| www.gt4dc.co.uk http://www.gt4dc.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| SuperStrut - Replacing components with rose joins http://www.gt4dc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5170 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Neil_M [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | SuperStrut - Replacing components with rose joins |
Folks, I've tried doing a little research on this to no avail  .
Regarding the wear points on the Super Strut equipped ST205s... Has anyone replaced the likes of the figure 8s with rose jointed equivalents? This may not be ideal on a daily driven car... potentially a little harsh. However the advantages of a more robust suspension link, reduced wear and tear, offering a tighter link in a large chain all may help? Any thoughts? Neil |
|
| Author: | two_OH_five [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't imagine any way of doing this apart from getting completely new arms fabricated at which point you may as well go McPherson and avoid the problem altogether (although this will be expensive )
Everything that wears on the OEM setup is a) already a spherical/cup and ball bearing b) built into the existing cast components Figure 8 links aren't the expensive bit to replace (although they're not cheap at ~£100 eack) it's the arms they bolt too that usually fail at around the same time. People have looked into rebuildable versions for many years but afaik no such thing exists yet |
|
| Author: | Neil_M [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the reply. What about replacing them with something lighter, stronger, redesigned. I should have been clearer, I mean replacing some of the cast arms etc with a new rose jointed arm. Not just the joint itself. Probably expensive enough though. Maybe a worth while solution. |
|
| Author: | Nibbles [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The advantage of the initial cost of fabrication is that it could use replacable wear parts. I suspect cost would be such that you'd need to do an awful lot of miles / several joint changes to break even. Advatage of OEM is that the arm never gets old enough to risk suffering metal fatigue. Another aspect is the consequence of an arm snapping is likely a BAD accident, and liability would rest with the designer and the person who decided to fit a non standard part with no proven history. |
|
| Author: | Neil_M [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You make a good point on the safety aspect, one I hadn't thought of. I was more looking at the advantage being a harsher but sharper ride.. |
|
| Author: | Sirius [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My limited experience with Rose joints is that they wear fairly quickly unless you properly protect them which can be easier said than done. My westfield had some worn joints after only about 10k miles of use. |
|
| Author: | Neil_M [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh dear, my limited experience of them is showing. Perhaps not ideal for anything but a dedicated track car? |
|
| Author: | two_OH_five [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kind of true but even if they do wear quickly they are cheapish to replace.Probably not cost effective on a fig8 link where you're looking at two every 10k miles vs a genuine fig8 every 80k or so but likely cheaper on the lower arm with only one he whole lot would be better swapped to something different long term but that requires new front shocks and hubs which in turn means doing something with the brakes and so it goes on! |
|
| Author: | Neil_M [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just space frame the chassis sure too! 
|
|
| Author: | Diceman [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The chassis will be twisted by now anyway so spaceframing is your best option 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|