Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

I drive it almost every day. It now has 36,000 miles on it since the new speedo went in. There have been very few changes or updates. That may all change soon, as we are thinking about putting a new chassis under it, to do a full on comparison. I'll keep you posted.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

36K that's awesome! All Those So. Cal Freeway Miles add up eh! I'll be tuned in for the results if you swap out the chassis.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Crap just noticed you're in TN now Rob. Not sure how I missed that.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Freeway miles are the same...but that truck gets around! Testament to its durability!

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Truth!:thumbs:

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Me and Interstate 405 have to respectfully disagree...https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1262/...f33410_z_d.jpg

Isn't Rob in TN now though?

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Sure..pull the cali excuse ;)

Gotta give up something for pretty girls, nice beaches, and legal pot

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Cool build Rob. Thanks for sharing.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Good question. I'm wondering if it's best to mount the shock locator in a location that sets the shock at X degrees at whatever ride height the truck ends up at, but that's going to be different for everyone's truck. The location was probably chosen due to the big bolt hole being there?

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

OK, so , I didn't look back to see the comments around this quote, but yes. The more you drop the truck with springs (rear) or bags, the more the shock will lean over. Also, the shorter the shock, the worse it's performance levels (in general). that's why we set our relocation mounts behind the axle and outboard. There are plenty of charts that show the reduction in dampening force per degree, but as a rule, 20* angle loose about 13% dampening. Factor this in, with the leverage concept. The farther back the shock is on the trailing arm, the more leverage it has, and the less force it needs. So, a shock in front of the axle has less leverage, and needs more dampening force to do the same job as a shock behind the axle, that has more leverage and needs less dampening force. With this knowledge in hand, looking at a shock behind the axle, leaning at 20* or 25* makes a lot of sense.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Ok, so keeping that in mind, this is a balancing act between two things:

- Having a more vertical angle which will result in less of a change in shock angle throughout the travel of the suspension, and thus less of a change in the dampening effect of the shock.
- Maintaining adequate stroke (longer shock, better performance)

At the same time, since the shock is located behind the axle with more leverage, less dampening is needed and therefore a shorter shock isn't necessarily a bad thing even though it would have poorer performance. Considering this, is a more vertically mounted shock acceptable in this configuration at the expense of some shock travel?

I've made an assumption here:
- An even dampening effect is desired throughout the entire suspension travel

If that's not the case, then an angled shock would be preferable *if* you want dampening to lessen as your suspension nears full compression. In addition, you could get creative by adjusting the shock angle to tune the dynamic dampening rate throughout your suspension travel.

I'm new to thinking about shocks, but hopefully the above makes some sense. Please do correct me! I'm planning to mount my shocks through the side of my frame rail, so I can really put them wherever I want, I just don't know where I want them yet :)

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Rob,
I know this particular post is very old but I am just trying to better understand your boxing and frame strengthening strategy. I tried marking up the pic of your frame (orange=braces, yellow=boxing). from what I can see you boxed from the front cross member along the angle to the straight. Then behind the trailing arm cross member at an angle outboard then back inboard at a sharper angle and over the rear axle.

Please correct my assessment if you would please. And if you can just explain your strategy any further that would be greatly appreciated.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Does this mod work with drop spindles?

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Yes

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

So it will work with
1. 2 1/2 drop spindles
2. 15 inch rally wheels
3. Disc brakes
ty
danny

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

must have missed this post. sorry. This was pretty basic and quick, we just tried to stiffen up the high stress areas. Most of the orange diagonal bracing was 1 1/4" x .120 wall tube. We could have done more, but we were trying to keep it simple. TIP: Triangles are a lot stronger than squares. running tubular bracing in big X's or making big triangle will pay off the best.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Thanks for the reply Rob. Where would you say the "high stress areas" are.

Here is what I came up with. It defiantly stiffened up the frame. No more flexing when you pick up a corner. I still have work to do in the front though.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Looks good Xgreen. I am working on my frame and bracing.

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

Rob,

I came across this thread after seeing JT on your website and wanting more info. Thank you again for sharing everything here.

I do have a question regarding the rear frame kick-up. Is there more information how you accomplished this posted somewhere?

Thanks!

Re: No Limit '72 C-10
 

I read the Hellboy thread, and this thread from beginning to end along with the Make it Handle thread from beginning to end, and really appreciate all the time invested in providing information on each build and progress notes.

I am looking at duplicating most of this build in a 68 LWB truck, as it is perfect for what I need and how I drive.

Thanks Rob for all the info you provided in this thread! It has been an education to say the least.