LOL!! you are joking right? honestly, i'm just an average everyday normal guy who's passionate about jeeps and you're kidding yourself if you really think that anything i say can cause a business to "thrive or die". in spite of what you seem to have convinced yourself of, I WAS NOT offering a "critque" of anything but rather, answering a question and answering it based on my experience. likewise, IF what i say has any influence over anyone, i would hope that it's because people know that the information i provide comes from experience and nothing else. as far as the need for this company to offer up it's racional, i fail to see how it was needed or how it made any difference especially when they essentially confirmed what i was stating all along and i should add, that they are in fact developing a solution similar to what i posted way back on post #9. IF they had stated something that contradicted what i have stated or defended what they are using now and to the point of scoffing at the idea of developing anything else - well then, i might see where you are coming from but as you know, that has not been the case.

shock cans need to be mounted according to how they are made. some need to be mounted can side up and others can side down. this is not really an option. currie only moves the shocks out on the rear and if i recall, only if you are using the 11" long travel rancho shocks and for clearance issues. assuming you use a rear shock designed to be mounted can side up like bilstein makes, this would not be necessary to do. as far as the front goes, i'm still not sure why it would be necessary to move the shocks outward as i have not seen clearance to be an issue with 4" lifts running bilstines and chuck45 has confirmed as much as well.

 

Currie actually is using the bracket in the front, from your write up (and in the rear): These are the only two systems I knew of that did this, and they both had the shocks mounted can side down, so I thought it must have something to do with the way the shock was mounted, or if it was the amount of travel in the system. I am by no means an expert so this is why I was asking since it seemed these are the only two kits designed this way, and the shocks are mounted in the same manner. I haven't seen anyone with the AEV kit yet to compare the amount of travel relative to the Currie, so it may be the amount of travel / articulation in the kit since that is where AEV said it was hitting the frame, and it appears that maybe Currie had a similar issue with their suspension.

 

the bracket you are seeing up front on the currie kit is simply an adapter bracket that allows you to use a standard eye to eye shock as opposed to an eye on bottom and stud on top. by doing this, you can use a much longer rancho shock up front. of course, if you were to use something a little higher end like the walker evans resevoir shocks they recommend, this would not be needed. needless to say, this bracket which is mounted under the upper shock tower is not designed to move the shock outward but rather, simply convert the way a shock is bolted up so that you can use a different type of shock.

so far as i know, they use standard bilstein shocks for a 3"-4" JK. and, so far as i know, they only come in one lenght and it's definitely not as long as the ranchos that currie suggests using. also, if you've ever seen a bilstein shock next to a rancho, you would know that the shock cans on bilstein are pretty narrow rancho's are significantly wider.

 

So with all these questions does that mean I won the 11th day of Christmas?

 

ummm, nice try

you do have some great questions though

 

LOL!! have you not read anything posted on this thread let alone the ORIGINAL QUESTION that the OP asked? because, so far as i know, whether or not this cantilevered setup "does fine" was never the question. specifically, the question asked was...

"would this put more stress on the stock bracket and risk breaking?"

and, i stand by my original answer that yes, more stress would be placed on the factory mount and yes, there is a very real potential risk of breaking it. there really is no two ways about it. so it's clear to everyone, we are not talking about a static load being placed on this cantilevered mount but rather, a load that pushes and pulls on it and on a regular basis and with great force. because this bolt on mount is cantilevered, it WILL leverage the factoy mount more and in a way that the factory mount was not designed to handle. you ever bend a paper clip back and forth for a minute or so? do you know what ultimately happens to it? now, i'm not say that this WILL happen to your factory mount using this cantilevered setup but you are kidding yourself if you or any guy who calls himself an engineer would try to suggest that these forces would not be at play. IF a break were to occur, it would not be immediate but rather, over time and depending on use. sure, your guy said that they have tested this setup "on several JK testers that I've had running around this way (and 'wheeling hard) for nearly two years now with no issues" and for whatever it's worth, i don't doubt it. but once again, there being any issues in a supposed two years of testing and "wheeling hard" was never the question. however, the question YOU should be asking is, IF this setup really "does fine", why bother giving it a 2nd look? why try to develop anything more? the very fact that this company is now pursuing a reinforced double sheer mount only proves what i have been saying all along.

and this is supposed to tell me what?

and i don't either. there would be just as much added leverage going into both mounts and there is a potential risk of breaking either one. and your point is what?

so far as i know, currie recommends the use of walker evans resevoir shocks and if you were to use these recommended shocks, you would not need to use the relocation mounts. however, for those who need a more ECONOMICAL solution for shocks, currie does also recommend using rancho 9000x and offers an ECONOMICAL way to make that possible. but, i suppose you're the kind of guy that would also consider the use of cam bolts to be just fine and that adjustable control arms are overkill and not needed. and hey, you are free to think whatever it is you want.

 

Get yourself a pack of these, they will help eliminate that risk for ya!

 

It's simple high school physics. A lever is a tool that makes a job easier. You add a lever and there is more force applied than when you didn't have a lever. So the cantilever system DOES place more force on the oem shock mounts. Believe whatever you want, but it's simple high school physics.

The OP asked if it put more stress on the stock brackets. YES. Plain and simple that's all there is to it. Can the stock brackets handle it???? Who knows. They have done their testing and they say that it can. It's up to you to decide if you want to trust what they say.

Idea: If you want the kit and don't like the way they set up the shock relocation, just put the lift on and install the new shocks in the stock location. (ie. without the cantilever setup)

 

PEOPLE!!!!!!Only time will tell

 

I was going through the old photos, and at EJS in 2007 they were running this same set up on the All J Products Jeep. They would probably be able to tell you how this is holding up if someone wants to call or stop by while in Big Bear, CA. In all it looks like the only thing missing between the production kit and the kit shown in 07 is the rear stinger, and the exended brake lines.

Good picture of the front steering kit, virtually unchanged between then and now(look at the paralellness between the track bar, and the drag link).


A better picture of the mount in question being flexed out.


And finally a picture showing the amount of flex available with stock controll arms.


Here is a link to the full gallery.