Moon Patrol Buggy Build

[chaplinfj60]

are we up to date like working issues in real time now or still flashing back. i love the thread regardless, just want to make sure i am following along correctly.

 

[YeeP]

are we up to date like working issues in real time now or still flashing back. i love the thread regardless, just want to make sure i am following along correctly.

No problem man, we are not. We are about a year away from up to date. I will make sure an update post #1 when we are caught up with a link to the post where it happens. Thanks for hanging in here with me. I'm very interested in getting people's opinion on what I got cooking right now.

Im about to dive deep into the mind of a nerd on my next post... fair warning.

 

[chaplinfj60]

plow on, looking forward to it.

 

[YeeP]

NERD POST
What you are about to witness could be frightening to some, or at the very least disgustingly time wasting to others. You have been warned.​

---

Seriously though, I'll try not to go too deep here, but if I can't give myself a hard time about doing this then where is the fun in that?
I'm sure guys who build buggies for a living are going to look at this and have a big WTF. Thats ok. I gotta use the tools I have, just like they do.​

---

Here is a little riddle for you; What happens when you have a guy who is out of money, without much to work on, but still oh so interested in his project? What if that guy is a big time computer geek? What if, said 'guy' is really worried about spending his precious money without being able to maximize forward progress?

Well, I present you with the answer.

What happened here, is I was really worried about buying something that would just sit there because I needed other things to make it part of the project. If your here reading this, then no doubt you are familiar with the inter-dependencies involved in this kind of project. Everything you add, depends on something else. Every decision you make, if you want to end up with a good end result, probably depends on something else.

I present a Dependency Graph

Simple description to familiarize those that may not know:
The Dependency Graph above has several aspects you should know. The proper terminology when designing software would be to call the letters 'Nodes' and the arrows 'edges'. The arrow in an edge describes a dependency. So in the above graph, we see that Node 'A' depends on Node 'B' and Node 'D'.

There are many ways this can be represented in code, I don't think this is the place to dive into that, but I'd be happy to chat back and forth if people are interested.


Getting started
The goal here in the end is to find where to start, based on what has the least or no dependencies. All data here is only for front suspension and steering.

So as a builder of the project, I should be able to come up with a list of what depends on what. If I don't know, I can research that fairly easily. Keep in mind here that the words used mean NOTHING to the algorithm. What matters is that I define the dependencies. If I fuck up the dependencies, the algorithm result will show me that. In the 'business' I'm in, people usually reference that scenario by saying 'junk in, junk out'. Honestly, at this point in time, I had nothing but time, waiting for paychecks to hit my bank.

What I did was I decided that there were four "actions" that could be associated with parts. Those actions in no particular order are:
ORDER - actually ordering a part
BUILD - a reference to something needed to be built or completed assembly
DETERMINE - A measurement, or analysis of something on the project to answer a question
MOUNTED - A part has been officially added to the project and can be used to take measurements from, bolt other things to, etc.

When defining a dependency tree, you really have to be as low level as possible to make the data usable. You start by defining each task, which you undoubtably will revisit several times while realizing that you forgot a task or didn't realize some wasn't defined properly (remember junk in, junk out). Here are a couple snippets of some of the data I created. Not all of these "tasks" are equal in effort required. That can be solved by breaking them down in to smaller tasks. Sometimes, I did that, sometimes I did not.

So now, that I have what I think is a complete list of tasks (you find out real quick that your task is incomplete when your list of instructions defies all logic in the end), I decided to start defining dependencies. Junk in, Junk out still applies here. Here is an example of one dependency "tree" that I created. The 'from', 'to' is to mimic the edge in the above dependency graph, it will be the direction of the arrow.

WTF?
So I want the axle mounted on a ride height stand, to do that, I need to build the axle stands for ride height.
To build the axle stands for ride height, I need to determine the belly to ground distance at ride height.
Also to build the axles for ride height, I need to determine what the distance between the chassis table and the axle is.

I color coded them only to keep my sanity and to make it easier to determine if everything was defined. They can get a little out of hand.

I finished at approximately 192 dependencies defined. It's not perfect and could use some more data.


I then wrote what is called a "Topological Sorting Algorithm", specifically based on 'Kahn's Algorithm" which is meant to find "start nodes". The start nodes usually have no dependencies, but not always.

It all sounds easy at this point I think, but what you run into is, you need to avoid defining 'circular dependencies'. This is exactly like it sounds. You have no place to start or end, because as soon as you get to the end of a defined dependency, that 'end node' depends on the 'start node'. Example error:

AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]:
Node Mounted: Steering knuckles with high steer arms forms circular dependency:
Order: Tie rod aluminum rods -> Mounted: Full mock up -> Mounted: Full mock up - minus shocks -> Mounted: Steering system -> Mounted: Steering knuckles with high steer arms -> Mounted: Inner-Cs -> Build: Weld Inner-Cs to axle housing -> Build: Cut axle housing to proper width -> Determine: Axle width -> Determine: Mimic tire sweep at full stuff for clearance issues -> Mounted: Axle on full stuff stand -> Build: Axle stands for full stuff -> Determine: Full stuff axle position -> Mounted: Steering ram -> Build: Steering ram mount -> Order: Steering ram -> Determine: Design steering ram mount -> Mounted: Steering knuckles with high steer arms

So here the algorithm has told me that 'Mounted: Steering knuckles with high steer arms' eventually depends on itself. Which the way I defined the data, it does (junk in, junk out). There was a lot of redefining dependencies, re-defining tasks to avoid this.

It was a good thing for me to go through, because I kind of "built" the front suspension in my head ahead of time. It helped me realize some steps I hadn't considered being super important to consider.


Was this a huge waste of time?
Not really for me.
Would I recommend doing it for yourself? Probably not unless you like to think like I do.

In the end, I had a list of instructions that was having me buy my tires and wheels first... which I didn't want to do because I didn't want them sitting in my garage for years and that was a lot of money to put into it right away. So I made a tire/wheel mock up which is pretty janky but it works.


EDIT: I'm always re-reading these posts to make sure they make sense. Just realized on have a circular dependency in what it would take to get the grille mounted. Surprised I didn't see that...​

 

[chaplinfj60]

not dumb at all, when i was running projects in the navy seabees we would refer to this as the critical path and we did exactly what you talked about, make everything in to a construction activity and by assigning it values and dependences it too would lay out the path, sure all the other things had to be done but for instances if you did not set the forms first then you can not pour the concrete.

very cool way to adapt to building a buggy.

 

[YeeP]

As you said, Honda ECU run full loop communications, do something to kink said loop and you may get some unforeseen issues.

Yes this is also a concern of mine. I don't know how much added communication I can insert into the loop without causing a problem. That is something I need to figure out.

With Hondata you'll be able to tune, get tuned via Bluetooth if you're not comfortable and always have control of your maps no matter who tunes it. You'll be able to hook up a laptop or tablet and see all. You'll be able to hook up a laptop or tablet and actually sit on the phone with the tuner and be walked through the tune or let him access your system remotely and tune it for you while you drive around. A dyno tune is always best but this gets a great base map and a lot of guys call it a day there. It WON'T make wiring the car easier but it is plug 'n' play with jumper harnesses and it WILL make life easier eliminating wires.

This sounds great. I am looking into it this weekend for sure.

My issue with this motor in the off-road world is that people leave it "stock". Why? Honda has always left a ton of power in motors even with stock internals. I know the j-series isn't a high rev 4 cylinder k-series VTech where changing VTech engagement could free up tons of "free HP" but there's still room for more. I know you're not looking to build a crazy motor or anything but as time goes on and mods happen it will sure get old dealing with say a 3,000-3200 rpm flat spot where the motor seems to die on you in that range. Pull ECU, send out for reflash, reinstall, fingers crossed. Going Hondata will let you see this all yourself in real time. Hell, 3-4 reflashes and you pretty much bought Hondata anyhow.

The only reason Im thinking stock, is it should work and I don't have to mess with it. I want more power yes, but most of the power add ons for anything honda are upper RPM range. I tried finding better cam choices for lower rpm range and they just don't exist. If I could find a tune that would help me get more power down low, I'm interested. I just think that mechanically, the engine will only go so far on that end without having to be modified (thinking of getting the intake ported, but even the dyno maps I have seen show little to now lower RPM range benefit). You for sure peaked my interest. Im going to research some stuff and come back to conversate with you about Hondata soon.

 

[YeeP]

not dumb at all, when i was running projects in the navy seabees we would refer to this as the critical path and we did exactly what you talked about, make everything in to a construction activity and by assigning it values and dependences it too would lay out the path, sure all the other things had to be done but for instances if you did not set the forms first then you can not pour the concrete.

very cool way to adapt to building a buggy.

Thank you! I expected to have people making fun of me for it. It was part of my process so I figured why not include it.

 

[YeeP]

Front Truss
I felt like even though I didn't need a truss, it would give me more options for mounting positions, and I could tie it into the back of the ram mount to help support each of them. I got the Artec generic ford 9 inch truss with no cut out. The plan was the just about meet the high point of the trailgear housing. Then I could use the whole surface area of the top for mounting the upper control arms. This is what it looked like after some modifications.

Embarrassingly, I miss calculated/messed up the numbers in my head before cutting down the truss and would soon find out that it was not correct for where I needed/wanted to mount the control arms.


Bent Studs
Most of the studs in the housing I selected to be front were bent. Not sure if the mailman was just pissed about carrying them and dropped it or what. Apparently this is somewhat common? I called Trailgear to buy more and the offered to warranty. That was cool, and it took 3 months to see them. Which was, not cool. Not blaming anyone, just stating facts.

Welded vs machined knuckles
Well, as we have already seen, some of us feel that welded highsteer is a bad idea. I too had similar thoughts when I first started this adventure. I sure as hell didn't like the idea of welding mild steel to cast steel and all of the intricacies. The added cost for machining just was weighing heavy on me especially since I needed it done for two axles. I felt like I could save some money by doing this, and I could make it happen. I have a buddy who runs them on his buggy, and he has not had a failure yet, and also wheels pretty hard. I spoke with the welding instructor at the school I had now taken 3 classes at, and he was confident that if done right the welds would hold.

---

Hindsight: I probably should have gone with the machining. The amount of time I ended up putting into these knuckles was very high. I got tired of looking at them, I seemed to be unable to avoid having to go back to them for additional modifications. That is partially because I made changes to my setup after they were "complete". This would have also been an issue with the Weaver arms, just handled differently. Weaver's site is down right now, but in looking at some google web cache of it, it looks like 550 for a pair. I paid $273 for two pairs of the high steer kit I bought, a savings of $872.

---

Onward!
Alright, after a lot of research in what I could adapt my already 7/8" drilled out knuckle tire rod hole, and other 3/4" drilled out tie rod hole to (oh yeah, I drilled all 4 knuckles already to follow the Step 1 of JHF high steer). I found what looked like pretty well designed steering I really liked how everything was tied together in the Motobilt High Steer Brackets. A lot more surface area welded to the knuckles, larger main "rod" that was tied into each level of it. To me, this looked like a good one. The only part I didn't like is they did not have a full hydro setup for the right side, it was more of a crossover mechanical steering setup.

After some lovely drilling with a 7/8" bit by hand, I began assembly.

Also picked up a set of balljoint eliminators

Next post I'll go into the welding process for the knuckles.

 

[YeeP]

Ok I reviewed my email correspondence with the welding instructor I have gotten to know at the General Air Academy in Denver. He is a fricken awesome dude, name is David.

Note: I'm not a professional welder, the 'facts' that I state here are based on information that I collected by talking to people that are professional welders. There are always going to be differing opinions, do your own homework and figure out what you want to do based on what you know. This is how it went for me.

After emailing back and forth with my instructor David for over a month, this is what I learned about welding mild steel to cast steel. The problem that most people have deals with difference in heat between the two metals, especially during the cool down process. The cast steel will cool much faster than the mild steel, and will put a lot of stress into the weld while doing so. The key is to keep them at the same temp while welding, then slowly cool them together. Hence, pre and post heat were in order. I spoke more with the instructor and here were his recommendations on actually welding it (quoted from email, he knows what machine I have and has taken that into consideration in a statement to 'max out my amps'):

If you MIG weld this, then I would go ER70S-6 .035 roughly 375-400 ipm 21-22 volts 3/8” contact tip to work distant.

If you TIG weld this, then I would go ER70S-6 3/32 rod 1/8” tungsten and max out your amps.

Obviously, I'm not going to TIG at this point, wish I could have just to make them look more sexy. I also brought up with him that I had already sand blasted the knuckles and was curious what kind of prep he recommended.

His response:

Sand blasting will not remove the oxide/ scale from the surface of the knuckle (It just polishes it and makes it look clean). I would still do a light grinder with a flap wheel.

The small amount of hydrocarbons that could precipitate should be captured by the silicon in the wire.

Light grinder work to all welding surfaces on the cast steel were completed.

For pre and post heat, the temperature range become a topic of concern. His suggestion:

Eventually the part would get up to temp but it would take many hours. I wouldn't be super concerned about Temps higher then 300-350F. Because cast steel is far more forgiving than cast iron.
I would certainly have the rose bud in the wait to give it some bumps in temp.
IR guns are a good way to check temp if the material isn't reflective. If the surface has a little shine to it you'll get a false reading. I would use a temp stick. We have then at the store if you need em.

I purchase welding temp sticks for the following temps (F): 250, 300, 350, 400, 450.
I purchased an oven on craigslist for 75 bucks...

Also, I watched a couple of videos that Busted Knuckle posted on youtube for welding their steering kit. They used what they called a "Fire Breathing Dragon" to heat the knuckle. I happen to have that same dragon, it's actually called a 'Weed Flamer' at home depot. The flame it puts out covers a much larger area than the rosebud tip on my torch. I thought this would be better for intermittent heating between welds just to confirm that work piece was staying at 350 or slightly above.

My buddy Matt came to help me, and he had just been certified in Spray welding for work, so I felt like both of us could handle this. We had to take my welder to my Dad's shop, as I only have one 220v outlet in my garage, and I needed to operate the oven and the welder at the same time.

I brought the torch just in case, but this was the scene.

All of the mild steel was either completely welded, or tacked based on where it was located. The ball joint eliminator guy told me that a lot of people jack up the threads during the welding process, so I bought some bolts and nuts. Ground down the nuts to give myself more room to work, and put everything together. This is a pic of the whole assembly after cooking at 400 degrees for approximately 3 hours. Temp stick confirmed that it was at 400.

I think I need to leave a negative review on whirlpool's site. The damn oven trays keep bending when Im trying to cook!


You will notice evidence of stop and starts, this is because we were constantly welding for approximately 1 to 2 inches, then rotating to another portion of the knuckle to spread the heat evenly. After a couple of rotations, we would switch to heating to confirm that temp was staying above 350 at 4 different locations on the cast steel.

This is right before we were going to begin welding. Ill tell you, those are some arc welding gloves, and that 350 - 400 degree stuff comes right on through after a couple seconds.

Heat management

Matt laying down a bead

Some of our handy work

Bottom of the balljoint eliminator

Man I hope this works...

After welding, the knuckles went back into the oven for a cooldown descent. We did as follows:
350 for one hour
300 for one hour
250 for one hour
200 for one hour
160 for one hour (as low as it would go)
sit over night in the oven

Like I said, I'm sure people are going to talk shit about doing some part of this, but this was the best way I could bring all the information I had together to try and make this a success. I know that I was overly cautious to not let anything dip below 300 while welding. If any part of the knuckle would not melt the 300 degree stick during welding, we would stop, and reheat. The cool down process was about as controlled as I could make it (thanks for going out to turn the oven down Dad!).

I suppose time will tell!

 

[Wuz-A-zuk]

Wuz-A-zuk I don't think Hondata makes a unit for my engine. Hopefully I'm wrong.

EDIT: called one of the local dealers of Hondata and they confirmed they do not have anything for the J35. He said the only way to go was aftermarket ECU if I wanted to flash. That is just one guy's opinion of course.

You are correct. And I tuck my tail and drop my head in shame. My apologies.

I've edited my previous posts accordingly.

I made a few calls to the guys I worked with when doing these swaps and were using a middleman who was taking the Hondata s300, swiping it clean, piggy backing it to the j35 ECU and giving us a blank canvas to tune from scratch. I wasn't aware we were getting this special treatment at the time and just thought we were using the s300 for the j35.

The middleman doesn't do this type of work anymore and doesn't want anything to do with the car scene and Hondas (claims too many scammers and deadbeats which includes Honda companies?). But apparently it's possible if you're a whiz of sorts to make that happen. If not the only other option he is aware of to do the things you're looking at doing is the haltech 2500.

One again my apologies. Foot in mouth and I'll be sure to get my shit straight before I post any misleading information.

 

[YeeP]

You are correct. And I tuck my tail and drop my head in shame. My apologies.

I've edited my previous posts accordingly.

I made a few calls to the guys I worked with when doing these swaps and were using a middleman who was taking the Hondata s300, swiping it clean, piggy backing it to the j35 ECU and giving us a blank canvas to tune from scratch. I wasn't aware we were getting this special treatment at the time and just thought we were using the s300 for the j35.

The middleman doesn't do this type of work anymore and doesn't want anything to do with the car scene and Hondas (claims too many scammers and deadbeats which includes Honda companies?). But apparently it's possible if you're a whiz of sorts to make that happen. If not the only other option he is aware of to do the things you're looking at doing is the haltech 2500.

One again my apologies. Foot in mouth and I'll be sure to get my shit straight before I post any misleading information.

All good. At least you got it figured out. I think at this point I am not going to be purchasing anything until I give the ECU I have a chance to do it's job. I do plan on continuing to research ideas just in case I run into trouble. I still appreciate all input, no need to apologize.

 

[YeeP]

Alright, so continuing on, I brought the newly welded knuckles home and gave a fresh coat of paint

Got my machined inner-Cs back, and worked to figure out what steering angle the factory setup was capable of the 2008 knuckle/Inner-C combo maxed out at about 36 degrees, while the 2010 was closer to 38. This is after grinding the steering stop to where it was "flat" (the inner C contacts it at a slight angle but the highest part of the top is what Im referring to) with the outer edge of the knuckle.

At this point I was unsure which caster angle I wanted to run for the front, so I collected data from a range that was around where I thought I would end up (5 degrees to 10 degrees). These are my measurements of height and distance from the center of the axle forward to where the tie rod would eventually bolt to the knuckle. This was working toward a plan for where the ram needs to ride. There is a measurement for each caster angle where the knuckle is pointed straight forward, and at full lock.

If you're looking to compare numbers for whatever reason, you should add 6.5" to any height measurement to get my "to ground" height with an assumed 19" static loaded radius.

Got tired of the old tube notcher I had, so I picked up this bad boy from Rogue Fab

Been wanting this finger brake set from Swag for a while, so I finally pulled the trigger on it. I thought Olive Drab would be cool looking so, there it is. (I got the HD one so I can step to the other style of dies they have at some point)

Swag Off Road uses a "beam clamp" to hold the angle finder on the bender. This guy needs adjustment and to be moved sometimes when you change dies in the bender. I dont have any dies that are small enough where I would need to use the inner two holes, so I just welded some 3/4" rod to a plate (rosette weld from the back side) and made it into the bracket for the angle finder. I never have to make any adjustments when changing dies now.

My first piece of bent steel from my finger brake....

Used to mount the notcher on my fixture table

Up next: more fun with some muthafuckin knuckles!

 

[YeeP]

So, I included my measurement pic on that previous one so I could at least have a way to explain. After figuring out where the "happy place" for the steering ram would be to keep the angles in check, I realized that it was too close to the ground. Unfortunately I do not have a picture to represent the problem. I will just say that it was determined by what the high steer gave me, and I was not happy with how low the Ram needed to sit.

My buddy who runs the weld on JHF knuckles, has his tie rods on top. Single sheer. He told me a lot of guys run that without issue. I spent quite a bit of time checking pictures when I saw a buggy, and I was surprised to see a lot of them running their tie rods on top of the steering arm, single sheer.

Well, I was not going to run mine up top as a Single sheer, so I went to work figuring out how to make it happen. The Motobilt high steer kit is central to their large 1&1/8" rod that has a 7/8" bolt threaded up into it from the bottom of the factory tie rod location. This rod goes all the way to the top of the highsteer, and is just under the top "cover plate". I decided that I should make some kinda bracket that tied into that. While I am pretty good with a drill, I wanted to try to achieve as close to a 90 degree angle drilling into that rod at the center.

So, I started to make a jig. (with some practice TIG work of course)...

The bolt threaded into that rod, was threaded into threads that were machined into the rod. Assuming it was done on a lathe. Therefore, I deduced that this was parallel to the rod, and was a good measuring point. I threaded the bolt as far in as I could and still get an angle finder on it.

Checked it 90 degrees of

While the base was as flat as I could get it in my vise.
]

I added some bracing to minimize deflection while drilling

Got it as dialed in as possible on the drillpress

Then I went to work drilling the holes

I found it difficult to find a fine threaded 3/4" double ended stud. I did find some course ones though. I personally would rather have a stud here that I will never remove (hopefully). So I went with course 3/4".

Something that I found that I thought was awesome, was this tap adapter for a drill press. You do not use the drill press for turning the tap, it is only there to hold what you are doing in the same "plane" as the hole you just drilled.

More pics to come.....

 

[YeeP]

Continuing with more knuckle fun (told you I had a stupid amount of hours in them).

Here is a simplified version what What my initial idea was.

I'm sure you might be thinking; "that is not going to fit in a wheel". I thought the same, so I bit the bullet and bought one of the Raceline wheels I am going to run.


Here is my initial test fit, with the corner of that plate grounded down. This is a 20" wheel.

I mean it does 'fit'...

Little tight. In a bad way.

Too tight.

Prototype #2 was born

This nut represents the height that it would be at, if that bracket was under it.

Here is a tacked together setup fitted with the wheel

Everything is welded except the lower sleeve where the original position of the rod end would have been. The sleeve around the stud, and the one previously mentioned are all .250" wall. The one at the "top" is just there for mock up and welding.

At this point I had moved the ram up considerably. Hope it holds. My logic, while not great, is that I have seen a lot of guys running on top of their high steer, single sheer, and this at least has to be better than that. I plan on keeping a close eye on it for sure.

I'll put together a pic of the finished knuckle with some measurements tomorrow to show why I think it will hold.

 

[YeeP]

I picked up a very worn down krawler to try to get an idea on how I could eventually figure out my overall width for the axle.

This measurement is from the outside of the tire, to the inside of the machined Inner-C. The junk yard rotor is 3/8" thick at the hub.

Chop Chop time

I finally don't have to do the limbo when walking around this thing on the front corner!

Using my newly calculated ram height as a starter, I made a rough calculation on what angle I would need to make the ram mount at to end up with a 'tangent' line that would provide a smooth transition when hitting a rock in the front. 35 degrees was my goal.

I made a little jig on my fixture table to try and confirm that the outer two tubes would be in the same plane, so I could lock them into place while solving how to fishmouth for the different angles. This is the first picture where you can see the newly cut axle tubes. I purposely left them 2 inches wider on each side just in case. (the current calculated width is 84" if they stay in the same place. Obviously they will still have to be cut again)

Tacking stuff up

booyah!

Satisfied that I got each angle correct, I made another jig to mount the inner two mounts which I will show next.

 

[YeeP]

Couple of random things that happened right about this time. I signed up for a 3 day TIG course at General Air, it wasn't cheap and I was currently a contractor on my real job, so I had to take 3 days unpaid off. So the class really wasn't cheap. Here is my favorite weld from that class.

I also try to jump on any deals I may see in the several groups Im in on FB. I plan on running 1550 U-joints, and a pair of Branik joints popped up, so I grabbed them.

Onward with the Ram mount. I made a new jig that was easier to use and position for four tubes. The 3x9" PSC ram does not have the grooves so you have to decide if you want to run some kinda system on the ends to stop it from moving, or four clamps. In my opinion, I would like to alleviate any force being put laterally into the ram, so I went with four clamps.

Four tubes tacked in place

Confirming I can get the ram where I want it height wise.

I removed each tube individually and fishmounted it, then used the jig to confirm it was back in the proper location.

Eventually, there will be a skid plate down here mounted to the tubes

Confirming as much symmetry between sides as possible.

---

Warning:
Just with the slight tacking (two welds per clamp), I ended up getting a couple pits in the extended "arm" on the right side. I think I can fill them with something and smooth them out (epoxy maybe), but beware.


This is what I have the ram looking like NOW when I have to weld near it. It is usually in a box far away from the action unless I need it to confirm something. Thats aluminum HVAC tape and anti-splatter liquid which I spray it down with aggressively when I will weld near it. The price on this ram has gone up almost $200 since I bought this one... ouch

---

Hopefully I can use these jigs to mount the rear ram when the time comes. I am pretty happy with how this turned out.

There is no outer tube connected currently. The plan is to bend something into a trapezoid shape and connect back to the axle. With the current axle width, this actually ends up partially needed to be welded to the Inner-C on each side. Since I have not 100% decided on axle width at this point and may need to more the Inner-Cs, this is where the ram mount building will end until that decision is made.

 

[YeeP]

Couple of random pics here.

Just dreaming what a high pinion rear might look like (I moved the front diff to the back to get a look at it)

At this point, I was getting serious about taking measurements on the chassis. With lots of calculations going on, it was difficult to confirm that I was measuring to the same points when stepping from front to rear. So I pulled the drivetrain and did something I should have done on day 1.

I marked several spots into the steel with a punch so I can remake this if it gets wiped clean.

But for now, I have a nice easy way to center up the driveline and something to take "off center" measurements from.

I knew I needed to bring the chassis up above the axle up front when I remade it. So I calculated what kind of bend it would take to turn the two tubes into one, with the steel that I had left. It was determined that a 70 degree bend could do this. It is an aggressive upward angle, but anything else would have taken some major work to the chassis, so it is what it is. I cut the lower tube father down, and "flush cut" the upper with the firewall. Since the lower framerail was open now, I took advantage of having straight access to the inside, and picked up some 6061


Of course with the tube already having a bunch of welding done to it, this required a lot of work on the belt grinder to "shape" the rod.

And now the dick jokes became a thing. We were so excited to hit the 6" mark.

There was a lot of sanding, sliding the rod into the chassis, it would get stuck, we would have to yank it out together...

Please feel free to take this time and come up with your own dick joke.

At this point, maximum chassis penetration achieved.

 

[YeeP]

Tool update
I saw a used/broken drill press for sale at a local fab shop and grabbed it.

The stated issue by the seller is that the spindle was twisted. He also sold me two sections of large pipe which is very close the the radius I need to build a radius brake.

Disassembled and replaced the spindle and bearings for the quil.

You know how sometimes you're drinking in the garage and something seems so funny to send a buddy.

That happened.

I found a rolling stand for a table saw that I could modify to put the drill press in:

Picked up a nice vise and some studs to bolt it down:

And I pulled the trigger on the 4:1 drill press reduction kit from Rogue Fab

Covered the cutouts with a little edge trim stuff.

Current RPM is right at 300, but its' capable of 50RPM if I need. I don't really do wood work, so I feel like more flexibility at the lower RPMS is something I can take advantage of.

 

[YeeP]

Alright, so lower rail in the chassis is filled with 6061.

With the lower rail being .188 wall 1.75"OD, an easy "slug" choice didn't seem to exist. So after chatting with Matthew Cutler, I decided to go with 1.5" OD, .250 wall and have it turned down. I even took the time to fill that with 6061 as well.

New lower crossmember for front suspension got the same treatment with the 6061.

I started working on the "extensions" for the chassis to at least get it into a position where I determine the lower edge height based on suspension flex. As I said before, the bend angle I had to do was 70 degrees, so I just had to make it fit.

Here Im just working on getting the plugs in and smoothing them out

A finished product:

Lots of fitting and checking going in here, I did not want to have to undo a mistake I made to the main chassis rails.

Final fit up before welding

I bought some 1&3/4" sanding drums for my die grinder specifically for this job. They helped alot.

I will smooth this out more after the chassis is removed from the table, but its mostly there. New suspension crossmember tacked in

New rail extensions in. The length I chose on them was kinda random (3 ft). They will not stay at this length, its really just to give myself some flexibility for the next section which will be determined by the suspension. I needed these in before that, because my plan is to mount the upper control arms to them.

Distance between these at the lower "splice" is 1/16" wider than at the top of the 3 foot tube. I was pretty happy with that.

 

[YeeP]

After getting the crossmember tacked in, "sliding" my engine sled back and forth kind of became a thing of the past. I had to disassemble it and reassemble inside the chassis

My cherry picker could not get this deep onto the table. This was not fun doing alone. I ended up with a ratchet strap off of the top of the t-case adapter up to the cage and other sketchy mechanisms.

I felt like I was finally to a point where I could start adding stuff to the chassis. Felt good.

I think my second time building the axle mounts for the front axle, I deciding having two that cupped the bottom of the axle tube was not good because the driver side was right where I wanted a bracket. So I made the one under the diff for it to rest on.

This works great when it is:

• welded to the axle
• control arms are connected

In prototyping the suspension, I saw that I needed the ability to quickly reset the axle into position (centered in the chassis, correct pinion, and ride height). With that in mind I made a removable mount for the table so this could be done:

Once the axle is back into proper position, I can remove it easily (falls out the bottom).

Without the lower balljoints, the knuckles would flex slightly at full lock. It was time to make sure I could accurately asses how much room was needed, so I needed to "finish" the knuckles. Here is the finished product.

Let me splain what you are looking at.

• All three plates have the Ruff Stuff Fix It Weld Washers
  • The top two have them on top, the bottom one is on bottom
• The center section is a 1.25", .250 wall DOM tube
• 3/4" grade 8 bolt
• Support stud and other parts I built before behind the bolt

I decided to repaint the knuckles for a little bit of a color highlight. This is Krylon Hammered Finish "cast iron" color

Finally, I pressed in some new Moog balljoints

 

[YeeP]

Some mock up tabs start to show up:

Here is an overhead view of my awesome "tire" model... I seriously did take a lot of time taking measurements from friends and comparing on my setup.It's size is currently setup to the absolute closest I can get to a 43" TSL SX on my Raceline wheels. I made this model for two reasons:

1. I cannot turn a full size tire at the current distance the axle is from the table (it will go on straight, but thats it)
2. I do not want to buy a set of brand new tires when I am this far from the goal line, only to have them "age" and go through several heat cycles

Im trying to prototype cheap here to take care of the larger issues up front. I actually have two pipes that I purchased sitting on the floor in the above picture to make a more sturdy "mock up", but thought I should do this first to solve anything I wasn't able to account for ahead of time.


Yep, thats PVC, baling wire, and ratchet straps holding it together.

 

[YeeP]

Ok, this is the official "all caught up post". Im really looking forward to get some opinions on the current design and ways I might be able to improve on it.
(LMAO, I don't have an actual picture of it bolted together, had to go take a new one in the garage)

Ok, so I had to move the uppers more outward than my initial model had accounted for. This is because I was hitting the pinion yoke onto the control arm when compressing only the driver side. This is the the current clearance I have after that was done.

"Tire" clearance on upper at full stuff driver only (less than half inch)

"Tire" clearance on lower at full stuff driver only (less than 1 inch)

Here are my numbers. The rear stuff is just a guess and will be changed. I realize one affects the other, but am not ready to make decisions there yet.

So my current concerns are as follows and I'm hoping to get some feedback from anyone with knowledge on this. I know everything is a trade off.

1. I feel like overall my control arms are "short", any opinions?
   1. I haven't figured out if I can move the rear axle forward, but want to stay at this wheelbase (112") or close to it
2. My overall convergence is above the minimum, but lower than I like. About the only way I can try to increase is by bringing the lowers at the frame side together. Haven't played with the numbers yet
3. Anything look concerning on this setup?
4. Any questions I can answer?

Once I feel like all clearance issues are handled, Ill start tacking in the real brackets, and do a mock up with steel.


Thank you!

 

[YeeP]

Random catch up post on some stuff I didn't include.
Chassis color
In keeping with the Rock Bouncer look, I kinda want a color that I wouldn't normally use for this. This will not really be something I can match when it comes time to touch up, but I guess maybe Ill just touch it up with black. I want some heavy gold flake, maybe something like this:

https://www.prismaticpowders.com/shop/powder-coating-colors/PPB-5835/rockstar-sparkle

Name/Color
Rock Bouncers usually have some cool ass names. Everything I can come up with, to me, sounds like either overcompensating for something, or "look at me and how bad ass I think I am". Neither of which I am interested in portraying.

So I was driving down the highway, and am familiar with the "Concrete" color that Toyota has. I saw this new Tundra that looked like Concrete, but had a little green hint to it. Because I am planning on fitting a GPW grille, I played with the idea of Olive Drab, but I want something different. I looked up the color and its called "Lunar Rock". Here is a Tundra with that color:

So I think I will do the body panels, hood and grille in this color. So following the paint name with "Lunar", the buggy name just kinda came to me. "Moon Patrol". Its fun, which is more my style.


Font
I created a new font for the project. I want to use it in part of the dash, and also for maybe a small sticker on the side along with the VTEC.

 

[Bebop]

So my current concerns are as follows and I'm hoping to get some feedback from anyone with knowledge on this. I know everything is a trade off.

1. I feel like overall my control arms are "short", any opinions?
   1. I haven't figured out if I can move the rear axle forward, but want to stay at this wheelbase (112") or close to it
2. My overall convergence is above the minimum, but lower than I like. About the only way I can try to increase is by bringing the lowers at the frame side together. Haven't played with the numbers yet
3. Anything look concerning on this setup?
4. Any questions I can answer?

1) Yes, very short. IMO. As an idea, my buggy is 117"wb and the lower control arms are 36" in front and 48" in the rear.
2) You're overthinking the numbers. They're all based off of CG and you have no idea what it is. Work on clearance first then, if you have multiple options available to you, use the calculator to compare the choices you have and pick one.
3) Nothing looks completely retarded and if you were to run it as is, it would let the axles cycle up and down. You're just not optimizing some variables because you're trying to compromise them all




Please don't take this the wrong way, cause I'm the worst overthinker ever and totally get where you're coming from.

But here are my 2 cts :

You are trying to pursue goals that are dragging you in different directions. This is part of the joy of engineering vehicles, but you have to be aware of what you're doing and how it's negatively impacting your build process. Here is what I see :

1) you buy an existing chassis, then proceed to modify it in ways that pretty much changed its whole structure and put as much work in the rebuild than if you built another one from scratch. And you're still not done with it.

2) the rockbouncer look is one of the wants you have for this rig. So you buy a rockbouncer chassis. I get that and it makes sense. The problem is that you don't want to build a rockbouncer. You have width, wheelbase, turning radius, suspension and drivetrain placement requirements which are not compatible with the way a rockbouncer is engineered. So you end up cutting all the rockbouncer out of it and now are left with a hybrid that will not work great at crawler things (because you're constrained by what's left of the rockcrawler chassis) nor will be a good rockbouncer (because you're trying to make it do things that it shouldn't).

3) I see a lot of concerns for weight and money in certain aspects and a complete disregard for them in some others. Kinda like you're going back and forth on the topic. Just doesn't sounds coherent to me.


Part of growing up in this hobby is making peace with what you want and what you can afford, and build that. I really enjoying reading you tribulations and admire the self growth and motivation you're sharing. That's really cool.
I can also can guess that you had a lot of frustrating moments while working on this thing. And maybe some of them could have been avoided by setting clear goals ahead of time. Seems to me you're wandering around a little bit without a clear picture of what this rig should be when its done, which prevents you from moving forward in an efficient way.









Sorry if I went overboard on the answer to your questions, maybe you just wanted suspension advice and I let my big mouth open too wide again.

 

[YeeP]

1) Yes, very short. IMO. As an idea, my buggy is 117"wb and the lower control arms are 36" in front and 48" in the rear.
2) You're overthinking the numbers. They're all based off of CG and you have no idea what it is. Work on clearance first then, if you have multiple options available to you, use the calculator to compare the choices you have and pick one.
3) Nothing looks completely retarded and if you were to run it as is, it would let the axles cycle up and down. You're just not optimizing some variables because you're trying to compromise them all

1) I have heard that 30 to 40 " is typically where people land. The rear of this chassis will allow for me to build arms that are honestly too long, so I guess I'm thinking more about a balance. Achieving anything "longer" on the front will require a reconfiguration of some sort. I can work to get an inch here or there.

2) You are right that I do not know where the CG is exactly, this is all based on assumptions. With an aluminum block, tranny and t-case. I took suggestions from a couple places I have read on height of the CG based on top bolt on the bellhousing, then a couple inches down. Yes, that is an assumption. I do think that it will be close though. If you take this spreadsheet and move the CG up and down by several inches (3 to 4 in each direction). The numbers really don't change that drastically. Good idea on working with clearance first, I am essentially at this point know.

3) Please be specific more on this. It is what I am trying to avoid. I do have to compromise to some extent on most of it because of physical items that are in the way of where I want to place the control arms. I would rather have it optimized at some level for how I want to use it.

Please don't take this the wrong way, cause I'm the worst overthinker ever and totally get where you're coming from.

But here are my 2 cts :

You are trying to pursue goals that are dragging you in different directions. This is part of the joy of engineering vehicles, but you have to be aware of what you're doing and how it's negatively impacting your build process. Here is what I see :

1) you buy an existing chassis, then proceed to modify it in ways that pretty much changed its whole structure and put as much work in the rebuild than if you built another one from scratch. And you're still not done with it.

2) the rockbouncer look is one of the wants you have for this rig. So you buy a rockbouncer chassis. I get that and it makes sense. The problem is that you don't want to build a rockbouncer. You have width, wheelbase, turning radius, suspension and drivetrain placement requirements which are not compatible with the way a rockbouncer is engineered. So you end up cutting all the rockbouncer out of it and now are left with a hybrid that will not work great at crawler things (because you're constrained by what's left of the rockcrawler chassis) nor will be a good rockbouncer (because you're trying to make it do things that it shouldn't).

3) I see a lot of concerns for weight and money in certain aspects and a complete disregard for them in some others. Kinda like you're going back and forth on the topic. Just doesn't sounds coherent to me.


Part of growing up in this hobby is making peace with what you want and what you can afford, and build that. I really enjoying reading you tribulations and admire the self growth and motivation you're sharing. That's really cool.
I can also can guess that you had a lot of frustrating moments while working on this thing. And maybe some of them could have been avoided by setting clear goals ahead of time. Seems to me you're wandering around a little bit without a clear picture of what this rig should be when its done, which prevents you from moving forward in an efficient way.

Sorry if I went overboard on the answer to your questions, maybe you just wanted suspension advice and I let my big mouth open too wide again.

You know, I am who I am. I know I'm not perfect and thanks for saying this stuff to me. Yeah it hurt a little but I need that to make sure I am doing stuff right. There is more going on in the background for me that I'm not really going to be sharing here (career improvements, better budgeting options). Thanks for being willing to try to bring me back to center.

I think you are right in a lot of what you said. There are limitations to the chassis that I cannot overcome, and maybe would have been better to build from scratch. That being said, I am not down for large modifications to the chassis from the point forward. Hopefully, it will perform the way I think it can (I am not interested in competition, and I know it will outperform what my CJ could do).

Can you be specific about worries about weight and money that are disregarded?

I guess the way I see it when it comes to money, if I need to spend it to get what I want, I will do it. I see guys on here that have everything brand new, bought from only the best places. I could eventually do that, but It is just going to take me longer to get there. I just have to weigh the pros and cons of each. You are right that I have flip flopped on some of it. I know that.

As far as weight, IMO I have done everything I can to limit what I am adding to the chassis, based on weight. The way it came, it had a ton of steel. I had to try to calculate the chassis weight alone with my hanging scale that maxed out at 660 lbs, by weighting it from the front half and the back half. My best guess is it was around 750 lbs. I know the end result with my modifications will be lighter.

Anyway, its nice to have some guys to talk to about this, so any input is appreciated.

 

[Bebop]

1) I have heard that 30 to 40 " is typically where people land. The rear of this chassis will allow for me to build arms that are honestly too long, so I guess I'm thinking more about a balance. Achieving anything "longer" on the front will require a reconfiguration of some sort. I can work to get an inch here or there.

I'd try to get a minimum of 32/34

3) Please be specific more on this. It is what I am trying to avoid. I do have to compromise to some extent on most of it because of physical items that are in the way of where I want to place the control arms. I would rather have it optimized at some level for how I want to use it.

I would push the front axle forward some and try to lower the chassis side mounts of the front uppers

Can you be specific about worries about weight and money that are disregarded?

Not gonna do you much good / No point in dwelling in the past. What's done is done and since you're an overthinker you'll go back and wonder if you could have done something differently instead of focusing ahead moving forward.

A great example of something that is (IMO) completely overkill, cost you time and money and definitely agravation is the rework of the high steer arms in order to make them double shear. People you know have been driving with the top bolt in single shear. You know it and you wrote it a few times. No need to reinvent the wheel. I drive like a rockbouncer (read dumb idiot, wide open, run into shit) and I clipped a tree at a high rate of speed. I broke a 1" thick steering arm. Guess what, my bolts are in single shear and aren't even bent. You convinced yourself that it was necessary and went to a crazy extent of work and money to achieve a goal that will not help your rig perform better in any way, shape or form.
I chose this example because it's done, you're not gonna re-rework it and it will work. It just cost you (on all topics) a lot more than it should have.





Before you do anything else, try to lay down your goals for the next target, and most importantly, what you are willing or not to compromise.

For example, last weekend I went to a friends shop to help him with some suspension issues in the front. Long story short, after beating our heads against the wall for hours on end, he finally decided to compromise one of his goals (50 deg of steering, 42s, as narrow as possible, 8" of uptravel, not cutting the jeep hood he's running etc) and by just lowering the uptravel to 7", everything fell into place like it was meant to be, thus achieving all the other goals. We ended up rebuilding the upper link mounts and truss and steering mounts in the process.

What are you trying to get to ?

30 to 40" lowers
XX degrees of steering
1350 joints (limits you in terms of angle vs 1410)
no more rework of the chassis
carrier bearing position must be X
etc
etc



Also, if you can get someone that is more experienced with buggies come and give you a few pointers, sometimes its the key to moving the train forward smoothly.

 

[YeeP]

I'd try to get a minimum of 32/34

Will attempt this. The tough part right now, is I don't know how far I can move the rear axle forward to maintain my goal on wheelbase. I will have to put some time into figuring out the rear end before I will know if this is possible. I don't have a problem shifting gears to the rear end though.

I would push the front axle forward some and try to lower the chassis side mounts of the front uppers

I'll check that out. The first disadvantage to moving the front axle that comes to mind is it will decrease my convergence angle. I know 40 is the minimum. Anything else you think I should have in mind when looking at the numbers?

Not gonna do you much good / No point in dwelling in the past. What's done is done and since you're an overthinker you'll go back and wonder if you could have done something differently instead of focusing ahead moving forward.

I appreciate that, I actually almost didn't want to see the answer because I would have done that.

A great example of something that is (IMO) completely overkill, cost you time and money and definitely agravation is the rework of the high steer arms in order to make them double shear. People you know have been driving with the top bolt in single shear. You know it and you wrote it a few times. No need to reinvent the wheel. I drive like a rockbouncer (read dumb idiot, wide open, run into shit) and I clipped a tree at a high rate of speed. I broke a 1" thick steering arm. Guess what, my bolts are in single shear and aren't even bent. You convinced yourself that it was necessary and went to a crazy extent of work and money to achieve a goal that will not help your rig perform better in any way, shape or form.
I chose this example because it's done, you're not gonna re-rework it and it will work. It just cost you (on all topics) a lot more than it should have.

Great example, thank you. I guess I have a hard time overcoming previous biases on this kind of stuff. Just because it's working for someone else, sometimes is not enough to convince myself. You are right, I spent over 3 months on the knuckles and it really drug me down as far as enjoying what I was doing. I need to work on that and am hoping I can use this forum as a jumping board before I make a decision like that again.

Before you do anything else, try to lay down your goals for the next target, and most importantly, what you are willing or not to compromise.

For example, last weekend I went to a friends shop to help him with some suspension issues in the front. Long story short, after beating our heads against the wall for hours on end, he finally decided to compromise one of his goals (50 deg of steering, 42s, as narrow as possible, 8" of uptravel, not cutting the jeep hood he's running etc) and by just lowering the uptravel to 7", everything fell into place like it was meant to be, thus achieving all the other goals. We ended up rebuilding the upper link mounts and truss and steering mounts in the process.

What are you trying to get to ?

30 to 40" lowers
XX degrees of steering
1350 joints (limits you in terms of angle vs 1410)
no more rework of the chassis
carrier bearing position must be X
etc
etc

Good thinking, I will start putting together my targets and compromise levels. I like this idea a lot. Thank you for the example.

Also, if you can get someone that is more experienced with buggies come and give you a few pointers, sometimes its the key to moving the train forward smoothly.

I got one guy that is willing to come and chat, but I differ with him quite a bit on my take suspension design, which can make it difficult between us. I sure would like the train to move forward.

 

[Bebop]

I got one guy that is willing to come and chat, but I differ with him quite a bit on my take suspension design, which can make it difficult between us. I sure would like the train to move forward.

Sure.
But at least you'd have one path forward vs being stumped.



My advice : go as wide as you can on the axles. Being wide has very few drawbacks unless you're rockcrawling competitively. And it will help tremendously on all other aspects of the build.

 

[chaplinfj60]

Will attempt this. The tough part right now, is I don't know how far I can move the rear axle forward to maintain my goal on wheelbase. I will have to put some time into figuring out the rear end before I will know if this is possible. I don't have a problem shifting gears to the rear end though.


I'll check that out. The first disadvantage to moving the front axle that comes to mind is it will decrease my convergence angle. I know 40 is the minimum. Anything else you think I should have in mind when looking at the numbers?


I appreciate that, I actually almost didn't want to see the answer because I would have done that.


Great example, thank you. I guess I have a hard time overcoming previous biases on this kind of stuff. Just because it's working for someone else, sometimes is not enough to convince myself. You are right, I spent over 3 months on the knuckles and it really drug me down as far as enjoying what I was doing. I need to work on that and am hoping I can use this forum as a jumping board before I make a decision like that again.


Good thinking, I will start putting together my targets and compromise levels. I like this idea a lot. Thank you for the example.



I got one guy that is willing to come and chat, but I differ with him quite a bit on my take suspension design, which can make it difficult between us. I sure would like the train to move forward.

my buddies dis agreed with my suspension design at first because i wanted lower belly, but you see that fell into the area of will not compromise, and once that was established forward progress happened. for no better way to put it, my plan became there plan regard less of the fuckerie i was doing, sure i had them moments of your over thinking it again, just do this damit..... we all go down that road when we are trying to create our own automobile form a pile of steel in the garage.

 

[chaplinfj60]

Sure.
But at least you'd have one path forward vs being stumped.



My advice : go as wide as you can on the axles. Being wide has very few drawbacks unless you're rockcrawling competitively. And it will help tremendously on all other aspects of the build.

i will second the holly shit out of wide. 91 outside tire to outside of tire.

it will help in all kinds of ways that you may not even see right now.