Metalcloak Thread
12-15-2013, 07:40 AM
#691
JK Junkie
Yeah I had them check everything. They even had a second guy come over to double check because they couldn't believe it was right on. He confirmed.
12-15-2013, 07:59 AM
#692
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Clawson, MI
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this thread has been more specific to the suspension/lift kits but I figured I would share this too. I had a few issues with my metalcloak overland fenders which I posted about earlier in this thread and I was contacted by Matson of Metalcloak after he saw it here. I shared some info and a few pics of my issue with them so that maybe they could improve the product. Well fast forward six weeks later and now my fenders are already showing rust. I paid alot extra to have Metalcloak powdercoat these to hopefully slow down the rust from setting in. I have other products from other companies that have survived three new england winters with no rust problems at all. I am disappointed given that these front fenders were close to $800.00 with shipping and powdercoat. Come on 6 weeks? I have the rears on order with Northridge and hope these things hold up. All in $1300 <img src="https://www.jk-forum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=516925"/> <img src="https://www.jk-forum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=516926"/> between front and rear so it's a bit concerning being in the Northeast with all the road salt used here. Especially when this happened almost immediately after our first road salting. Why have my other powdercoated products held up in the same evironment?
12-15-2013, 08:15 AM
#693
I know they don't sell the fenders plated, but it would be nice if they offered them. You can always paint them later what ever color you like. I use Rustoleum truck bed liner because it blends well when you need to touch up.
Sent from my wiz-bang time killing machine
12-15-2013, 08:17 AM
#694
JK Junkie
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 36* N
Posts: 2,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That rust problem is present on my TJ overline flares too. The jeep was involved in an accident and had one of the flares replaced.....guess what.....it rusted too. I think it was closer to $1800 for the flares on the TJ to see the same rust.
Design flaw? I think so. There's got to be a better way to coat, even if it's just the spots that are prone to rust.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk
Design flaw? I think so. There's got to be a better way to coat, even if it's just the spots that are prone to rust.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk
12-16-2013, 05:27 AM
#696
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Torrington CT
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they have a good reason for running different roll center heights. Just because they don't have a "kit" to raise the track bar and drag link (obviously they must go up by the same amount) doesn't mean it's wrong or right. If you want to do that, there are already existing kits to help you do it. Generally speaking, no it wouldn't be a bad idea. As long as you address the clearance/up travel issues of moving the track bar and drag link up then there really are no disadvantages to having a flatter operating angle and higher roll center.
With not raising the front, you get a positive roll axis (line between front and rear RC). With MC's high rear RC, you get a very steep roll axis. This will cause the jeep to understeer in a corner when the body rolls (roll understeer). While that might sound "bad", roll understeer is managable. Raising the front and not the rear gives roll oversteer (negative roll axis). This is bad. It is very unmanagable and unpredicatble.
Also keep in mind that on a 2 door, since the wheelbase is shorter changes in RC height front and rear have a greater effect; the roll axis will be steeper on a 2 door with raised rear and stock front than a 4 door. The effects will be more felt on road.
So, given the firm front factory sway bars, I would venture a pretty educated guess that MC does not raise the front in their kit to preserve uptravel and lessen the need for bumpstops while sacrificing managable steering loss in cornering, and raises the rear significantly to gain some stability improvements. That does not mean you can't raise the front if you wish and your setup allows it.
....."track bar .... there is not a better method to do those things".
Well... how about double triangulated 4 Link? -- better than the arms and track bar together.
I presume you have never driven a Jeep with CRC Link, otherwise you wouldn't be so sure that "track bar .... there is not a better method to do those things".
No matter what you do with the track bar, the axle keeps moving sideways.
For the vast majority, double triangulated 4 Link is too much of an overkill.
With the CRC Link, the roll center is constant, the sideways movement is zero.
Well... how about double triangulated 4 Link? -- better than the arms and track bar together.
I presume you have never driven a Jeep with CRC Link, otherwise you wouldn't be so sure that "track bar .... there is not a better method to do those things".
No matter what you do with the track bar, the axle keeps moving sideways.
For the vast majority, double triangulated 4 Link is too much of an overkill.
With the CRC Link, the roll center is constant, the sideways movement is zero.
I'm going to argue with the "constant" roll center and say no. It is fixed to the axle. As the axle cycle the roll center changes, same as a trackbar. What constant is the center position of the RC, and axle itself. It does not "shift" side to side. But I would also argue that on the road that "shifting" would be neglegable at your common bump amplitude.
The length of the rear trackbar especially is long enough that when set flat or close to flat the axle will "shift" laterally by fractions of an inch on common bumps in the road. This is not something the driver will notice.
Last edited by JKred; 12-16-2013 at 05:31 AM.
12-16-2013, 06:29 AM
#697
JK Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would venture a guess that MC does not raise the front RC (Trackbar and Draglink) in an effort to preserve uptravel. Their kit, shocks, and fenders work together to give you the most travel without "excessive" bumpstops and factory brackets. Like Imped said, doesn't make it wrong or right. 3" of front bump is required with raised/flipped front RC and steering. Or you can notch the frame and preserve your uptravel.
With not raising the front, you get a positive roll axis (line between front and rear RC). With MC's high rear RC, you get a very steep roll axis. This will cause the jeep to understeer in a corner when the body rolls (roll understeer). While that might sound "bad", roll understeer is managable. Raising the front and not the rear gives roll oversteer (negative roll axis). This is bad. It is very unmanagable and unpredicatble.
Also keep in mind that on a 2 door, since the wheelbase is shorter changes in RC height front and rear have a greater effect; the roll axis will be steeper on a 2 door with raised rear and stock front than a 4 door. The effects will be more felt on road.
So, given the firm front factory sway bars, I would venture a pretty educated guess that MC does not raise the front in their kit to preserve uptravel and lessen the need for bumpstops while sacrificing managable steering loss in cornering, and raises the rear significantly to gain some stability improvements. That does not mean you can't raise the front if you wish and your setup allows it.
With not raising the front, you get a positive roll axis (line between front and rear RC). With MC's high rear RC, you get a very steep roll axis. This will cause the jeep to understeer in a corner when the body rolls (roll understeer). While that might sound "bad", roll understeer is managable. Raising the front and not the rear gives roll oversteer (negative roll axis). This is bad. It is very unmanagable and unpredicatble.
Also keep in mind that on a 2 door, since the wheelbase is shorter changes in RC height front and rear have a greater effect; the roll axis will be steeper on a 2 door with raised rear and stock front than a 4 door. The effects will be more felt on road.
So, given the firm front factory sway bars, I would venture a pretty educated guess that MC does not raise the front in their kit to preserve uptravel and lessen the need for bumpstops while sacrificing managable steering loss in cornering, and raises the rear significantly to gain some stability improvements. That does not mean you can't raise the front if you wish and your setup allows it.
12-16-2013, 06:30 AM
#698
JK Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to the track bar and bracket.....
Take a look at a stock JK track bar at stock height. It's not level to the ground but rather slopes down toward the axle.
When you go up 3.5", the operating angle of the track bar is increased and the roll center height goes unchanged. Once the track bar at the axle is raised 3.5", you're back to "baseline." The track bar is still not level to the ground but the roll center : COG height ratio is very similar to stock.
MC chose that particular bracket height to provide the user with a level track bar at ride height. This allows the least amount of lateral shift during articulation and linear travel, the benefits of which should be obvious to those in this section. That bracket also raises the roll center height above the factory baseline, providing more responsive and flatter cornering on the road and more stability off the road.
Just because everyone else provides a bracket to correspond the roll center height increase with the coil spring height increase doesn't mean going higher is a bad thing. When designing a custom rear suspension that uses a track bar, two of the major common goals are to orient the link flat at ride height and to maximize the roll center height. This isn't an uncommon practice in the world of custom suspensions but seems to be less common in the off-the-shelf market. MC is simply providing the best possible solution.
As for any concerns over clearance, the bends in the track bar clear the diff and the exhaust. Having a solid chromolly adjustable track bar with good ends, bends to clear any possible interference scenario sitting level at ride height with a > stock roll center height is about the best solution one could ask for.
Take a look at a stock JK track bar at stock height. It's not level to the ground but rather slopes down toward the axle.
When you go up 3.5", the operating angle of the track bar is increased and the roll center height goes unchanged. Once the track bar at the axle is raised 3.5", you're back to "baseline." The track bar is still not level to the ground but the roll center : COG height ratio is very similar to stock.
MC chose that particular bracket height to provide the user with a level track bar at ride height. This allows the least amount of lateral shift during articulation and linear travel, the benefits of which should be obvious to those in this section. That bracket also raises the roll center height above the factory baseline, providing more responsive and flatter cornering on the road and more stability off the road.
Just because everyone else provides a bracket to correspond the roll center height increase with the coil spring height increase doesn't mean going higher is a bad thing. When designing a custom rear suspension that uses a track bar, two of the major common goals are to orient the link flat at ride height and to maximize the roll center height. This isn't an uncommon practice in the world of custom suspensions but seems to be less common in the off-the-shelf market. MC is simply providing the best possible solution.
As for any concerns over clearance, the bends in the track bar clear the diff and the exhaust. Having a solid chromolly adjustable track bar with good ends, bends to clear any possible interference scenario sitting level at ride height with a > stock roll center height is about the best solution one could ask for.
12-16-2013, 09:45 AM
#699
JK Jedi
On my rig with the mc bracket in the rear raising it 6.5" (wich hits my frame on uptravel) and the front raised 3.0" (synergy kit) my roll centers are 22.3" rear and 22" front. without the front trackbar bracket the fronts roll center is 20.5" I am able to run a drag link flip at 2.5" bumpstops on my rig. Im on a 2 door and could definitely feel a difference in ride but the ride was still fine, no complaints. If they raised the rear 3.5 and the front none it would be almost similar roll center. Either way my roll axis angle of -10 degrees (understeer) remains unchanged. In my research it looks like having a higher rear roll center compared to the front is a way to combat understeer. This was a quote from another site. So that would take some of my understeer and make it even closer to the 0 degree mark? Im not sure how the numbers work , but if i had to guess there rear high and front low would make it damn close to 0 degrees.
With equal front and back roll stiffnesses and track widths, a lower roll center height on one axle will equate to less lateral load transfer on that axle. So having a lower roll center in the front would mean that less of the total lateral load transfer is happening on that axle, which is a way to combat understeer.
All in all seems everyones right and this is a good setup, it may not be ideal for my scenario as it ever so slighty limits my uptravel, but it does get my rear roll center slightly above my front wich is a good thing. I never meant to bash this product just learn more info on it. After all the input looks like its a damn good set up. It even looks like it will allow me to run a straight drag link and it gets my roll centers at least even on my rig. It hits on mine but i run very small bumpstops and have a stretched rears. so in there kit its a perfect scenario, but for other builds you will have to check, hopefully this will be of use to someone down the line.
With equal front and back roll stiffnesses and track widths, a lower roll center height on one axle will equate to less lateral load transfer on that axle. So having a lower roll center in the front would mean that less of the total lateral load transfer is happening on that axle, which is a way to combat understeer.
All in all seems everyones right and this is a good setup, it may not be ideal for my scenario as it ever so slighty limits my uptravel, but it does get my rear roll center slightly above my front wich is a good thing. I never meant to bash this product just learn more info on it. After all the input looks like its a damn good set up. It even looks like it will allow me to run a straight drag link and it gets my roll centers at least even on my rig. It hits on mine but i run very small bumpstops and have a stretched rears. so in there kit its a perfect scenario, but for other builds you will have to check, hopefully this will be of use to someone down the line.
Last edited by Maertz; 12-16-2013 at 10:35 AM.
