Breaking Wind

javajoe79 · December 04, 2014, 07:46:42 AM

Thanks guys. More progress soon

javajoe79 · December 04, 2014, 04:23:10 PM

First of 4 seat mounts

lsrjunkie · December 05, 2014, 08:31:32 AM

Cool idea. Keep the pictures coming!

javajoe79 · January 07, 2015, 10:25:10 AM

Made progress on the rear suspension over the last few days. Made the mount for the wishbone, the wishbone and installed bungs in the frame to bolt it to.

javajoe79 · January 07, 2015, 10:40:56 AM

Also made a couple more tubes today.

tauruck · January 07, 2015, 10:55:19 AM

Great craftsmanship.

She's looking really good.

Ron Gibson · January 07, 2015, 11:38:49 AM

Very nice work and not to be critical, but I would not want my total lateral control of the rear end to be just one threaded Heim end in side load. I would run it by one of the head inspectors for approval in writing for your log book.

YMMV
Ron

Interested Observer · January 07, 2015, 12:12:44 PM

QuoteVery nice work and not to be critical, but I would not want my total lateral control of the rear end to be just one threaded Heim end in side load. I would run it by one of the head inspectors for approval in writing for your log book.

x10!!! Any inspector that would approve that kind of usage of Heim joints should be demoted to being drag ballast.

Also, the geometries of the A-arm and 4-bar are incompatible in vertical motion.

javajoe79 · January 07, 2015, 01:23:27 PM

Interesting view points. Here is my input on this.

Those are 3/4" shank x 5/8" bore rod ends from Aurora. This is a common setup on many drag cars, street cars and off road machines. Google wishbone locator.

The geometry of the arms are compatible. If you will look, the A-Arms center piece slides inside the A-Arm and allows it to change length with suspension up and down movement.

Ron Gibson · January 07, 2015, 01:32:07 PM

I see the sliding feature now which would eliminate the bind, but I would still have approval in writing on side loading of the Heim ends. Be a shame to get there and have an inspector say "no run".

Ron

manta22 · January 07, 2015, 01:41:16 PM

Javajoe;

I'll have to agree with those who are leery of side- loading spherical rod end bearings. The strength of the bearings in this loading is a small fraction of its tensile load rating. The ball tends to push out of its housing when the housing distorts under load.

Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ

jl222 · January 07, 2015, 01:47:20 PM

Seems like there would not be much movement with the rod ends mounted that way.

Jerry Bickle's book Complete Guide To Chassis Performance has a good picture of what he likes and the rod ends
are turned 90 deg to what you have, also has the slider. Check with him if solid rod end is needed on rear mount but rod ends are used for all 3.

Good book for chassis tuning and setup.

Good luck JL222

javajoe79 · January 07, 2015, 01:58:32 PM

Quote from: jl222 on January 07, 2015, 01:47:20 PM
Seems like there would not be much movement with the rod ends mounted that way.

Jerry Bickle's book Complete Guide To Chassis Performance has a good picture of what he likes and the rod ends
are turned 90 deg to what you have, also has the slider.

Good book for chassis tuning and setup.

Good luck JL222

Yeah there isn't much movement but it is enough. Where the single rod end attaches to the rear end bracket, it has around 6" of travel. Do you mean the 2 forward rod ends are 90*? I don't have much room to work with as we are planning on a 6" exhaust passing through this area on the passenger side but I am considering an upper wishbone as well.

Quote from: Ron Gibson on January 07, 2015, 01:32:07 PM
I see the sliding feature now which would eliminate the bind, but I would still have approval in writing on side loading of the Heim ends. Be a shame to get there and have an inspector say "no run".

Ron

I will send an email to Lefevers. Hard to imagine this not being approved.

Although they ran two wishbones, Speed Demon used rod ends side loaded just like this. Maybe I will add an upper wishbone too?

manta22 · January 07, 2015, 02:35:54 PM

From the Aurora Bearing catalog FAQ:

"What direction is an axial load applied?

The axial load is applied through the axis of the ball bore.

What is the axial static load capacity of Aurora Bearing Company's rod ends?

For Aurora two-piece rod ends, the maximum axial static load capacity is recommended to be 15% of the ultimate radial static load capacity. For three-piece rod ends, the maximum axial static load capacity is recommended to be 10% of the ultimate radial static load capacity. However, on three-piece units, factors such as race material, body material, and dimensions may affect the axial static load capacity. For further information, consult the Aurora Bearing engineering department. "

Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ

javajoe79 · January 07, 2015, 02:59:30 PM

Quote from: manta22 on January 07, 2015, 02:35:54 PM
From the Aurora Bearing catalog FAQ:

"What direction is an axial load applied?

The axial load is applied through the axis of the ball bore.

What is the axial static load capacity of Aurora Bearing Company's rod ends?

For Aurora two-piece rod ends, the maximum axial static load capacity is recommended to be 15% of the ultimate radial static load capacity. For three-piece rod ends, the maximum axial static load capacity is recommended to be 10% of the ultimate radial static load capacity. However, on three-piece units, factors such as race material, body material, and dimensions may affect the axial static load capacity. For further information, consult the Aurora Bearing engineering department. "

Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ

I guess you mean the two forward rod ends? On these that equates to over 4000lbs each rod end at 10%. They have leverage over the single rod end that would receive the load from the axle. No need for a bunch of math to see that they won't see load anywhere close to 4000lbs. If you care to do all the math, I will gladly provide you with the dimensions of the wishbone.

News:

Breaking Wind