Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
    Results 61 to 80 of 80
    1. #61
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      East Tennessee
      Posts
      163
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      So what is the design solution for these failures? It seems they are all done this way.

      Don
      The solution? Double shear mounting. What hasn't been brought up yet is what makes single shear mounting a real killer: Moment loading. What is a moment? Essentially a torque. Yes the fastener will see a shear load, but it will also see a torque. Fasteners are not designed to be loaded in moment and shear (also known as complex loading). The moment has a tendency to bend the bolt, sometimes it is called a bending moment because of this.

      Here's an excerpt from an airplane design guide:

      Quote Originally Posted by GUIDE

      Single Bolts in Single Shear:

      There are some joints in airplanes which must be held together with a single bolt. Some examples of these are strut-end attach points and bracing-wire attach points.

      There are two types of bolted or pinned joints. The first is a single-shear joint, where the bolt goes through each of the parts to be joined only once and is loaded in shear at one point along its length. The bolt is tightened to clamp up against the two parts being joined.

      The second type of bolted joint is a double-shear joint, where one part forks around the other and the bolt goes completely through both the fork and the part within the fork. In this joint, the bolt is loaded in shear at two points. The bolt in a double-shear joint may be clamped up, but it is not necessary for the stability of the joint.

      While both types of joint can be used safely in some applications, there are some significant problems with single-shear joints; they should be avoided in highly-loaded and flight-critical areas wherever possible.

      The first problem with single-shear bolt installations is that the bolt carries all of the load at the single-shear plane. If the same bolt were installed in double shear, it would be able to take twice the load because the load is shared between the two shear planes in the double-shear joint. This, in and of itself, is not dangerous as long as the bolt is properly sized to take the loads it must carry.

      The second problem is more severe, and is the primary reason single-shear joints should be avoided in critical areas. A double-shear joint is stable. If the nut loosens, and the bolt moves in the hole, a double-shear joint remains in place, and the internal loads in the joint do not change. The joined parts do not move relative to each other because one is captured by the fork in the other. As long as the bolt still goes all the way through the fork, the strength of the joint is not compromised and nothing shifts undesirably.


      A single-shear joint, on the other hand, is dependent on the clamp-up of the nut and bolt head for stability. If the nut loosens, the two bolted-together parts can move apart. If a gap forms between the two parts, the load carried by the bolt is no longer carried in pure shear. The gap provides a lever arm for the forces on the bolt, which then exert bending moments on the bolt and the bolted parts. These moments can bend both the bolt and the bolted parts. The bending causes the bolt to upset and tend to align itself with the forces on the joint. This can cause the gap to open further, and thus increase the moments. This situation is unstable, and will often lead to large distortion, or failure of the joint. Both are highly undesirable, and potentially dangerous.



      Single-shear attachment of bracing wires seems to be a relatively common error, particularly among the designers of ultralight and low-performance light airplanes. It is very simple to attach a wire to a tang and simply bolt it to the hard structure. The airplane I mentioned last month as having multiple potential single-point failures in its tail had the tail bracing wires attached this way. Even more frightening was the fact that the tail was not only braced by these wires, but held onto the airplane by tensioning them. A small loosening of the bolt in the single-shear tail-wire attach joint on this airplane could cause the bracing wires to loosen and lead to the departure of the tail.

      The proper way to attach bracing wires and control cables is to put a fork on the end of the wire and attach the fork to a tang on the structure or the control horn with a properly-safetied bolt or clevis pin in double shear. Strut-attach and wing-attach fittings should always be designed so they bolt together with the bolt in double shear.
      In the case of the coilover mount, the load is always applied at distance from where the bolt is fixed to the mount. This distance imparts the greater load (moment load) in addition to the already doubled shear load.

      "there are some significant problems with single-shear joints; they should be avoided in highly-loaded and flight-critical areas wherever possible." - Take this to mean: avoid single shear fastening in suspension components whenever possible as it is ride and safety critical

      To summarize: Not only does double shear reduce the shear stress to half of that of single shear, it also reduces the bending moment because each end of the bolt shares (reacts) the moment.

      It is a simple task to change the lower coilover mount to double shear. The cost is minimal, the safety factor increase is immense. I think the choice is clear.

      Attached is a picture of an easy way to change to double shear. FYI, DSE uses fasteners in double shear for their upper and lower coilover mounting on the quadralink.
      Attached Images Attached Images  


    2. #62
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Ok thanks for the tech. Apparently I didn’t understand single versus double sheer but now I do.

      Thanks,
      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    3. #63
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States
      ......and like everything in hot rodding. It still comes down to packaging and the compromises that go with it.

      The mounting bolts typically run parallel to the axle in a double shear and perpendicular to the axle in single shear. In a single shear, if your upper and lower mounts aren't in line (side view) and/or you have significant pinion angle change through travel, the bearings will bind. In double shear, the mounts need to be in line (rear view) so they don't bind in roll. So your shocks end up vertical, which in itself is not an issue. However, a 4" stroke shock laid over at 15* gets you nearly 5" of wheel travel and a shorter overall package. That's a win.

      It is also far easier to fabricate and assemble a single shear mount and certainly easier to adapt to the plethora of coil over shocks that are available in the hot rod aftermarket.

      In general, it's a fair trade and one I am willing to make for some applications but it is worth the time to assemble something better than crashing the shock together hanging off of a 1/2" bolt. Like a frame mounted bumpstop, or jounce bumper if we want to keep speaking engineer.

      Worth noting, I am speaking generally about all single shear shock mounts or coil over mounts, not just the LD.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    4. #64
      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      Location
      Deployed
      Posts
      3,280
      Country Flag: United States
      In all honesty....I have driven in Camaros with most of the variants and I really couldn't tell a difference....The quality, cost, ease of install are more important factors. For example a torque arm kit would wreak havoc on my exhaust system.
      1970 Camaro/DSE build


      Are you driver enough? Maybe....come on blue!
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...71#post1147371

    5. #65
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Lawrenceburg, TN
      Posts
      4,083
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
      There are good reasons GM went with a torque arm. That being said it's more about finding the right spring and shock combination to reach your goals.
      packaging... the torque arm allows more interior room, allowing you to have a back seat, thats why packaging a for link in a second gen camaro is a pain in the ass, there is no room under the car without cutting into the floor... same with 3rd gens and thats why GM used a torque arm

    6. #66
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Lawrenceburg, TN
      Posts
      4,083
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Sleeper68 View Post
      What hasn't been brought up yet is what makes single shear mounting a real killer: Moment loading. What is a moment? Essentially a torque. Yes the fastener will see a shear load, but it will also see a torque. Fasteners are not designed to be loaded in moment and shear (also known as complex loading). The moment has a tendency to bend the bolt, sometimes it is called a bending moment because of this.

      ohhhh we are getting all booky and stuff.. fun, let me get a beer and sit down

      Name:  a2ef0c2d78a341d3766b4a6d1c9167d4.jpg
Views: 922
Size:  59.7 KB

    7. #67
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      San Diego County
      Posts
      72
      Country Flag: United States
      fun, let me get a beer and sit down
      Can you please save one for me too! Or three?
      Mark Magers

      Founder and Principal, Lateral Dynamics LLC
      [email protected]
      lateral-dynamics.com

      One tenth of a second on the race track is often the difference between first place, and fourth.

    8. #68
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Lawrenceburg, TN
      Posts
      4,083
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      Can you please save one for me too! Or three?

      ha ha ha ha,,, beer that man

    9. #69
      Join Date
      Nov 2020
      Posts
      8
      Quote Originally Posted by Rod View Post
      packaging... the torque arm allows more interior room, allowing you to have a back seat, thats why packaging a for link in a second gen camaro is a pain in the ass, there is no room under the car without cutting into the floor... same with 3rd gens and thats why GM used a torque arm
      What are the thoughts of ridetech triangulated 4link versus a Speedtech torque arm in a second gen for street driving? Minitubbing so leafs are out. I have been debating on the two and want a comfortable ride first, with handlinga close second. I’m doing full off restomod with around 400hp, so exhaust will be replaced either way as I know both require a different approach. With the ridetech I’d probably reuse my 10 bolt, but with the torque arm probably better to just bite the bullet with a 9”...$$

      Would Ridetech require the optional sway bar for street?

      Does the triangulated or panhard location devices perform better for street?

      Thanks!

    10. #70
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Posts
      49,371
      Country Flag: United States
      Watts Link all day long


    11. #71
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Posts
      49,371
      Country Flag: United States

    12. #72
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Rsj4h View Post
      What are the thoughts of ridetech triangulated 4link versus a Speedtech torque arm in a second gen for street driving? Minitubbing so leafs are out. I have been debating on the two and want a comfortable ride first, with handlinga close second. I’m doing full off restomod with around 400hp, so exhaust will be replaced either way as I know both require a different approach. With the ridetech I’d probably reuse my 10 bolt, but with the torque arm probably better to just bite the bullet with a 9”...$$

      Would Ridetech require the optional sway bar for street?

      Does the triangulated or panhard location devices perform better for street?

      Thanks!
      Hard to say if you'd need to run a rear sway bar with the Ridetech system... depends on a ton of variables like spring rates, front sway bar rate, roll center heights, weight distribution, tire stagger, etc. If you shared details about your car, some people with similar setups might chime in. Or better yet, call Ridetech and ask them directly.


      I think Watt's links are cool, but in the real world I can't imagine anyone could feel the roughly 1/16" of lateral movement caused by a panhard bar (assuming typical pro-touring roll angles and suspension travel). Compared to tire and bushing deflection, that's negligible in my opinion. Here's a fairly balanced article on the subject: https://www.maximummotorsports.com/B...atts-Link.aspx
      - Ryan

    13. #73
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States
      On a street car I don't think the ridetech four link for the 2nd gen F bodies needs the sway bar. It is very small in diameter and I run mine on the softest setting........even with a very large bar in the front.

      The watts vs PHB debate will rage on forever......Just like every A vs B discussion where both A and B do the job effectively with minor differences between the two that have little effect on 99% of the applications.

      Watts is easier to get the roll center low enough. PHB is easier to package and has less moving parts.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    14. #74
      Join Date
      Nov 2020
      Posts
      8
      Quote Originally Posted by dontlifttoshift View Post
      On a street car I don't think the ridetech four link for the 2nd gen F bodies needs the sway bar. It is very small in diameter and I run mine on the softest setting........even with a very large bar in the front.

      The watts vs PHB debate will rage on forever......Just like every A vs B discussion where both A and B do the job effectively with minor differences between the two that have little effect on 99% of the applications.

      Watts is easier to get the roll center low enough. PHB is easier to package and has less moving parts.
      Any difference in how the RT triangulated links affect ride/handling versus PHB? How do you like the ride of your four link? A lot of people say it’s night and day, but don’t really describe the ride quality and seem to comment more on the improved handling. I usually see the same comments with Torque arms.

      Quote Originally Posted by stab6902 View Post
      Hard to say if you'd need to run a rear sway bar with the ridetech system... depends on a ton of variables like spring rates, front sway bar rate, roll center heights, weight distribution, tire stagger, etc. If you shared details about your car, some people with similar setups might chime in. Or better yet, call Ridetech and ask them directly.


      I think Watt's links are cool, but in the real world I can't imagine anyone could feel the roughly 1/16" of lateral movement caused by a panhard bar (assuming typical pro-touring roll angles and suspension travel). Compared to tire and bushing deflection, that's negligible in my opinion. Here's a fairly balanced article on the subject: https://www.maximummotorsports.com/B...atts-Link.aspx
      I figure I will try it without first to see if there were any need. The front will have the Ridetech TruTurn coilover system and Musclebar.

      Quote Originally Posted by BMR Sales View Post
      Watts Link all day long

      Do you have any comments with comparisons of ride and handling with the torque arm versus a triangulated four link?

    15. #75
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States
      Ride quality is quite good, even with the R joints and bearing mounted shocks but I am leaving quite a bit on the table with 300# springs in the rear.......it's a compromise I am willing to make. If you are not tubbing the car, I strongly recommend leaving the factory bump stops in place.

      When I had S197 Mustangs, all the hard parker, track day hero guys raved about how much better the car rode after converting from a PHB to a Watts......... I was skeptical and remain so to this day, but admittedly have no science or personal experience regarding the watts. As stated above, to many moving parts and packaging issues for me to actively choose the watts over a PHB.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    16. #76
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Posts
      49,371
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Rsj4h View Post

      Do you have any comments with comparisons of ride and handling with the torque arm versus a triangulated four link?
      Plenty, my early post was trying to show the simplicity of a Watts Link

      Nothing wrong with a 4 Link, heck that system works well in a Lot of cars. However to put a 4 Link into a car that we are referring to takes a bunch of fabrication ( and you better hope that your calculations are correct).

      A Torque Arm w/ Watts Link is a Kit that goes a step further, stops all unwanted movement while allowing full articulation. Effective and No Fabrication Needed

    17. #77
      Join Date
      Nov 2020
      Posts
      8
      Quote Originally Posted by dontlifttoshift View Post
      Ride quality is quite good, even with the R joints and bearing mounted shocks but I am leaving quite a bit on the table with 300# springs in the rear.......it's a compromise I am willing to make. If you are not tubbing the car, I strongly recommend leaving the factory bump stops in place.

      When I had S197 Mustangs, all the hard parker, track day hero guys raved about how much better the car rode after converting from a PHB to a Watts......... I was skeptical and remain so to this day, but admittedly have no science or personal experience regarding the watts. As stated above, to many moving parts and packaging issues for me to actively choose the watts over a PHB.
      So do the R-Joints provide a somewhat harsher ride due to the fact they have no give and would that give an advantage to the torque arm? Josh with ridetech has told me that 225# springs would be good in my application. Chadwick with Speedtech recommended the same rate with their torque arm system.

    18. #78
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States
      There are two components to ride quality.......at least this is my take on it.

      First is actual ride quality. The ability of the tires to follow and absorb bumps in the road without upsetting the car and consequently the driver. The problem is roads are drastically different everywhere and so are speeds. So spring rate requirements are different, that's why rubber or foam bumpstops are so important on a street car, you can run less spring without bottoming out. That's why it is also nice to have the ridetech triple adjustable shocks or similar, you can put more high speed compression in to slow down the spring action in big bumps so the car doesn't bottom out while leaving the low speed soft.

      The other side of it is NVH, noise, vibration, harshness. This is typically what people mean when complaining about ride quality. If the car squeaks, rattles, thumps, etc over bumps, it is perceived as bad ride quality.

      I'll use my heap as an example. It was built 50 years ago, I have never had the interior out or any of the sheetmetal off, just dropped the subframe to do the engine and suspension swap and put it back together with solid subframe mounts. The car has the whole ridetech catalog in it. Before that I drove it around stock and didn't really have many squeaks or rattles.

      It does now. Every bump is transferred directly into the unibody and the whole car is made of squeaks and rattles. But that's not a suspension problem, that's a car problem. Actual ride quality is on par with the 2018 1LE I had, maybe 20% harsher. Again that is a function of spring rates and also the IRS in the rear of the late model. The difference in NVH between the two cars is enormous. That's a function of giant rubber bushings and hundreds of other engineering marvels to isolate the driver from road irregularities and the sounds and feels they make.

      So the short answer is that R joints, sphericals, or even delrin bushings don't make for a harsher ride. They just do not allow the bump energy to dissipate. Consequently that bump energy transfers from your tire to that dash screw that isn't quite all the way tight unimpeded.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    19. #79
      Join Date
      Aug 2019
      Location
      Nashville, TN
      Posts
      64
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by BMR Sales View Post
      Watts Link all day long

      Best demonstration of a Watt’s link that I’ve ever seen.

    20. #80
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Location
      Chit-ca-go
      Posts
      459
      For what it's worth, I have 225lb in the rear in my '71 Firebird. I have the older design 4 link and just recently added the R Joint links. I started out with 275lb based on someone other than RT's suggestion and though it was too harsh. I went down to 250 worrying about the 50lb drop being too much and the ride was much better-speaking strictly street car at the moment. Much better, but still thought they were a touch much. Finally down to 225 and these seem right on ride wise. I no longer the pop pop pop going over cracks in the roadway. This is what worked on my car with 275/40/18 sized tire. Taller than most probably run. An expensive journey to get to the right rates back and front. This reminds me-I need to update a for sale post!
      1971 Firebird
      2017 Slipstream SS

    Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com