thx again chris, this expands more on things that chase has said. I am starting to more understand calmini's stuff, since they include the bumpstop extensions in their kit, what they seem to be saying themselves is "we can improve your suspension and give you more travel, but we are going to make sure we go back and limit that travel anyway by extending the bumpstops."

and um, thanks smiley. nice to have your opinion too.

Sorry about that... I actually had writen a rather lengthy post (Imagine that!), but upon proof reading it, I realized that most of it was either based on unsubstantiated personal opinion, or consisted of off-topic banter.

I figured if I was going to post something utterly useless, then I might as well go all-out!



Fortunately, I may now have the opportunity to redeem myself...



When I first started frequenting this forum [* No, IÆm not going to go out and count the rings on my Isuzu û LetÆs just say itÆs been a little while now *], it seemed like the subject of extended bump stops came-up in every-other conversationà But as time has gone by, IÆve noticed that there has been less and less mention of them, up to the point that until today, I canÆt say when the last time was that I've seen anyone bring them up at all.

Granted, I donÆt read every post, but I do read a whole heck-of-a-lot of `em. - Enough that I can say beyond any doubt that people arn't talking about them anywhere near as much as they used to.


Now, add to this the fact that I presently have about 3.5 to 4.5-inches of lift on the rear of my Rodeo (thanks to the non-production prototype DORs that I have on there now!)à and that I have gradually worked my way up to that figure by first having 1.5-inches, followed by roughly 3 to 3.25, respectivelyà and that AT NO POINT among any of my past or present suspension lift figures have I ever observed the need for a set of bump stop extensions, whatsoever. --- Mine flexes and stuffs throughout its full range of articulation just fine without them.


So, is my case unique? û I honestly donÆt knowà

But I can tell you that I personally know of a whole lot of lifted Isuzus (both coil & leaf sprung) that are doing just as well as I am out there on the trails without them. --- It would at least appear that they are not an actual necessity; because if they were, we surely would have heard some major noise about it by now.



Going back to those earlier daysà As best as I can recall, the common accepted wisdom at the time was that the bump stop extensions prevented over-compression of your rear suspension, and alleviated the concern that your shocks would bottom-out. û Additionally, they would also aid in preventing your rear tires from making contact with the inner fenders.

And while I canÆt argue with any of those points, it doesnÆt change the fact that the non-extended set-ups that I have seen FAR outnumber the extended ones (Something like 25 or 30 to 1).


I canÆt speak for anyone else - but as far as IÆm concernedà Until I someday get around to doing a Spring-Over-Axle conversion, I doubt very much that IÆll be adding any bump stop extensions on mine.

HTH / TIFWIW / YMMV


Cheers! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />
Smiley

No, that's not quite it either. Like Smiley said, that back is of little or no concern, you can increase the travel back there and not have to limit it. Up front, what I'm saying is it's not the a-arms themselves that will increase travel -- they don't really change the geometry of anything except the alignability (sp?) of the front tires. It's the altered bumpstops that the CALMINI kit includes that will give you ADDITIONAL travel, and that's the concern with the 98+ front-end. If you add additional travel (downtravel, esp) you run the risk of overextending the rack and pinion steering and blowing it out.

In other words, the altered bumpstops the CALMINI kit gives you for the front will allow for additional travel in the front, not limited travel. But that being said, additional travel in the front might not be the thing we really want here...

-Chris

bump stop extensions....c'mon, one of the best effects of lifting my 2 rodeos...is they dont hit the *&^% bumpstops anymore...... I dont miss that one bit....

None of my 3 have the rear bumpstops done...

Chase

yea, the rear bumpstop extensions sure seem like they would be counterproductive. And in the front, a big part of the lift (at least for me) is to get a little more uptravel and stop hitting the upper bumpstops on every pothole. I figure putting snubbers on top would help get a little bit uptravel. So should I put on lower bumpstop extensions or just not do anything re the bumpstops in front?

I run rear bumpstop extensions. The reason for the extensions is that if you are running long enough shocks to take advantage of your full downward travel of a lifted rear axle, you may well end up breaking the shocks on full compression.

Well, let's define a few things so we don't get confused. What we're going to call the "upper bumpstop" is the snubber which limits uptravel, which, in this case, resides between the upper and lower a-arms and stops the upward travel of the lower a-arm. The "lower droop stop" resides above the upper bumpstop but controls the lowest point the lower a-arm can reach.

That being said, I don't believe the CALMINI kit addresses any change to the "upper bumpstop" except for the fact that you've cranked the t-bars and therefore start off further away from the stopper. Result, increased uptravel and the expense of decreased downtravel.

Now, as for downtravel, I know the CALMINI kit includes some kind of beefier piece for the droop stop, but I don't know if it adds any additional travel or not. Additional downtravel would be a bad thing as far as the rack and pinion are concerned, but I know the CALMINI piece is a stronger snubber, so as long as it keeps the stock range of downtravel, you can use it. If it adds additional downtravel, you may want to consider altering it so it won't allow any additional downtravel.

HTH,
Chris

Please review the board policy regarding comments on vendors and/or vendor products.



is not a objective statement based on personal opinion. It is not an objective statement at all.

And not particularly accurate, either. Vendors get them direct from ARB in Seattle, so there aren't any more middlemen than any other shock.

OK, no offence, Chrisà But I think my head is about to explode!

Admittedly, IÆve only had 1 cup of coffee so far today, so IÆm probably only firing on about 3 out of 6 cylindersà but IÆve read your last post 3-TIMES, and each and every time it still seems bass-ackwards to meà






If you (or anyone else) would care to double-check me on this, please feel free to do so! û But for the sake of accuracy (and maybe my sanity!) letÆs review:


The LOWER bump stop resides on a pad that is connected to the frame, and sits above the top side of the lower A-arm. [Check]

The UPPER bump stop (* on all of those vehicles that have one) is mounted to the under-side of the upper A-arm. [Check]



(HereÆs the part where IÆm requesting confirmationà)

The A-arms move together in an up-and-down manorà and as such, when they travel UPWARD, it is the LOWER A-arm that makes contact with the LOWER bump stop --- and conversely, when traveling DOWNWARD, the UPPER bump stop (the one thatÆs mounted on the underside of the upper A-arm) compresses against a tab thatÆs connected to the frame, located between the two A-arms.


Suspension goes UP = contact with the LOWER Bump Stop
Suspension goes DOWN = contact with the UPPER Bump Stop


Therefore:
The UPPERS limit DOWN TRAVEL û and the LOWERS limit UP TRAVEL.


Right??? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />




[EDIT]

OK, I just re-read everything for a 4th and 5th time, and I think I finally get it now.

But for my own sense of (whatever?), I believe I will continue to call the ones on top the 'uppers', and the ones on the bottom the 'lowers' --- If I don't, I'll never be able to keep`em straight!

[/EDIT]


Cheers! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />
Smiley