very high regection rate for trailing arms. Heat during welding causes enough change that it is very hard to get correct spec'ed ones.

As for the front joing on the three link, I would look at using "Johnny Joints" which will give better articulation over poly. If you don't want to use those, use rubber bushings. Stay away from poly for a joint that needs to have some rotational motion or you will get binding and ultimately a failure of the joint or bracket. At least that's what I have seen (more on offroad vehicles, not trailers).

Good luck.
 

GeoTracker90

Adventurer
xj_mike said:
As for the front joing on the three link, I would look at using "Johnny Joints" which will give better articulation over poly. If you don't want to use those, use rubber bushings. Stay away from poly for a joint that needs to have some rotational motion or you will get binding and ultimately a failure of the joint or bracket. At least that's what I have seen (more on offroad vehicles, not trailers).

Good luck.

I agree with you xj_mike. If you go back and read my last post you will note that I mentioned using the poly bushings on the axle end and some sort of rod end (Johnny Joint, Creeper Joint, Heim, etc) at the frame end.


ntsqd - I appreciate your input to this discussion. I need to take some time and review all of the information that you provided in greater detail.

At this point I'm leaning very hard towards the three link suspension mostly because I haven't seen one on an expo style trailer and I believe that it could be reproduced by others.
 

Dmarchand

Adventurer
Which airbag/springs are the AT ones? I'm looking to convert my sankey suspension to a 3 link this winter. Any suggestions on where to find the brackets?
 

elcoyote

Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0004
Dmarchand said:
Which airbag/springs are the AT ones? I'm looking to convert my sankey suspension to a 3 link this winter. Any suggestions on where to find the brackets?

Parts available from AT for indy builders:

AT Shock mount, 3/16" thick: $6.50
AT Air Spring Mount, Gusseted, 1/4" thick: $28.90
Firestone Air Spring, #6781, 5.5-6.5" ride height: $109

PM or e-mail me or Martyn
 

Attachments

  • AT Parts.jpg
    AT Parts.jpg
    348 KB · Views: 31

Forum statistics

Threads
190,354
Messages
2,926,787
Members
233,713
Latest member
project13support
Top