TJ, hasn't your truck been down since October?

September actually...had to stop the repair process when the wife's paralysis and brain seizures took up all my time, etc....but we have more rigs at work.

We just picked up another Fronty.

Yes we have.

We figured out that you base your conclusions on superstition and intuition. You have defended your position by condescending and insulting those who disagree.

You just stated that you wheel every day and then two sentences later admitted that your truck has been down for 9 months. The more I have read your posts over the years, the less I believe.

I am sorry if you have had some unfortunate circumstances. Best of luck in your personal/family life.

.....

This ain't rocket science, so no more 1000 word posts are required.

Revolver shackles:

* Ruin leaf packs and spring hangers
* Cause rollovers
* Do not provide useful flex
* Tend to unlod at the worst possible time
* Can cause extrememly dangerous characteristics during road maneuvering

Cut the crap already.

Small problem - by reducing the Coeffecient of Froction you reduce traction and increase slippage - we all understand this.
You will get to 50 mph on dry pavement sooner than on snow, and stop in a shorter distance. No one debates that at all.
However, without changing anything about the vehicle - at 50 mph the stopping distance will remain constant for a vehicle. If you make a chenge to the vehicle, the stopping distance may change, but will again remain a constant until anopther variable changes.

So why do I mention this: because you contend the RTI video experiment is worthless because it was done on pavement.

Repeat the RTI experiment on dirt (.3 CoF) and you are right, the X will not go as far up the ramp as it does on asphalt (.8 CoF)
However, that is true for both shackles.
That is because the CoF changes between the tires independantly of the shackle - so the stock shackle and the revolver shackle both have a lower CoF which means both will lose traction sooner and both will go a short distance up the RTI ramp.
Since the shackle was the only difference in the video, we know that the Revolver shackle goes farther up the RTI ramp than the Stock shackle under the same conditions, thus the Revolver shackle will go farther up the RTI ramp than the Stock shckle on the same surface.

So your argument that a Revolver4 shackle reduces traction is Bullshit. Saying your coparing a spring pack to shackles is also lame - especially since you said Revolvers reduce traction a number of times.

BTW JeffW - I like how you keep repeating eveything as if it is fact.
Reminds me of the President and how he reatedly said Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction and was working with Al Qaeda. He also said that he had lots of evidence to proove his argument - which we've still never seen.
Say it enough times, it still doesn't make it true, despite the number of people who will begin to repeat what you post as if it is.

Oh, and anyone can post anything on the internet...internet sources (especially .com) of information aren't necessarily realible or true.

I'm glad you like it.

If you guys are gonna post 9000 pages of BS, I just wanted to make sure that there was small smattering of the truth.

A quote from a hard-core wheeler who briefly ran them:

Other quotes off Pirate:

You forgot this one-
See, :rolleyes: it's easy to type shit out between quote marks.. Let it go man, let it go.

Oh good, more solid evidence from JeffW... :rolleyes:

One is from an Anonymous wheeler from an anonymous source.

And some quotes off of Pirate. Oh those guys are experts about everything fourwheeling. I remember my favorite quote from them, one about 3 or 4 years ago where they said every Xterra owner are Latte drinking, mall running, grocery getting idiots who don't know the first thing about offroading - accompanied by a video of a first time wheeler in their Xterra as the proof for their statement. :rolleyes:

I guess that part about evaluating your sources really struck home with you, now didn't it? :rolleyes:

Those are real quotes. That thread is active within the last 24 hours (I started it to get some "fresh" responses). The sources can be taken at face value. As far as I can tell the posts came from knowledgeable folks. Anybody else is welcome to join in over there.

I'll shut up because you asked me to, Dan.

Ugg... This is what happens when something tries to be explained in simple terms... Somebody will find "fault" with the explanation, because it's not completed.

It's YOUR fault I'm about to put the better part of the known world to sleep in what follows below. I hope your f*ing proud... You brought this on yourself.

Given:

Rig A:

5" leaf pack droop travel beyond the "at rest" position.
5" travel from revolver shackle opening up.

Rig B:

10" leaf pack droop travel beyond the "at rest" position, attched with a standard shackle.

Items of interest:

Both rigs have the exact same tires, open differentials, are the same make/model, have equal lift heights, and are driven by the same driver: Goofy.

So Goofy goes out and gets himself into a position where both front tires are on the ground. His rear axle, however, has a rock on the passenger side, pushing that side tire up. The driver's side is drooping into a hole, so far that the leaf suspension is completely at it's lowest position.

Here's what happens to the leaf suspension vs. traction, as the driver's side drops.

When the passenger side tire gets pushed up onto the rock, there is a traction increase (due to leverage) on the driver's side. This increase will be evident for as long as the leaf spring is in it's range of motion. The leaf spring has a particular spring rate (I'm sorry; I can't compare "progressive" springs in this explanation because they are just too complex, and too many variables) through it's range of motion.

As soon as the leaf spring passes through it's neutral point, it is subracting down force (it's pulling upwards), thereby reducing traction available.

To make life easier, we'll throw some numbers in so it makes since.

We'll estimate that there is 1000 lbs force downward on the wheel when the truck is at rest (800 lbs of vehicle weight, 200 lbs of tire/axle weight), and if the passenger side adds another 100 lbs force, then when the leaf is at it's neutral axis, it has 1000+200 = 1,200 lbs of downforce at this point.

We also know that a REVOLVER shackle will not open up unless there is no weight of the truck pushing it closed. A revolver only opens up when the weight of the tire and axle alone can pull it downwards. As TJ says, and I don't disagree, the revolver is not "spring-loaded". It doesn't unload at random; all the weight of the vehicle has to be off, and the axle/tire combination has to be in a position to PULL it downwards/open.

When a leaf spring has passed the neutral axis, it is pulling UP on the tire/axle combination. When the leaf spring has reached it's final droop point, it is pulling up on the tire/axle as much as it ever can; it has reached it's maximum negative (upwards) force.

Anybody that's ever been to this point can tell you that once a leaf spring gets to that point, that's all she wrote for traction. At this point in time, the leaf spring is pulling up at a value that negates the force from the fulcrum, and the weight of the tire. If it weren't negating that force, it wouldn't be at it's farthest droop limit; the two points coincide. And finally, the weight of the truck is completely gone at this point as well, elsewise the suspension couldn't be maxed out in droop.

So to summarize, when the leaf spring reaches it's final suspension droop limit, there is no further downwards force being applied. Force at this point equals 0.

Now in Rig 2, from the point of neutral to the point of full droop (10 inches) of the leaf spring, using our numbers means for every 1 inch of droop, there's a loss of down-force equal to 1/10th of 1200, or 120 lbs. Take in mind, the frame of reference is the SPRING.

If you look at the down-force in table format:

Droop Downforce Remaining
0 1200 lbs
1" 1080 lbs
2" 960 lbs
3" 840 lbs
4" 720 lbs
5" 600 lbs
6" 480 lbs
7" 360 lbs
8" 240 lbs
9" 120 lbs
>10" 0 lbs

But what happens in a revolver? Why is is so special/different? Because the point that it loses traction is much, much sooner than the leaf setup.

From the analysis from before, when the leaf spring reaches it's farthest droop point, it's got 0 weight of downforce acting on it. This setup loses traction twice as fast as just the leaf spring setup (in our example) becuase the downforce at the spring has to equal 0 in only 5" of droop. Looking at the revolver's table, the reduction of force is:

Droop Downforce remaining
0 1200 lbs
1" 960 lbs
2" 720 lbs
3" 480 lbs
4" 240 lbs
5" 0 lbs

But wait. What happens for the remaining 5" of traction??? It can't be 0 lbs completely, because the weight of the tire and axle is still there, causing the revolver to open up. Very carefully, read this sentence. Don't go any farther until you understand what I'm saying. The frame of reference for down-force is the spring, as the Rig 2 has a spring, and Rig 1 has two components (spring AND hinged shackle). So far, we were looking at the force at THIS point of reference. The remaining 5" of travel the revolver has only has 1 force acting on it, ever, the weight of the tire/axle. The tables are now going to be "revised" to show the force AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TIRE, and not at the leaf spring:

Droop Rig 1 Force Rig 2 Force
0 1200 # 1200 #
1" 960 # 1080 #
2" 720 # 960 #
3" 480 # 840 #
4" 240 # 720 #
5" 200 #* 600 #
6" 200 # 480 #
7" 200 # 360 #
8" 200 # 240 #
9" 200 # 120 #
>10" 0 # 0 #

Some of you will be able to read those tables, and descriptions, and realize what I'm saying. Some of you will get lost in either the explanation, or the math, or both. But my point is, a REVOLVER shackle causes traction loss far sooner than an equivalent leaf pack, because of their design for how they get their travel.

The reason why the surface makes such a big difference, is there is a fixed friction force that has to be overcome to make the rig move, and that's universal regardless of what surface it's on, because that's the friction needed from the tire to vehicle interface, and not the tire to ground interface. It's not an airplane; the moving force has to come from the tire to surface contact; not outside engine thrust. That's very basic physics. I don't know what that number is; I will be flat-out shocked if anybody even knows what that number is.

But let's look at what happens to the tables when you consider Asphalt friction (0.8 coeff.) and Dirt friction (0.3 coeff.). Below are the tables, again, only with friction forces and not just down-wards force applied:

Droop Asphalt Dirt
Rig 1 Rig 2 Rig 1 Rig 2
0 960# 960# 360# 360#
1" 768# 864# 288# 324#
2" 576# 768# 216# 288#
3" 384# 672# 144# 252#
4" 192# 576# 72# 216#
5" 160# 480# 60# 180#
6" 160# 384# 60# 144#
7" 160# 288# 60# 108#
8" 160# 192# 60# 72#
9" 160# 96# 60# 36#
>10" 0 0 0 0

Let's look at the table for just a bit, then I'll shut up about it... Here are my conclusions:

IF it only takes 60 lbs of friction force of the tire to push the truck in the dirt, then in this example, a Revolver would have no drawback.

However, if it takes, say 200 lbs, then the Revolver's extra flex is completely useless, because the slippage occurs between only 2" and 3" of droop in Rig 1. But Rig 2 droops to between 4" and 5".

I don't know what the "magic number" is for how much friction is required to get the rig to move. That depends on a lot of things; loading of the rig, wheelbase, angle of the incline, etc. But it doesn't depend on the surface; the friction required to move is something inherent in the rig, and can only change when the loading of the rig changes, or the angle changes.

The friction of the tire to surface has to supply enough traction to overcome whatever that number is. Because unfortunately, this isn't like the airplane situation, and you do have to deal with two seperate force calcs to figure out how it'll be able to move.

Personally, I think my loading values were assumed too low. I also have a hunch it takes a helluva' lot more than 200 lbs of friction force available to get the rig to move. I know this, because my own personal weight ain't gonna' be enough to move the truck up a hill if I lean on it...

The tables very clearly show, though, how important it is to compare revolvers on a PARTICULAR rig, and not assume they are worthless/good on all rigs. The lighter the rig, the better/closer they will be to a proper leaf pack in the traction available.

I realize I have to revise my thinking, slightly, now that I've ran the tables. I admit, now, that in the last couple inches of travel, the revolver actually has MORE traction available than the leaf spring alone, if all the numbers are true. However, the HEAVIER a rig is, the closer the numbers are in this particular range, and since I think my weight numbers are estimated pretty light, that differece may be a wash. I don't know. But I do have to admit that in the last little bit of travel, the revolver will have a smidge more traction.

But the thing is, though, if it takes more than just some fat-ass leaning into the truck to make it move, then you won't even get to that point of usefullness, because once the tire starts to slip, it's over...

And the revolver setup loses traction at a MUCH higher pace than Rig 2. Hell, look at 5" down... On the dirt, Rig 2 has 3 TIMES the amount of available traction.... Again, pointless information if that's not enough to make the rig move, anyways, but still significant enough to mention...

And my FINAL note:

TJ: QUIT MAKING ME AGREE WITH JEFF ON SOMETHING!!! IT'S IRATATING! THE GUY SHOOTS FROM THE HIP TOO DYAM MUCH FOR ANYONE TO FOLLOW HIS ARGUEMENTS!! SO CAN WE please ARGUE SOMETHING WHERE HE AGREES WITH YOU NEXT TIME??

Porsche - LOL

Hey, when Jeff agrees with you, you have to look carefully at your opinion....I couldn't help you there....Jeff's silly spew was the shot across your bow that warned you something might be amiss.



Your analysis is getting there...and, is now essentially saying something similar to what I said initially.

If you add a correction factor to your calculations, I think you can go the rest of the way...

Do the same chart for the OTHER 3 tires...as, if one tire is unweighted, obviously, the weight is now on the other tire(s).

If you weight them based upon the same math you used to make the 1 tire chart, not weight them based on proportioning the remaining weight, you'll get what you're looking for.

By adding the weight distribution for each of the other 3 tires, so that you have a chart with the weight on all 4 tires, individually....each arrived at independantly, you will see the rest of the picture...and, it will provide a given weight that you can use to standardize, so that the total weights on the 4 tires equals the total weight of the truck.

I really appreciate your open mindedness and scientific approach to the problem solving...its refreshing to see someone willing to think, instead of merely trolling.

And, as requested, I will stop referring to you as agreeing with Jeff...I know how hard that is to take.

Dammit!

Sorry, Dan. I am not gonna take this crap from this clown. 2 more posts. Perhaps it's gettin' to be ALR time!

Your posts show that despite the fact you're nearly twice my age you lack the maturity precisely the High School Physics students you should be taking advice from.

All of the necessary informaation has already been posted and the one who's been trolling is you, TJ. Your 9000 word posts don't say a thing and are full of the same condescension and insults that I called you out on earlier. It doesn't matter how many little smilies you throw in there, you are still being an obstinate and insolent schmuck. You sit there, cultivating your ridiculous superstition without trying to understand the very simple concepts presented to you by two degreed engineers.

I will post a graph of exactly what porsche is trying to get through your thick skull. I encourage you, in the meantime, to brush up on your Algebra I and perhaps Precaculus. After that you can go back to your 9000 word bullsh1t posts.

Except, TJ, that loading the other 3 tires doesn't matter, unless you're locked. If you're open, as soon as 1 loses traction, it's over for that axle, and it's not doing anything for you anymore.

And very, very rarely is it going to be the front axle that pulls you through something when the rear has no traction at all; that's why it's 4WD, and not 2WD... 'Cause you actually need all 4 of them, not just 2.

Porsche -

I know, but the point is not that, its to provide a correction factor...

If you independantly calculate the weight on each tire, and see if it adds up to the total weight on the rig.

As the coefficient of friction times the weight on the tire equals the propulsive force it can apply before slipping, it will help to derive the answer we were seeking...how much downforce do you need to push the truck.

Obviously, you sweated some details, and saw that each suspension type has optimum ranges...and are interested in what the limiting factor is in determining the point of diminishing return for tire weighting.

I think that this will allow us to see it.

This is of course possible because we have evolved from whether a revolver provides ANY down force when unfolded a bit, etc...and we can now look at traction from a universal perspective...

Something that will work for any suspension, as far as tire weighting required to move forward, etc.

I have some data on this from work, but I'm not in the office...

But, roughly...to roll at a constant velocity (not slip), if

v = velocity
R = radius
w = angular velocity
f = frictional force
N = normal force

v = Rw

If its not a split mu surface, the open diff is typically ok...unless the drooped tire slips, and for the LSD rear, if the breakk away torque is reached, etc.

I think we can figure out what would slip from there.

Whatcha think?



The simple leverage for the axle, even if there were NO dropped side suspension connections at all...just a disconnected axle sticking out from the stuffed side works out to almost 600 lb of down force, not counting the weight of the axle, tire and leaf pack...that's assuming about 15" from the stuffed tire edge to the center of the stuffed leaf pack...and that 2,500 lbs (A 1/4 of a 5k lb truck...) was resting on the one stuffed leaf...

...That leverage would work by taking the force on the stuffed side leaf, and applying the mechanical advantage of the lever arm created by the axle.

It would be like Jeff was laying on the ground, with his head under one end of a steel girder....and the other end was supported by an equal sized rock...

...And I placed a 2,500 lb weight on the girder about 45" from his head, closer to the rock....

That's about the force on Jeff's head....which appears rock like, so I'm sure he'll be fine.



So, that's at least 500+ lbs of leverage forcing the axle down on the drooped side, no matter what suspension was there...PLUS the weights of the axle, tire and leaf pack, rear drive shaft, etc...lets say a MINIMUM of 800 lbs or so.

I think the drooped tire will slip, even with the pathetic Nissan LSD, as soon as it loses a decent amount of traction, which I think will be long before the revolver reaches it's full droop limit.

I know what you're saying about the increase in traction at the other corners, but it's really only an increase in traction at the other axle, because whatever tire is on the same axle as the revolver shackle, is not going to be able to use the increase with an open diff, or even an LSD, because the drooped will start slipping, and that's the end of the game.

Now we're just splitting hairs. We're just in disagreement with whatever the theoretical value of force it takes to get the truck to move.

We can solve this really quickly, though. Go offroading with Jeff. Park your X on a steep incline, and have him stand behind you and put all his weight against the rear hatch, pushing you uphill. Then let off the brake. If he can push it uphill, then it only takes a few hundred pounds of force to get you moving. If he gets flattened like a pancake, then I was right, and the discussion is over.

(Ironic, isn't it, that in order for you to be right, Jeff has to live. And for me to be right, he has to be smushed. Sorry, Jeff; no offense. It's just the way things worked out.)

Yeah, we're on the same page.

This has been funny! But why don't we show the people that want to use them, how to make them work better?

This is how I stopped the unloading. Run a limiting strap in the middle. Set the limiting strap just long enough that it stops the axle just before the revolvers open. Under hard braking there is no way they can open. But as they flex it will not be hindered by the strap ( I've checked).
Now, to stop the ( lost ) traction. A cheap pair of airshocks have a surprising 11" of travel ( 15.5" closed, 26.5" open ). When set-up they have a single inlet ( great for off-roading, NOT good for on-road). The shocks always try to give 50/50 pressure, forcing the tire to the ground.
On road, run the shocks with separate inlets ( no air transfer ). Gives the truck a lot of stability.
Just don't overinflate them. Not good for the mounts.

Much better.

But still not true.

Slippage is determined by weight on the tire vs coefficient of friction. That means that a "revolved" axle half (-w- tire and wheel) has about the pushing force of a 200# man, at best (that's being generous). I've never seen a 200# man push anybody out of a real jam on the trails. Neither will a "deployed" revolver.

I think you mean this:

Big if.....

I still have to post that graph. Haven't had time yet.

......

Ok, the dashed line is standard ride height. The weight is weight exerted against the spring by the axle. The "unload" point is labeled. The graphs wer done without regard to spring rate and are for illustration purposes. The "unload" part is what I don't like.....



No, it's quite clear to me. It's not something I plan on modeling further, though. The non-linear characteristic should be enough of an eye-opener for most science-saavy folks. Most people will undestand that that point occurs at the worst possible time for a rig that is on off-camber terrain. This unloading has been observed and documented numerous times over the course of several years.

That is correct...not slipping means constant velocity in this case...as if the tire pushing slipped, the velocity would decrease.

So V = Rw as I stated, under the conditions that we are both discussing...as if the tire slips....then its not rolling at a contant velocity, and its WHEN it slips that is of interest.



What is happening at the pictured "unloading point" that you don't like is unclear...it seems to be at the end of the droop, far after the regular shackle lost ground contact anyway...

....plus, the graph does not show any reduction in downforce on the regular shackle, as the leaf starts to hold it up, rather than push it down...as the progressive loss of leaf pressure happens rather soon in the droop cycle.



Of course...the angle would play some roll in the lever action...as the weight on the stuffed side spring is also pushing down the drooped tire as well.

As I am primarily comparing the Revolver to a regular lift shackle...and at the same points...the regular shackle is losing or is out of down force before the Revolver...but, is getting the same leverage that the revolver is getting as far as that stuffed leaf pack's push, etc...

...its just fighting that force, because the regular lift shackle's drooped leaf is pulling back up on the drooping tire on the way to its full droop.

I'd like to take a fork lift and a truck scale, and just plop the X on it one corner at a time...lift the front tires to droop the rears, and see what the real #'s are.

The other Myth we could then kill is the one about any old live axle, like the 2 the jeeps come with...having no down force on the drooped tire unless the coil spring is reaching all the way at full droop.

Its pretty much the same principle.

Excuse me for replying with out reading all 10 pages.
On traction:
The wieght of the tire and axle will provide limited traction, not normal traction. However with standard shackles this tire would be in the air free wheeling.

Revolvers are an improvement for traction.

On "unloading":
You say in theory its dangerous.
I say I did it and it did work without issues.
I will say it does handle different, like any suspension mod would do.
Lets go for a ride and you tell me when the revolvers "unload" and we are flung from the earth.
The above graph has a problem also, the straight drop would only happen if all the sudden the ground dissapeared.
The axle will not drop any faster than you drive up a hill/rock/stump/ramp.
The only way you will flip is if your center of gravity is high enough to flip you before the revolver begins to articulate. The only stability loss you get is the loss of the counter weight of one tire and half an axle. If the stability is that bad, I think its time to reconsider the line you are taking.

Revolvers are slightly more tipsy, but only because their range is greater. Over the same articulation range they are no different.

On damaged equipment:
Its not a drop in and you're done mod. There are limiter straps or diveline and shock mods needed.

If set up corectly revolvers will not damage your vehicle.

If I can fill in the part you didn't read...

...the leaf packs ALSO do not press the tire down the way people seem to think they do...they support the weight of the truck, but, as the tire falls away on droop...

...the amount of pressure that the leaf pack is providing drops dramatically...and, not only is the leaf pack NOT pressing the tire down hard as the tire reaches full droop, it is actually PULLING THE TIRE UP near the end of travel...

...as its that PULL that is what STOPS the droop...the last few inches of down travel, the tire is UNWEIGHTED by the pull of the leaves (For a regular shackle).

So, the loss in traction for a regular shackle is not linear as shown...it would be a decreasing radius arc representing an initial down force the same as the revolver...with a dramatic drop in traction for a few inches until the suspension hit the neutral point -

- and the regular shackle would swing in...and the weight of the tire and axle is all that's pulling the tire down, AGAINST the pull of the leaves.

MOST of the down force, for BOTH regular and Revolver shackle suspensions, is due to the LEVERAGE of the live axle...

...with the stuffed or upper tire acting as a fulcrum, the stuffed or upper leaf pack acting as the down force....and the drooped/ lower tire exerting the transmitted force downwards at the end of the lever arm.

There really is no such thing as unloading unique to Revolvers, it was part of the misinterpretation by the people accidentally perpetrating the Myths.

BOTH types of shackle "unweight" at one point...the regular shackles swing when the tire/axle pull them down...the Revolver unfolds...its the same action, in response to the same forces.

The graph does not SHOW the unweighting of the regular shackle of course...but, it does occur...you can watch a regualr shackle swing on droop very easily.

As a truck goes over terrain, you can see the regular shackle swing back and forth in response...as the suspension is loaded and unloaded.

If a regular shackled truck is going down a steep hill, and the balance of weight is transferred to the down hill end...you can see the regular shackles swing in as the weight comes off....and, if the truck were to slow too abruptly, you can see the rear tires even leave the ground...transferring even more weight forward, etc.



The primary differences in traction attributes are that:

1. The regular shackle swings when unweighted. (Unloading)

2. The Revolver Shackle unfolds when unweighted.

3. The regular shackle suspension, when unweighted, is also pulled down by the axle and tire, but pulled UP by the leaf pack.

4. The Revolver Shackle suspension, when unweighted, is also pulled down by the axle and tire ...AND LEAF PACK, ...and is NOT pulled up by the leaf pack....until it too reaches the limit of the shackle swing....several inches further down.

Other than the above, the two suspensions are pretty similar on droop.

BOTH - just like any lift mod, raise the center of gravity and require longer shocks and or other adjustments to take advantage of the longer travel.

If you get a regular lift shackle type 3" suspension lift, and don't get longer shocks, brake lines, breather tubes, etc,...you can break the these on droop.

If you get a longer flexy leaf pack...you can get the same travel as with the revolvers...and would need to make sure the shocks and drive shaft, brake line, breather tubes, etc...will still reach.

IE: Other than the tires staying on the ground longer, and providing traction over a longer range of articulation for the Revolvers, a regular and Revolver shackled suspension will be comparable.

I find the PRIMARY advantage to the Revolver is that I can get the TRAVEL and ARTICULATION normally requiring a taller lift, without the corrusponding increase on COG....and WITH the ability to use a stiffer leaf pack for better load carrying capacity.

TJ: FYI: A regular shackle does not swing due to unloading of weight. It swings due to length changes of the spring pack as it flexes. If there were no length changes, a leaf spring pack would be connected rigidly at both ends; the shackle would not be needed.

Yes it does...(Respond to weighting) - the REASON the leaf wants to shorten/arc, after it reaches its resting position...is BECAUSE the tire/axle is pulling it down.

If the ends are ridgedly connected, it would be all but impossible to have droop past the resting (Relaxed) position...the swing inwards allows both the arc end distances to change during flex up, and down.

If a shackle doesn't allow movement of the leaf, it can't flex...as you correctly described....

...The more the shackle can move, the more the leaf can flex....and ALL the flex is in PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE to weighting.

(If the leaf has less weight on it, it curls towards its resting position...if it has more weight on it...it flattens away from its resting position...If the leaf is pulled down by the weight of the dangling suspension...is arcs PAST its resting position, etc.)

As the leaf pack curls, the shackle swings in...because the ends of the leaves are pulling closer to each other as the center is lowered (Droop).



The point at which we do a shackle bolt change is when the shackle is unweighted...that point at which there is no weight on the shackle, and, no pull down by the suspension...its at its neutral point.

A regular shackle, and a Revolver shackle, BOTH have this neutral point...that's how we install them for example...when they are unweighted.

The amount of droop to REACH that point is the only difference, all else being equal.

Ummm, so the question was....

do they work or not????

LOL just messing... man i read through this post and I feel like my brain is going to explode... I guess thats why my degree is in economics and not physics, or engineering!!

Great info though guys... you really put some of this engineering stuff into perspective. Now I know why aftermarket/OEM parts cost so much!

I'm not going to argue with you on this one, TJ. But you're over-analyzing the simpleness of the regular shackle. Once again, you're turning something simple into something more complicated than it needs to be. And bastardizing the process/explanation by making it longer than necessary to justify your position.

Simply put: you're wrong. Get over it.