I dod not know that AC sold Revolver Shackles for 05-07 X's... are thay a good thing to have?

Yes.



Revolvers are very good at helping to keep your tires on the ground....and in my case, they allow me to have good articulation, while still having a strong enough leaf pack to support my 5,800 lb weight (And the X is heavy too...).

As they allow more flex than the 3" SL's do, and provide less lift than the standard lift shackles, there are some things that you'd need to do to take FULL advantage of them...but they still work amazingly well as is.

I've been running the Revolvers for a while now, and all of the BS I read about "unoading" and other crap was false...they don't do ANY of the things that people who didn't have them said they would.

They work just like regular shackles do, except they allow a few more inches of shackle swing because they can unfold when the axle is drooped..but, they still support the weight of the truck, just like regular shackles do at various angles of shackle swing, etc.

All in all, its one of my favorite mods.

, like he said.

The only problem I have had at all was that the bolt that they rotate on backed out once. The bolt stayed in the half of the shackle and once I figured out why my leaf spring was clanking around I put the shackle back together with lock-tite. Haven't had a problem at all since.
I think they are a great mod for adding flex to the rear of an X.

Check it out.

Revolver Flex

Around here they call them "suicide shackles". I've heard of them breaking on the trails. They have also been known to make a vehicle slightly more prone to rollovers. I have also heard of them royally f%cking up spring hangers because of the additional twist they put on the leafs.

I also don't see the advantage of the extra droop because they only droop out when there's no weight on that leaf. This means you've drooped the tire but haven't really added any "useful" (grip-enhancing) flex.

Definitely ask around before you buy those. Your local custom 4x4 shop is a good place to start.

Have'nt seem them in action on the 2nd gens yet but on the 1st gens they have worked great on the two rigs I've ridden with.

Of course to take full advantage of them you need other mods...longer shocks, lines, etc.

Marty beat his for years like there is no tomorrow, other than some of the parts wearing out over time I have'nt seen any problems with them.

And the 2nd gen revolvers are monsters compared to the 1st gen X. I'm using the 2nd gen on my spring over.

AC has them for the 05- 07 for $250.00 a pair.

This is a good example of the BS I'm talking about.

Someone who doesn't have them, repeating what others who don't have them said.



It shows a total lack of understanding of how they work.

Point by Point:

1. I've heard of them breaking on the trails - I've heard of regular shackles breaking on the trails, and regular leaf springs, and regular shocks, etc.

2. They make a vehical slightly more prone to rollovers - Any lift does that, and the Revolvers don't give much lift, so less likely to cause a roll than a regular lift shackle....ALL they do is help keep your tires on the ground...and that has never contributed to a rollover that I know of. (A roll is when the COG crosses out of the rectangle formed by the 4 tire's foot prints...its NOT like the suspension holds you down...)

3. They put extra twist on the springs fucking up the hangers - They do the opposite, as they swivel, taking the stress OFF OF THE HANGERS, by letting the leaf move, instead of the leaf torquing against the hanger as happens with a regular shackle.(Which is HOW regular shackles tend to break)

4. They only give extra droop, but don't support the extra weight - When ANY SUSPENSION DROOPS, the tire is dropping because of the weight of the axle/tire, etc...and its not holding the truck up if its drooping....droop is dropping by gravity....if the tire drops away from the truck, its not holding the truck up...that's WHY a regular shackle swings to add articulation, and WHY a shackle gives better wheel travel/off road performance than an AAL, etc.

And, as hard as it is for some to understand...just like a regular lift shackle can swing, allowing more droop at parts of its swing, etc...it will STILL support the truck at various parts of its swing.

The Revolver opens to about 9.5"...a stock shackle is about 3", so it can get about 6.5" longer, or ~ the equivalent of a 3" lift just from shackle length....about 1.5" more than a std 3" SL.

So - The end result is merely having the articulation of the 4.5" SL, w/o actually having to raise the COG by 4.5".

The traction is there, I have been able to go places I simply could not have managed w/o locker or the Revolvers....and sure, a locker overall would be better If I had to pick, but, the Revolvers are WAY less expensive, and a 45 minute install....and I can still do BOTH one day if I have the $.

Yup. They just break a lot more frequently when you stress them out with revolver shackles.

Good, you agree. If a rexolver shackle disengages in an extreme situation, it could be the "straw that broke the camels back" for the rollover. Each side of the suspension holds up at least 150# worth of suspension parts. I wouldn't want to lose 150# from my uphill side in that scenario.

You need to take a look under your truck before you reply. Clearly you are confused about what you've got installed.

Your spring hangers are in front of your axle. The more you flex your axle, the more your axle torques the springs and hangers. Destroying the hangers is something that I know has happened to folks. I believe there is a thread on this forum right now of somebody who ruined their spring hangers while using revolver shackles.

And that is the bottom line. Every leaf setup has a "dynamic range". The last inch or so of flex is not really useful because the tire has no grip. Revolver shackles do nothing but add to the "useless" range to your flex. They are really neat "redneck bling", but I have yet to meet a serious offroader who is still using them. Many have tried them and then decided that the cons outweigh the pros.

TJ can write another book endorsing what's on his truck, but the internet is not the place to get this information. I recommend that you go to your local hardcore 4x4 shop and ask those guys. The product of revolver shackles are universally denounced by all three offroad shops that I know of in Co Springs. I agree 100% because of the experiences I've seen folks have with that product.

Jeff - that's a lot of twisting and misinformation...you have it wrong.

You don't know how they work...you are not describing how they function in real life.

If you say Revolvers make you more likley to roll over, and I say any lift can, and you say we agree, as if it implied that a revolver was somehow MORE likely to make you roll, that's going to confuse things.

You are wrong about the twist as well...the pivoting shackle relieves stress, it in no way adds stress.

You are implying that the equivalent of a 4.5" SL is "suicidal", and that a truck will rollover unless it has a solid shackle...whereas, in reality, trucks with solid shackles roll all the time...and we're really talking about how likely a truck with 3" vs 4.5" of lift is to roll...except, the Revolver shackle isn't really RAISING you, merely allowing the droop...a few more inches...

Think about how a regular shackle can hold up the truck, even though it swings through an acrc...it sounds like you think a regular shackle only support the truck at one point in its arc.

If the COG is going to cross the tire footprint's boundries...almost the exact same resistance is available with, or without the revolvers....there is no unloading in real life, that's a sceanrio made up and propagated by people who don't have revolvers...they unfold when unweighted, EXACTLY like a standard suspension...a little at a time, as dictated by the exact same forces.

I'm not the only one here with Revolvers, and others with them can attest to the fact that you are making things up/repeating misconceptions.

And don't get on that broken record about me endosing what's on my truck, and no one else's....I already said for example a locker would be better, which I don't have, etc.

Argue the facts, and if you don't have the experience with the Revolvers, maybe consider letting the people who HAVE REVOLVERS answer the questions about them?

I have to agree with JeffW on one point and it's causing more stress on the hangers. The leaf springs have two halves. The front half from the axle to the hanger and the rear half from the axle to the shackle.

While the rear half will get less stress because of the action provided by the revolver, the front half will will cause more stress on the hanger because of the extra droop of the axle.

That stress however I think would be the same if you had an equivalent suspension lift and one wheel at full droop while the other is fully stuffed in the fender.

TJ:

while I hate to agree with JeffW on most any issue...

This is not "heresay" or "i've heard" garbage. This is PERSONAL observation of 2 virtually identical rigs, one with revolvers and one without.

The trail was off-camber, with a bump on the driver's side at the same time as a tree on the passenger's side. Both rigs were crawling, aka, not bouncing at all over the bump. Both took the same line, which was as high as possible on the trail so as not to hit the tree with the top of the cab when they got to the bump. (By bump, I don't mean it was a "bump" feeling; I mean the driver's side had a short area that was higher, causing the rigs to go even more off-camber than before.)

The first rig did not have revolver shackles. It went through the trail with it's driver's side suspension fully flexed at droop, and it's passenger side at full compression. At the bump, the cab tipped over more, and came within a couple inches of the tree. Close, but never even hit it.

The second rig, with revolver shackles, started right behind the first so he could take the same line. When it got to the bump, the driver's side was fully drooped, with revolver at max unloading. Passenger side was fully stuffed. The cab leaned over far enough and hard enough to not only bang into the tree, but to dent the roof and passenger side door badly enough it shattered the window, and mangled it enough that the door has not been able to be opened ever since.

Both vehicles had the exact same suspension brand and tire size/type combination. The ONLY difference, literally, was one had revolvers. If the tree had not been there, there was a fairly good chance the 2nd vehicle would have had a side-rollover, considering how hard it slammed into the tree. Without that tree stopping the swing to the side, I just don't see how that rig would have stayed on all-fours.

After that weekend, the owner of the 2nd rig took off the revolvers and sold them on Ebay. He'll never run them again.

This is an event I PERSONALLY witnessed, from behind both the rigs as they went through. From this particular instance, I can say with certainty that revolvers DO allow for more roll-over on an off-camber situation than regular shackles, and COULD lead to a roll-over in a situation that otherwise would not.

As to other situations, I haven't seen any problems with them. I've never seen them unload on a downhill, hard braking, etc.

There are other factors that could have played in that. Such as tire size, weight distribution, where your COG was at, etc. All of these can play a part.

Now if a plane had revolvers and was on a treadmill would it be able to take off??

Is the treadmill off camber?

Porche - there's a difference between lean, and rollover..and I understand what you're saying, but I've seen analogous situations where the amount of flex can let you whack a tree, etc...

I had a buddy in his TJ whack a tree I cleared on an offcamber section...he had 6" of lift and two live axles, and a shit load more wheel travel than I had....same line (Had to be the same line, it was a tight squeeze...)

I guess the best way to summarize it, as I took ALOT of measurements, etc...before running these on trails....is its about as flexy as a 4.5" SL.

My X, loaded for work, etc...is about 5,800 lb...and it would lean more than a lighter one for sure.

So, if the 4.5" Sl'd X leans into the tree, so might the Revolver shackled X, etc...and your buddy who had that accident perhaps fell victim to that principle.

Meaning, it has nothing to do with the Revolvers per se, just that a more flexy rig leans more...like the Jeep, it was a lot more flexy, had a lot more clearance, and leaned over into the tree, bashing its window/door frame (Didn't break though, very slow approach...)

People with a SAS for example have maybe 5" - 6" of SL, and I expect more total wheel travel than I have (Especially up front of course, but I'm talking about the butt end right now...)

So - if you get off camber with the SAS...you can lean more than I could with the Revolvers.

Maybe that will put it into perspective.

As for the leaf flex, I checked it, and as the axle twists the leaf...no other force is twisting the leaf but the axle...the two end points are anchoring it, but the leaf's twist is definetely coming from the middle.

When the axle drops and twists the leaf, if the hanger is fixed, like the front, a torsional force is applied to it.

If the rear hanger essentially CAN swivel, it can MOVE when the torsional force is applied, and rotate with the direction of force, relieving the tension.

Now, if you are talking about that with the Revolver, the FRONT hanger gets twisted harder, because the axle is drooping further...due to the Revolver, yes, but the amount is roughly equivalent to having another 1.5" of SL...a few degrees more is all that happens...the axle is a long lever, with the dropped tire's end pretty far from the leaf being twisted...

(Like the amount of twist with a 4' long lever moving 2 more inches down...the amount of additional twist is minimal.)

A front Orbit Eye would address that if you were going for more massive flex. I simply set up my travel to stay within the driveshaft travel and leaf flex limits...so I didn't need to make other arrangements for hangers....I did add longer shocks with 29" extended length....that's all I needed.

I've seen PLENTY of X's with broken leaf springs...None had revolver shackles. Is it POSSIBLE to break a spring ...sure, if you could do it w/o longer shackles, you could also do it with longer shackles.

I HAVE seen (Jeeps mostly..) not sweat the details, and install revolvers, and drop drive shafts, etc...because they did not compensate for the extra travel....and a jeep's rear shaft is like a foot long...not much to play with there.

This is just like the one's who mounted tires that were too large, and blew their drive trains.

Is there a flaw in large tires, or is that some people don't set up their rigs intelligently to handle it?

So - to clarify - Revolvers work great, and sure, just like doing an SL, or adding larger tires, or a locker, etc...it can open new issues..., like a locked diff can blow more easily, etc...but, the design itself works.

If you think the wheel travel of a 4.5" SL with the ground clearance f a 3" SL is nutz/too dangerous, get a 3" SL, and don't get revolvers.

If you want a bit more wheel travel w/o raising the COG as much/being able to still fit into some garages, the Revolvers are a practical option.



Some people are reacting to these things like your tires fall off... its only a few inches more of droop, there's people w/o the revolvers with new flexy leaf packs with just as much travel.

Your tires stay on the ground longer...that's about it.

I think these discussions are silly. Putting revolvers on will not make your vehicle explode while sitting there. But guess what, any offroad modification has the possibility to get you in a situation that can cause serious damage, whether it be a locker, a winch, a BL or a SL.

Why don't people complain about SAS'ing trucks? Being that much higher certainly effects the COG enough to cause rollovers quicker.

True that.



...well, maybe not a BL.

OK, so TJ wrote two more books.

I still stand by my advice to read porsche996's post and call your local 4x4 shop and inquire. Then make your decision.

Yeah - call the 4x4 shops...they recommend those Rancho SL's for the X....they know best.

TJ:

I realize what you're saying, and don't disagree. The problem I witness was there BECAUSE of the additional travel available from the revolvers. The truck w/o revolvers couldn't travel as far, which didn't allow him to have as much vehicle roll on the off-camber.

My point is, additional travel isn't worth it in some situations, regardless of how you get the travel.

EXACTLY.

The situation where the revolvers make that wheel "weightless" with respect to the vehicle is just the type of scenario where a rollover is possible.

Flexier leafs do not create the same phenomenon.

Anyone from CO, (or who's had the gumption) order the orbit eye leafspring bushings from ALCAN yet. I'm very seriously considering them for my rear spring setup.. they won't add any lift/droop, but they will help me get my flexy on, while reducing stress to the leafpack..

I have the orbit eyes installed into my rear frame shackle mounts. I think someone has Alcan orbit eyes ordered.

On the revolver note...
I Had em...
I liked em...
I busted the welds on em...

I have them in my leafpacks and I think they are great1

I hear you on the flex issue, and it depends on the terrain...the tires are not weightless when you make the shackle longer, and that's all that happens...another 1.5" of swing over the std lift shackle.

You guys act like its a disco for the axle....it just isn't.

If you watch one in action, it is following the terrain...just like a regular shackle swings in/out with the terrain...just because it can swing further doesn't mean the axle fell off and the truck flips over.

So sure, its flexier, and if your terrain doesn't require flex, you can get by with a stiff leaf lift, etc....lift tires when needed, and not worry about articulation.

If you wheel where you need articulation, and understand how to use it, so you don't put yourself in stupid situations (Goes for most wheeling...), its a tool.

Ground clearance is a tool, a tall lift gives clearance...but, at the expense of COG issues, like off camber, etc.

Same with flex.

In reply to Porsche's scenerio... if everything was equal and truck #2 had the revolver fully open then truck #1 would have had it's unweighted tire 1.5 inches off the trail. If this was not the situation then all the other variables were NOT equal.
There is some merit to the fact that a mostly unweighted wheel still contacting the trail (revolver) really isn't doing a lot more than a tire floating an inch off the trail (standard shackle) but I would argue that some pressure on the stuffed tire is transfered to the other tire and does help the LSD work more effectively.
I do not believe that revolvers magicly change the laws of physics or drasticly change weight distribution. If your revolver is opened up then a standard shackle would be floating the tire... either way you should be sure what your line holds for you because your balance may be nearing the limits.

Good Point....but, the unweighted tire scenario is backwards...when drooped, the Revolver's tire is pressed harder to the ground than a conventional shackled rig's.

(NOT unweighted...MORE WEIGHTED)



A simple experiment allows one to measure the weight of the conventional shackled tire on the ground, vs the weight of a revolver shackled tire.

___________

Based on the experimentation I did before mounting revolvers, it appears that, as a conventional shackled leaf suspension is pulled DOWN BY THE WEIGHT OF THE AXLE/TIRE, flexing the leaf arc to droop the tire....there was a change in resistance part way through the cycle.



In other words, from compression/ride height, the weight on the tire was fairly proportional....

...as the leaf was loosened and the tire drooped, the weight on the tire lessened, as the tension of the leaf spring was relaxed...but, at the point where the leaf was exerting ZERO force, the weight of the axle/tire was PULLING the corner down, rather than the leaf PUSHING it down.



So - If you ever changed a shackle, you know there's THAT POINT you NEED when the shackle is unweighted, and the bolt can be slid out, etc....well....THAT'S pretty much the transition point. (Leaf stops pushing down the tire, The axle's now PULLING on it)



This transition point is where the leaf goes from supporting the truck/pushing the tire down onto the earth for traction, to instead progressively unweighting the tire, reducing the force that the tire is pushed down with.



At the limit of leaf support, the shackle (Calmini lift shackle in this case...), swung down, and provided a lot more droop, a few inches...this swinging motion relieved some of the tension pulling the leaf down, and allowed the tire to continue downwards with less resistance than if the leaf alone was responsible for all of the travel.

The amount of shackle swing was the difference between the two ranges...where the support range of the leaf let off, the shackle swing allowed additional droop, until the end of the swing was reached, and once again the leaf was the limiting factor, hanging the tire.

When a conventional shackle swings, its the same unweighted effect on the suspension...the weight of the axle is providing the droop force...)



Doing the same thing with the revolver shackles yielded almost exactly the same scenario.

With the revolver, the leaf went through the exact same compression, ride height and extension cycle...but, when the droop exceeded the leaf's support range, the shackle started to swing, and then, unfold, and it swings and unfolds by the difference between the two ranges...the same as the regular shackle....

When the revolver was unfolding, the tire had more weight on it, as there was less PULLING the tire UP, than did the regular shackled version.

When the tire was fully drooped, the tire would unweight exactly as did the regular shackled version, and the tire would hang.

It hung a bit under 2" lower than the regular shackled version.

On the way down, I had more weight on the tire, and therefore I could expect better traction with the revolver shackle than the regular shackle, once past the transition point, and the same traction above the transition point (BETTER traction drooped, ~ the same otherwise)

____________

So - alot of people forget that their leaves do not push the tire down past that transition point, ....and that the axle weight is what is PULLING the tire down as opposed to the leaf PUSHING it down....

......meaning some traction weight on the tire is lost as the tire progressively fights more and more resistance on the way down in a droop, until that resistance STOPS the droop, stopping further wheel travel.



______________________

I could get almost the same effect as a revolver by simply using a longer lift shackle....I made some rough measurements, and the extra swing of a longer shackle lets the ends of the leaves get closer together/deeper arch....very similar to the effect of the revolver.

I decided to go with the revolver, as while I wanted the travel, I didn't want the associated lift height issues.

The X rides smoother, handles about the same, and the tires go up and down following the terrain...I have almost 2" more travel, with about the same lift I had before, and no downside.

Another thing to consider is we're IFS, not Solid axle. We have to drive the truck with the front. We are more stable on a side hill compared to solid axles. Are front A-arms are what hold use on angles, along with how tall your rear bumpstop is.
My truck will hold at a 42 o angle. I'm also using airshocks in the rear. When on the trail the air flows between the shocks. That way it is always trying to give 50/50 pressure. When one tire is stuffed the air pushes the other tire down. Even with this set-up it is vary stable.
When it's time to get on the highway I seperate the airshocks. So on road they work like a sway bar.

Ramdom Examples of the X not falling over/losing traction due to extra potential wheel travel, if needed...

No. The first rig did not roll as much. Once it got it's leafs maxed out, it didn't roll/tip anymore. The second rig, once it's leafs maxed out, the revolver unloaded when it hit the "bump", and it was too much for the situation, causing it to slam into a tree.

I know both of the guys, both of their rigs, and exactly what they have on both. I helped build 'em, and wheel with them on a regular basis. Their parts are ALL ordered from the exact same company, Rusty's Offroad. Whether you believe an eye witness account or not is not my problem. I was just giving you the story as to what happened, and why I won't put revolvers on my rig, because I've personally witnessed a direct comparison of revolvers vs. regular, and frankly, the extra little bit of travel they give you isn't worth it.

As to how it applies on an IFS rig (careful: my opinion is coming, now) makes them even more worthless. It doesn't do a vehicle any good to have gobs of travel on one axle, and virtually none on the other. Because at the end of the day, it's the axle that has the least amount of travel that'll be the limiting factor on trail, not the one that has the most. When any of the Nissan IFS rigs out there get as much travel out of their IFS as just the stock rear leaf spring provides, then I'd say it's time to increase travel in the rear. Until then, any suspension improvements you do to the back aren't going to make the rig more capable.

TJ:

Not a one of those pictures show a need for a revolver shackle... NONE of those pictures show ANY wheel travel going on in the rear... Those could be STOCK rigs in those situations, and done just as well...

Come to think of it, my wife's Mazda 3 has as much travel as what's showing in those pictures. You got any useful pics to show...? None of those are coming anywhere close to even needing to use the revolvers, much less their failure points...

But, I've got issues with your theoretical statement, earlier:

You're forgetting one very serious component, and the reason why a SOLID axle works better than IFS to begin with.

When one tire droops independent of the other, that tire is being PUSHED down by the OTHER tire. It's a fulcrum & lever. A tire doesn't just drop on a solid axle due to the weight of the axle; that's why IFS rigs have no traction at full droop. When a solid axle drops a tire, it's keeps the same traction, if not increased, because it has a nice long lever arm on a fulcrum PUSHING it down from the other side.

Well then what you just said about the front is the same reason the revolvers work on the back.
I've run the Rubicon both with and without revolvers with no lockers. And there is no way I could have ran the whole trail without the revolvers and no locker.
I don't get you're theory that more travel in back won't help an IFS . So you're saying that it's better to have 2 tires in the air .

Yeah - the whole "unload" thing just is not an issue.

I understand what it looked like, but its not how it works in practice.

They are not spring loaded grasshopper legs...they act just like a longer regular shackle.

If you have ALREADY unweighted the suspension...it doesn't suddenly throw you over....it just leaves the tire on the ground while the truck does what it was going to do anyway.

And the REAR REVOLVERS don't change how the FRONT IFS works...and don't make the truck lean any more than a truck with equivalent longer shackles would.

As you know, a tire hanging in the air means the COG containing rectangle is narrowing...which decreases stability.

The shots show exactly what you said...on the trail, they work just like regular shackles as far as function.

The shot of the X with a buddy kicking the slider on the up hill side is showing that the X is leaned over, just like you could w/o revolvers...but, WITH revolvers, IE: Having the Revolvers did not change my sidehill stability.

The downhill side is fully loaded, as it is with ANY shackle, and the uphill side is mostly unloaded, as it would be with ANY shackle.

The X doesn't fall over from the unweighted revolver "unloading"....because the physics work...and there is no such problem in the field.

The X won't go over unless the COG crosses out of that rectangle....period.

Oye vey...

You can sit and theorize all day about what revolvers will or won't do, and at the end of it all, it won't matter if you can't get the front axle through the obstacle, anyways.

[sidebar: TJ, that xterra on the side-slope in your photo isn't even close to the tipping angle for the rig; hence the reason you didn't see any difference w/ the revolvers.)

The scenario is having a rig in such an extreme angle it lifts a rear tire.

The answer to lifting 1 rear tire is NOT to increase droop travel at that tire (aka, adding revolver shackles).

The ANSWER is to increase droop travel at the OPPOSITE DIAGONAL tire, so the truck frame & body never tips to that degree in the first place.

Until then, anything you do is just going to ben an unsuccessful attempt at throwing money towards a problem you can't fix easily (or cheaply) with an IFS rig. Save your money for something that will help in this situation (like a locker), and leave the revolver shackles to the mall-crawlers.

Mall crawlers don't want revolvers, they don't show, and they don't give enough lift to notice.



And how do you figure I'm changing the weight on the opposite tire anyway?

And its not theory...its truck scales, and lots of little slips of paper with weights printed on it, etc.



I don't think you get it yet...

Maybe you now understand that you have MORE WEIGHT on the drooped tire with the revolver, not less weight...that's a start.

Next Issue -

So far, you are saying that if the truck stays level, and the tire's go up and down independantly, its somehow less stable than a stiff suspension, where the truck goes up and down at each corner, in lock step with the tires?

If I get a flexy leaf that allows my tire to droop a bit lower than the frame bottom, the truck is stable, but if a revolver shackled tire droops the the exact same point, its unstable?

Or are you just against articulation in general, as a flexy suspension is too wishy washy to be safe, and we should just get hummers, lock both ends, and not worry about keeping tires on the ground?



I'd do lockers if I had the time$, trust me. The few extra bucks for the revolvers over the regular shackles wasn't exactly the difference either...not even close.

Hell, I'd do low t-case gears too...overall, before a bunch of other mods btw.

But the time$ thing is there, and real...

All I'm trying to get across is that the revolvers confuse people, much like airplanes on tread mills.

There's also this THING about them, where people talk about them as if they know, and tell others, and the next thing you know, "facts" about revolvers are rampant....like how the tires have zero weight on them when drooped, etc...the exact opposite of a real "fact", etc.

Its like someone who doesn't understand how to measure backspacing "does the math" wrong, and goes around saying the X's OEM BS is 5" instead of 5.5"...and quickly, it appears all over as a new "fact".

Revolvers are ripe for that.

A revolver doesn't toss you over on a side hill anymore than a leaf spring throws you, etc...

I agree about the pics, I have no good pics, sorry...if I'm in a good spot, its typically too hard to get a pic. :rolleyes:

Of course, there's really no such thing as a pic of a side hill that would require revolvers, or any lift shackles...as on a hill, the lower you are, the better.



So - If you're argument is that an X should not have more than 3" of lift, as any more than that will lean over too far, and whack passing trees, and that people should just stay at that height, and save for lockers, fine...then its your opinion about a safe lift height/COG, etc.

We're talking about 2" of travel here....2"...w/o extra lift.

...and, because we did NOT add lift, the OPPOSITE side tire can compress further/lowering the truck more...because if one side is dropping, the other side is being weighted.

That means I'm leaning INTO the side hill on my uphill side more than if I had more lift...as my suspension is MORE compressed on the uphill side when the downhill side is drooped than with more lift.

If I'm side hilled where I'm not drooped, the shackle is folded on the downhill side, and the weight is also supported...so either way, I've been good to go.

If I had too tall a lift, and my COG was across the downhill tire boundry line...I could be talking about a block of wood, or an iron box, etc...I'm going over, simple physics...shackles, axles welded to the frame, whatever, it doesn't matter....your COG crosses that line, you go over.

If the argument is that its only too much travel if from a REVOLVER shackle, then my personal measurements and experience tell me otherwise....travel is travel...gravity pulls the tire down.

There was a video posted here that showed some bozo with a lift w/o flex side hilling, and going over/getting stuck, and providing extreme detail about a lack of judgement, etc....but the LACK of flex flipping him over was the part I was interested in.

When the tire goes up, it tips the truck up, and visa versa...which leads to an easier roll.

So - too little flex can be unstable.

Now, too much flex can be unstable too...a weight on top of a slinky would be tough to control, etc.

So - too little, or too much, flex is the problem.

All we are doing now is agreeing on HOW MUCH flex is not too much, or too little.



A while back, I think it was Carlton and I compared my Revolver/Doubled AAL set up droop, to his new (At the time...) flexy leaf pack/shackle droop...and it was about the same IIRC.

So keep the order of magnitude in mind....its some extra wheel travel, not a catapault.

You still aren't making sense. I have one tire almost in the air, my spare is on top and I still don't see this unloading your talking about

My point is, what good does the extra flex in the rear of a rig do you, if you can't match it in the front? You don't gain any additional useable offroad capability until you address the lack of flex in the front.

If you already had done a SAS, or extreme-long travel setup in the front of your rig, so you've got real flex up front, then by all means, increase the flex you've got in the rear.

The Nissan already comes from the factory with a helluva' lot more flex in the rear than the front. Increasing more in the rear will make for a good photo when you back onto something, but it won't do squat for you on trail until you address the pathetic front flex.

THAT'S my point, TJ. I'm completely against increasing flex in the rear just because you can; if you can't match it in the front, then it's wasted flex that you'll never actually use. Sure, it'll be available, but you'll never be able to get in a situation where it'd make a difference, because your front IFS suspension just plain won't let you get there.

That's because your suspension isn't flexed hardly at all in that picture... The whole rig is turned sideways, but nothing is flexing at the moment...

Yet ANOTHER demonstration of absolutely nothing having to do with the discussion at hand...

And just to post whore a little bit...

JP Online "Lamest 4x4 Products Ever" article

If you're trying to drive an IFS like a solid axle that is you're problem. I use the stability of the IFS to put my truck at what ever angle I need to to keep both front tires on the ground. And I know I have a flexy enough rear to keep pushing. Ask anyone that I led through the Rubicon last year. The revolvers work. I walked through a lot of areas a dual lock X had problems.

By your logic why would anyone want to remove the sway bar. With the sway bar on the rear will still out flex the IFS front. If you can't see how increased flex helps traction we are certainly at an impass.

I don't think anyone ever implied that revolvers were a substitution for a SAS.

I give up on this thread.

Marty, did you drive the Rubicon?

Yes, first time only crawlergears and revolvers, no body damage . The other two times I had a rear locker and revolvers, body damage . Those are just the full runs thorough. I can't count how many times to Spider Lake and back. I also enjoy mountian biking it . Everything I've done to my truck is from what I learned there and some surounding trails.

Porhes, you start to argue one thing, then change your argument, and even prove others arguments at times....

The pictures of TJ and Marty with their Xterra's at angles are compltely relevant to the point of the revolvers "unloading". The shackles are not opening up when put under addttional stress from the vehicles being at an angle. If the shackles were then the body would be leanign more.

ASs to the "it's not worth it argument" - as someone else pointed out then you should be opposed to the removal of a rear sway bar.

And here is a case where having a few inches more flex would have been helpful.

The situation was that the driver needed to back up, and the rear tire was in the air and had no traction, so the X could not go backwards and instead rolled forward into the tree he was trying not to roll forward into (which is not in the picture). Granted, the driver was in the situation because of a bad spotting job, but having that extra droop would have prevented the problem.

I was kidding. You mention you've driven it in almost every post you make.. :rolleyes:

Time to put the transfercase back in the truck The slip-yoke eliminator is done.
So now I can have more rear flex out of my IFS truck
Next year it'll get a front solid axle.

damn y'all are thick...

1) I've personally seen revolvers unload, causing a rig to hit a tree that another rig identically build (except for the revolvers) didn't. Now if someone can tell me how the one that didn't have revolvers defied the laws of physics and missed the tree due to magic, I'm all ears. Until then, the ONLY difference was one had revolvers, one didn't. And the one that did smacked the hell out of a tree on an off-camber situation.

2) For other situations other than off-camber, revolvers are worth about as much as a $3 bill, if you can't match the suspension flex in the front.

For the photo showing the X doing a nose-dive into a tree, when its rear passenger side wasn't on the ground... THIS PROVES MY POINT! If that Xterra had any travel up front other than the pathetic amount available from the IFS, it WOULDN'T have been nose-down in the first place! If the rear tire happened to be on the ground because it had revolvers flexing enough to let it touch, it wouldn't matter, because there wouldn't be any force going to the tire; an open diff in that situation would still have the same problem; no traction to that rear driver's side tire.

So there's two upgrades that could have prevented that X from nosing into a tree:

1) real suspension upfront instead of the non-flexing IFS crap.

2) a rear locker, so if one tire lifts, it doesn't matter.

All a revolver would have done in that situation is give the appearance of traction by letting the tire hang down. It wouldn't have done anything else.

Ugg. I'm through with this. If someone wants a revolver shackle, then please, go spend $150+ for a pair. At the same time, be sure to pick up the other offroading "upgrades" to the Xterra, such as the street "beadlocks", and brushguards. They all do about the same offroad, so you don't want to forget anything.

:p

Wrong - the 2 vehicles also had different drivers. I have seen identical (and I mean perfectly identical with the exception of color) Xterra's with 2 different drivers taking the same line have completely different results because of driver skill.

You seem to conveniently leave that out of the equation in your argument.
Wrong - on multuiple counts.
First of all the only tire in the air is the drivers side rear, all of the other tires are on hard ground. The passenger side tires are all on hard ground. Secondly, the reason the vehicle is pointed nose down is because it is going down an obstacle, both front tires are on hard ground but the vehicle is pointed downhill. The reason the driver needed to back up was because (due to the spotters mistake)the driver had gone (as directed) too far forward to make the turn to clear the tree as it went down the obstacle. That is why the vehicle had to back up. Since the rear wheel in the air was turning, if it had been contacting the ground instead of airborn, that would have added traction and prevented the vehicle from rolling foward.
You contradict yourslef and make my point about changing your argument.
Now you claim that the rear tire wouldn't have had any traction, but the rear axle is a solid axle, and yuou posted this on the previous page about solid axles and why they are better than IFS
So which is it? The rear tire would have the same traction, if not increased - or no traction at all?

You've changed your argument and contradicted yourself. The solid rear axle with the tire drooping cannot have increased traction and no tractyion at the same time, now can it?

[edited]

I erased my response, because like i said before, I'm done with this.

But if you'd like to learn more on how a leaf spring works, and the way it reacts to different forces and in different hangers, do some web searching for real articles, not just messageboard dribble. The type of connection DOES make a difference in how forces are transmitted. For example, there are two degrees of freedom in a revolver shackle, and only 1 degree of freedom in a regular shackle.

Here, I'll get you started in your educational pursuit:

Leaf Suspension modeling

First... I had great spotting on that leg. Kissing that tree was part and parcel of the hobby and we only found the better line as a result. So, life's good.

Second, I had maybe 2 1/2 tires on the ground and, even with the extra droop, I'm not sure I would have had the extra contact that would have been helpful on backing out. In hindsight, it's possible that I could have backed myself out of that with one more tire touching, but in context of this string, I would rather have more flex on the front than to have had revolvers on the rear. The reason being that I was nose down on that and would have been able to use gravity to help my traction situation.

So, long story short, I think revolvers work if your setup has the ability to pivot with the flex. Without that, the variables increase, which just makes the equation unpredictable.

So, give me less droop and more predictability every day. While I may need to get strapped out sometimes, I'd rather go down giving it a try than to feel the confidence of a setup that may not help me get to a solid footing.

So would a rear locker.
Hi Jeff.

I bring nothing to the table.

Rear locker (aka, the easy button)....

That's on my list.

Great posts. However, common sense is not prevailing on this issue. I've got to give porsche some credit for trying.

These are things that revolvers have been blamed for:

* Ruined leaf springs
* Rollovers
* Body damage
* Spring hanger damage

They have also been almost universally maligned by all respected 4x4 publications.

I understand that they probably have a very slight advantage in certain scenarios. However, on this issue, the cons out weigh the pros by a long shot. I looked into this product about two years ago and decided it would be detrimental to my vehicle.

Revolver Shackles are traditionally misunderstood. Otherwise bright people will insist that a drooped tire with Revolver Shackles has no weight on it, and that Revolvers are just for great RTI scores, but without weight on the tire, the great articulation is just pretty.

To test this question a Nissan Xterra, a 50,000 lb freight scale, and a forklift were used.

The rear tire of the Xterra was placed in the center of the scale and the front tire was lifted in one inch increments, recording the weight on the scale at each given height.

Lifting the front end causes the rear suspension to droop as the front is raised by the fork lift, similar to a rig climbing a rock with the front end, and the rear staying on the ground to push you over the rock, etc…

Performed once with Standard Shackles, and once with Revolver Shackles.

After recording the data a graph was made:




The left side of the chart is the weight (LB) on the freight scale (the tire’s weight available for traction)

The bottom of the chart is the amount the truck was lifted with the fork lift, in inches, to UN-Weight the drooped tire on the scale.

The 0 inch (No droop) numbers were the same, the scale begins at 1”.

Both graphs show approx 1,300 lbs on the rear tire with all tires on the ground.

Both graphs show the rear tire "unweighting" in a fairly linear fashion as the front tire is lifted.

The standard shackle is down to 0 lbs at a front wheel height of approx 19".

At this same height the Revolver setup still had over 400 lbs of weight on the same tire.

The revolver shackle reaches 0 lbs at a front wheel height of approx 24"….5 more inches of droop….WITH weight on the tire.

So the traction of the regular shackle and the Revolver shackle is similar for the first 8” of droop…

At about 8”, the regular shackles’ droop is starting to be resisted by the leaf pack arch, and, the amount of down force it can apply to the tire is less linear, and the tire starts to unweight more sharply.

The Revolver Shackles’ droop stays fairly linear – applying down force to the tire long after the regular shackle’s down force at the tire was zero.

At ~16” of droop, the regular shackle’s down force had dropped to ~ 400 lb, but the Revolver Shackles’ downforce was still ~ 600 lb, about a third more than a regular shackle could provide.

At NO point did the Revolver Shackle provide LESS downforce than the regular shackle, it provided about the same until the regular shackle reached the leaf pack’s arch range….then more and more than the regular shackle could.

As soon as the regular shackle started fighting the leaf pack, the leaf pack started to allow less and less weight on the regular shackles’ drooping tire.

From that point on, the Revolver Shackle provided MORE AND MORE of an improvement in downforce on the drooped tire.

This improvement not only provided more down force as the tire was drooped, it also allowed that traction to be available for more inches of droop, allowing an additional 5” of USEFUL droop over the regular shackles.

Of course, after the added 5” of droop, the leaf pack arch ALSO pulls back the tire for the Revolver Shackle the same way…as its still just a shackle.

If you picture a coil sprung rig with a live axle, the dynamics are similar…

The coil provides less and less down force as the tire droops, but, even when a live axle’d rig is drooped far enough to let the coil fall out, its’ STILL receiving down force at the tire.

A coil sprung rig applies the same down force as a Revolver Shackle, as its still just a drooping live axle that’s not being held back by a leaf pack on droop.

So, a coil sprung live axle should be about the same, or better than a Revolver Shackled live axle, as the physics are about the same as far as tire weighting on droop. (no one worries that their TJ will “unload” on them and flip them, etc…as it just doesn’t happen, just like it doesn’t happen with Revolver Shackles….because the physics don’t make it happen…it’s a myth)



IE:

1) Revolver Shackles add droop, and, add traction during that droop, providing MORE weight on the tire than a regular shackle can.

2) A live axle with Coils, and a live axle with Revolvers, will follow roughly the same physics, as far as axle weighting, under articulation.

3) A leaf spring fights droop once the pack has arched, and is being pulled down by the tire/axle, rather than pushing it down...robbing the tire of traction as droop increases.

4) A regular shackle swings inward to allow the pack to arch more, providing more droop and more weight on the tire.

5) A Revolver Shackle unfolds, and then swings, to perform the exact same function, but over a longer distance, improving droop and tire weighting even further. Note that there was no evidence of a transition from unfolding to swinging inwards in the data, indicating that this doesn't have an impact upon weighting. (Which remained essentially linear)


And, for good measure, the Revolvers also pivot, as do the Alcan Orbit Eyes, etc....to RELIEVE stress on leaf packs.

So, essentially nothing the Revolvers are accused damaging is true....and, every thing they claim to benefit IS true.




The tests were done by MMnIAC at XOC




The above has been universally misunderstood by almost all off road publications, and by many otherwise knowledgeable wheelers.

Facts speak louder than myths, no matter how often the myths are repeated.

Those with the ability to think for themselves can look at the facts, and come to their own conclusions.

Those who can only parrot what they were told will of course continue to repeat the myths.

Nice info