Doubling up stock shock towers

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Notorious J

It's gonna break, so might as well send it!
Lifetime Premium!
Premium Member
ArrmaForum Fan
Excellence Award
Hospitality Award
Rig of the Month Winner
Build Thread Contributor
Messages
12,664
Reaction score
29,508
Location
On a midnight train to nowhere
Arrma RC's
  1. Gorgon
  2. Granite
  3. Notorious
  4. Typhon 6s
Has anyone ever doubled up the stock shock towers and used longer hardware to attach everything? I bought a spare set from Jennys Rc for less than $9, and the idea just popped into my head. Probably a lot less expensive than Voltage, and likely to be very strong. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think this would definitely be a lot stronger and less likely to bend. There might be an issue with fitment at the bottom near the a-arms, so I just wanted to know if anyone has ever tried it. Thoughts, comments and criticisms welcome.
 
I sat down one night and started mocking it up (that's as far as I made it) and there are a few issues that need to be addressed depending on whether you add the secondary tower to the front of the original towers or modify to fit behind the existing towers using spacers/standoffs. The biggest issue with a adding them to the front of each existing tower, is angle at which the top of the shocks would sit, which created noticeable binding on full compression (especially in the front) and excessive side loading on the shock rods and ends where it attaches to the a-arm. There's also the issue of not being able to pull diffs without disassembling the towers. This is where I stoped and moved on to something else.

I think it's more likely to pull off by moving the supplemental towers inboard using standoffs and catching all of your mountings points where they exit on the back sides, (if that makes sense). The rear supplemental tower would need to be cut and reworked in certain areas to get around the wing mount. Another reason I think this would be the better route to go is that it would allow you to incorporate a permanently mounted tower to tower brace attaching both front and rear towers and at the same time add substantial rigidity to the ears of the towers where they like to bend in after a hard landing. Think billiards bridge but with the supplemental towers mounted at each end.
IMG_8491.jpg

I think it's definitely doable, just haven't been motivated to jump down the rabbit hole and make it happen yet.
 
Last edited:
I sat down one night and started mocking it up (that's as far as I made it) and there are a few issues that need to be addressed depending on whether you add the secondary tower to the front of the original towers or modify to fit behind the existing towers using spacers/standoffs. The biggest issue with a adding them to the front of each existing tower, is angle at which the top of the shocks would sit, which created noticeable binding on full compression (especially in the front) and excessive side loading on the shock rods and ends where it attaches to the a-arm. There's also the issue of not being able to pull diffs without disassembling the towers. This is where I stoped and moved on to something else.

I think it's more likely to pull off by moving the supplemental towers inboard using standoffs and catching all of your mountings points where they exit on the back sides, (if that makes sense). The rear supplemental tower would need to be cut and reworked in certain areas to get around the wing mount.
I appreciate the insight. It really was a passing thought that I figured I would write down. I hadn't even begun to contemplate the angle issues, but as I read your message, it became very clear. Thanks for taking the time.
 
No problem. I was editing my post to add a bit more info on my thoughts as you were typing out a response
 
Did you try to do it yet
It can't be done. The double thickness causes an issue at the bottom of the tower and mounting won't work.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top