s14unimog

So we've got three companies that are making a bolt on solution for a poor shackle angle, two of which are relocators. Now out of those two they both have numerous positioning holes and effectively do the same thing; naturally I chose the powder coated ones with the idea that surely all is well if they had enough confidence to paint everything. Wrong?

Relocating the pivot point and moving the cycle angle back like that only means you need more room for the shackle; right? So why the hell do they put useless holes at the back of the bracket? If I try and take advantage of the new angle it ensures contact with the lower bracket. Even if I relocate back a hole I'm still set up for contact; even properly bumped under stock flares. Now I like the upper body mount. It fits well, it seems like a solid solution, so that's a plus, but what gives? There is no way they haven't seen this.

wmatt182003

I don't see the purpose of this bracket. Would the Tera-flex Revolver shackle not do the exact same thing. I need to research into shackle relocation more I guess.

s14unimog

You can get tons of down travel if you allow for the shackle to compress more at rest. It also moves it away from the unibody, where you typically see contact under compression. They should have paired a specific shackle or designed that bracket better. Unless I'm missing something, that's how I see it.

xjmarc

I have the HD Offroad versions and my shackles don't make contact till they are almost flat. The reason for the other holes is so you can run longer springs.

s14unimog

Longer springs from say another vehicle application? I thought he higher the lift the shorter the eye-eye distance?

DirtyKK

Cut the extra off. Not that big of deal.

Gorillaxj

not on a quality made spring... a re-arched POS this is true.... Also depending on the lift hieght, and shackle choice you could use any of the holes....

If the top pic is ride height I would move it back 1, or 2. you want a 45* angle... looks more like 25-30 to me. but maybe its the pics...

Mine look great... (HD) at ride hight. I Have never hit the brackets...


Flexed, ( to show what hole I use) you can see the spring is going inverted, and flex is over....

MuscleHead

I agree you need to move yours back one hole to get it more at a 45 degree angle and you will gain back some compression. That is where mine is bolted through and its perfect.

s14unimog

Obviously. Just hate to wreck the powder coating. I'll likely just redesign the lower bracket for one hole and have the piece laser cut out and broke.

Ya, I'm running, coincidentally enough, a RC 3" full pack and RC extended shackle for 4.5". I choose the first hole b/c I am bumped for stock flares. I want all of my movement in down travel; not to mention I'm not looking for a ton of lift. Unfortunately moving back gains me more lift than I really need. Are you running any bump stops in the rear or are you using your leaf inversion as a stop?

You are probably right but look at my angle before the bracket. If I move back a hole I'm essentially back where I started... Maybe not completely but definitely enough to not warrant doing this in the first place.



Here is my down travel capability as of now

helmut

You cannot expect there to be no contact if you have your shackle so far up front. It lays too flat. You need to move it back a hole. If that nets you too much lift you need to get a 1in shackle instead of the one you have. I have the same relocators.I used the same shackle you have and properly set there was 0 contact. Now since I wanted to lower the rear a bit I installed stock shackles and trimmed the bracket where they contact and it works great. You will never use those rear holes anyways so might as well get rid of them. If you had longer leafs you would need the rear holes, thats why they are there. RC leafs are always too short.

helmut

I guess it could be a good idea if they notched lines in the side of the bracket and instructed to trim after installing a specific leaf/shackle combo. That would make sense to prevent the shackle from hitting no matter what shackle you use.

helmut

From what I heard teh revolver shackles are bad. They could unload while taking sharp corners on the street.

s14unimog

Ya I guess that's the only real solution with the lower bracket. I really want to retain the extended shackle as it will net me tons of down travel once I can ensure no contact at rest or compression; I'm not THAT far off 45*. I guess this assembly nets you a minimal change from stock, with a big bump in height, but I suppose your leaf pack length will play into that too. RC must have recognized the vast variety of variables and just decided to make it continually adjustable so that when this came up, they'll just suggest I move it back. I do wish they wouldn't have given up there and made the bracket wide enough so that the only contact would be from the bolt head.

I'll update my thread once I get a chance to inspect the assembly more closely and fabricate an alternative bracket that'll suit my needs specifically. I'll be moving the position its at now slightly further forward and probably another 1/2" to 1" higher. That should yield TONS of droop with my extended shackle.

helmut

Thats what I think also. This bracket should be wider. Only the part where the shackle actually mounts should be narrow. Kind of like if it was wider then the shackle itself and then just use washers where the shackle bushing is. I dont know if I am explaining that correctly but that would work without trimming them to use with any shackle, even stock.

s14unimog

exactly! They could have at least done that. Maybe tack in some spacers instead of stacking washers. Either way, I'll be much happier once I make a bracket specific to my assembly. I know what I'm after, I just hoped RC's would work once I had it on the truck. WRONG!

Not to mention moving it back further only wrecks my pinion angle (relative to oil position in the housing) that much more. I also didn't think it would yield this much lift.