ade

Long Arm reduces the amount of sideways (front to back) travel in the axle as it moves up and down giving a more vertical path to the axle movement.

Mid Arm is basically Stock. Term was first used by Jeep when they came out with the JK as the CAs were longer than those of the TJ. It was then later adopted by lift kit manufactures to indicate a slight increase in CA length to help with geo changes caused by installing a lift.

Ride and wheel travel are mostly controlled by spring and shock selection.

T&ERun

Huh? Funny, I did the same with my TF arms and now my EVO longarms as well. However, I did have to clearance the rear pinch seam/tub on the rear of my JKU as my tires were rubbing there. Still have the front pinch seam though. Like I said, I did this with TF arms and now have EVO longarm.

Invest2m4

You have no idea what you are talking about. Take a geometry class. You don't have clearance issues because you are running a lot of bump stop. The arc of the axle is the same regardless of lift height. Their 1" stretch has nothing to do with it.

Best lift on the market? Please expand on that. I'd like to know what exactly makes it the best. Do you even know what material the control arms are made from, their OD and ID? Compare and contrast the joints vs. other manufacturers. Is it possible that the reason they make a slightly longer arm because they use an inferior shank size on their joints of 1" vs. competitors who use 1-1/4"? Is the endless iterations of their joints due to continued innovation or chronic issues that have plagued earlier joints?

ade

The 1" stretch has nothing to do with arc of axle or lift height??

DEADGUY11

I've had the older style rk joints on my rig for 80k+ without failure or play as of yet. Rk builds a complete lift that flat out works together seamlessly. What actually changes in the geometry (from stock or no stretch to rk stretch) of the suspension if all the parts compensate for said stretch? The fact that the 1" stretch in the rear centers the tire in the wheel well is enough for me. Plus it hasn't caused any issues as of yet and I doubt it will.

Invest2m4

I wasn't clear. Use a stock jk as the example. Where is the rear axle relative to the wheel well? It is centered. If you add some lift, what happens at ride height? The axle sits slightly forward of center. Is the correct solution to lengthen the arm? What happens as the suspension compresses? It travels the same arc it always did and is centered when compressed. That is ideal for anyone who wheels and flexes their suspension. Lengthen the rear and compress, you run into clearance issues as the axle is behind center during compression. Search for threads about people who have issues with the track bar and rear pinch seam.

So, why does the RK mini stretch often times work? Because the user adds a ton of bump stop, thereby limiting the compression of the suspension and theoretically moving the max of the arc on the x-axis.

What does that mean? If it works, then you got the RK high center of gravity lift with less than ideal geometry compensation arms. Congrats.

Invest2m4

I'm not knocking on RK, just challenging the statement that it is the best. See my other comment regarding the stretch.

Rock Krawler Suspension

To the OP, mid arms are a great way to go on a JK. As others have said the mid arm is more of a term that came about because the JK's control arms are longer out of the box then the TJ/LJ's ever were. There is a huge difference in ride quality when lifting a vehicle when the control arms are 16" long (factory TJ) vs 40" long (our TJ front lower long arms). The JK being a longer arm factory allows you to maintain very good ride quality when lifting it up to a certain lift height. But the jump from a mid arm kit to a long arm kit, roughly 23" to 34" means that there isn't as big of a disjunct between the two setups on a JK as there had been on ti's. That being said a long arm will provide a slightly better ride as well as a little more ability to articulate without axle steer and things of that nature as some have hinted to. Our long arms will also gain you some ground clearance over mid arm or even other long arm kits because of our high clearance bends in the arms.

Design has a lot to do with why we do things how we do them. As far as a 1" shank joint being "inferior" this is not quite the case. The way we design our arms we do not rely on hanging a joint very far outside of the arm like others may. So where some need a larger joint shank because of what they're asking it to do we do not. This being said we have recently released a 1.25" shank Krawler Joint and they come standard in all of our long arm kits. We also do like to revise our parts as time goes on because if there is a way for us to better an idea we want to take advantage of it! We feel this keeps us and our products at the top of our game.

RK

Maertz

Exactly my point. Well said sir.

Invest2m4

I don't think manufacturers that use 1-1/4" shanks do it to let it "hang out more." It does allow for that, however the logic is greater adjustability. The rear on a 2-door is a great example. A person with an aftermarket driveshaft will need a shorter lower arm while a person with a stock shaft needs longer. The 1-1/4" offers more adjustability. It safely allows for more variance.

And let's be honest, a 1" shank is a minority in the offroad community.