| crystalhelix | 04-14-2006 11:02 AM |
Camber Plate Spacer .. legal?
�
�
Long story short. I got tein flex's and to get to the ride height I want I only ended up with 2" of engagement in the 4" long uprights (ears) that attach to the knuckles. So I have designed a spacer to let me run the ride height I want and engage the full length of the upright (ear) - translation = safer.
While I was at it I designed in caster adjustability for rotation of the camber plate angle anywhere from 15-105 degrees to adjust both camber and caster with a "typical" camber only plate. The adaptor goes on top of the camber plate between the plate and the strut mount. I am calling it a camster plate, lol. :alien:
Would this be SP legal? :confused: I have spoken with a few people saying yes because it could be part of the camber plate. I'd like a consensus opinion. Also if anyone is interested I am going to place the raw material order and I could have a few extra made available for sale.
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/spryplates.JPG[/IMG]
While I was at it I designed in caster adjustability for rotation of the camber plate angle anywhere from 15-105 degrees to adjust both camber and caster with a "typical" camber only plate. The adaptor goes on top of the camber plate between the plate and the strut mount. I am calling it a camster plate, lol. :alien:
Would this be SP legal? :confused: I have spoken with a few people saying yes because it could be part of the camber plate. I'd like a consensus opinion. Also if anyone is interested I am going to place the raw material order and I could have a few extra made available for sale.
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/spryplates.JPG[/IMG]
| Scooby South | 04-14-2006 11:25 AM |
shouldn't be an issue
| leecea | 04-14-2006 12:32 PM |
Are you sure that this spacer is going to be structurally OK? The strut tops are designed to sit right against the mounting and it seems like this could introduce problems with lateral movement of the strut top and possibly shear forces on the bolts. I'm not an expert in this area but it makes me a bit nervous.
From what I remember of my brief time with Flex's, they have a spec sheet that lists the various adjustment ranges. I don't think the entire hub mounting piece has to be engaged with the strut body threads to be within their spec, and I assume there spec is based on providing adequate strength.
From what I remember of my brief time with Flex's, they have a spec sheet that lists the various adjustment ranges. I don't think the entire hub mounting piece has to be engaged with the strut body threads to be within their spec, and I assume there spec is based on providing adequate strength.
| Jsortor | 04-14-2006 01:14 PM |
While your at it, make the same plate only much thinner and place it below the strut mounting location to spread out the load on the bolts just like the camber plate used to. Then get stronger bolts to replace the stockers.
Once that is all figured out, make two sets of everything and I will buy a set off you.
Once that is all figured out, make two sets of everything and I will buy a set off you.
| crystalhelix | 04-14-2006 01:14 PM |
[QUOTE=leecea]Are you sure that this spacer is going to be structurally OK? The strut tops are designed to sit right against the mounting and it seems like this could introduce problems with lateral movement of the strut top and possibly shear forces on the bolts. I'm not an expert in this area but it makes me a bit nervous.
From what I remember of my brief time with Flex's, they have a spec sheet that lists the various adjustment ranges. I don't think the entire hub mounting piece has to be engaged with the strut body threads to be within their spec, and I assume there spec is based on providing adequate strength.[/QUOTE]
Yes. The ID and OD are the same as far as contact area goes so strength will be good. I personally think camber plates are on the thin side and teins triagular design looks even scarier. I have looked over the model through the thickness of the design and it looks good. The tein spec sheet IIRC correctly basically says I am teetering on the edge of their safety window which makes sense. The body is 2" diameter and I have 2.25" of engagement.
...
Thanks Bill for the opinion!
From what I remember of my brief time with Flex's, they have a spec sheet that lists the various adjustment ranges. I don't think the entire hub mounting piece has to be engaged with the strut body threads to be within their spec, and I assume there spec is based on providing adequate strength.[/QUOTE]
Yes. The ID and OD are the same as far as contact area goes so strength will be good. I personally think camber plates are on the thin side and teins triagular design looks even scarier. I have looked over the model through the thickness of the design and it looks good. The tein spec sheet IIRC correctly basically says I am teetering on the edge of their safety window which makes sense. The body is 2" diameter and I have 2.25" of engagement.
...
Thanks Bill for the opinion!
| crystalhelix | 04-14-2006 01:20 PM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]While your at it, make the same plate only much thinner and place it below the strut mounting location to spread out the load on the bolts just like the camber plate used to. Then get stronger bolts to replace the stockers.
Once that is all figured out, make two sets of everything and I will buy a set off you.[/QUOTE]
The thickness is totally optional. Here is a better pic. Basically you only have to worry about the clearance to all the bolt heads. I plan on doing a 2" version first but I am not 100% settled on spacer thickness. Here is a better pic of the through section.
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/camster.jpg[/IMG]
Once that is all figured out, make two sets of everything and I will buy a set off you.[/QUOTE]
The thickness is totally optional. Here is a better pic. Basically you only have to worry about the clearance to all the bolt heads. I plan on doing a 2" version first but I am not 100% settled on spacer thickness. Here is a better pic of the through section.
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/camster.jpg[/IMG]
| DrBiggly | 04-14-2006 04:59 PM |
My opinion is that not only is it legal, but it is ingenuity at its best. Good work man. :)
-Biggly
-Biggly
| makofoto | 04-14-2006 05:50 PM |
"Everyone" has their Flex struts screwed out quite a bit to achieve "proper" ride heights. The Tein suggested ride heights are way too low. I've never heard of anyone having problems. I did a year of SM/R tires with them screwed pretty far out ... and I have developed NO loosness in the strut receiver because of those settings. Seems like busy work to me. :)
| Calamity Jesus | 04-14-2006 09:57 PM |
So, you've essentially built yourself a set of these?
[url=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821252][img]http://wrx.dicknogs.net/suspension/racecomp_camberplates/offcar_smallres.jpg[/img][/url]
As was previously said, the only thing that I'd worry about is shear.. just use some high grade bolts and a matching brace underneath, then bolt them down tight! Those Racecomps are $400 a pair... but so pretty :p
[url=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821252][img]http://wrx.dicknogs.net/suspension/racecomp_camberplates/offcar_smallres.jpg[/img][/url]
As was previously said, the only thing that I'd worry about is shear.. just use some high grade bolts and a matching brace underneath, then bolt them down tight! Those Racecomps are $400 a pair... but so pretty :p
| grippgoat | 04-14-2006 10:43 PM |
I would trust 2" of engagement on the bottom ears way, way before I'd trust a 2" spacer on the strut top. The threads on the shock body and ears, which are both steel, are big, multiplied by 2"... I really don't think there's anything to worry about.
But I'm not a materials engineer, so pretend I didn't say anything. :)
-Mike
But I'm not a materials engineer, so pretend I didn't say anything. :)
-Mike
| crystalhelix | 04-14-2006 11:16 PM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]So, you've essentially built yourself a set of these?
As was previously said, the only thing that I'd worry about is shear.. just use some high grade bolts and a matching brace underneath, then bolt them down tight! Those Racecomps are $400 a pair... but so pretty :p[/QUOTE]
But the idea behind mine is they can change caster as well. Racecomp does have nice plates. 2" plates are going to be price on materials because so much is wasted. I will be trying them on my car as a guinea pig first before public use so as to only incur damage caused by myself but I think everything will be fine.
Justin
As was previously said, the only thing that I'd worry about is shear.. just use some high grade bolts and a matching brace underneath, then bolt them down tight! Those Racecomps are $400 a pair... but so pretty :p[/QUOTE]
But the idea behind mine is they can change caster as well. Racecomp does have nice plates. 2" plates are going to be price on materials because so much is wasted. I will be trying them on my car as a guinea pig first before public use so as to only incur damage caused by myself but I think everything will be fine.
Justin
| zzyzx | 04-14-2006 11:28 PM |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those Racecomp plates are mounted into the strut tower as picture on the left; extruded part "up". This would only exacerbate the ride height problem in question, not help it.
And Justin - I agree 100% with your opinion on the Teins. I've designed my coilovers specifically so that you'll never have to run the shock body up into the lower flange like is required on the Tein Flex. I think it's simply unsafe and certainly leads to unwanted flex under load which results in non-optimal geometry changes.
And Justin - I agree 100% with your opinion on the Teins. I've designed my coilovers specifically so that you'll never have to run the shock body up into the lower flange like is required on the Tein Flex. I think it's simply unsafe and certainly leads to unwanted flex under load which results in non-optimal geometry changes.
| crystalhelix | 04-14-2006 11:43 PM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]Correct me if I'm wrong, but those Racecomp plates are mounted into the strut tower as picture on the left; extruded part "up". This would only exacerbate the ride height problem in question, not help it.
And Justin - I agree 100% with your opinion on the Teins. I've designed my coilovers specifically so that you'll never have to run the shock body up into the lower flange like is required on the Tein Flex. I think it's simply unsafe and certainly leads to unwanted flex under load which results in non-optimal geometry changes.[/QUOTE]
Steve - Tim G. was right, you are nice people, lol. Safer is better. The rears appear not have an issue which is nice. If I had endless $$$ your shocks would be on my car. ;)
And Justin - I agree 100% with your opinion on the Teins. I've designed my coilovers specifically so that you'll never have to run the shock body up into the lower flange like is required on the Tein Flex. I think it's simply unsafe and certainly leads to unwanted flex under load which results in non-optimal geometry changes.[/QUOTE]
Steve - Tim G. was right, you are nice people, lol. Safer is better. The rears appear not have an issue which is nice. If I had endless $$$ your shocks would be on my car. ;)
| nhluhr | 04-15-2006 04:26 AM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]So, you've essentially built yourself a set of these?
[url=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821252][img]http://wrx.dicknogs.net/suspension/racecomp_camberplates/offcar_smallres.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE]Just the opposite, it seems. I think he is trying to get his car higher than his oilcovers allow with full engagement of the body to damper threaded portion.
[url=http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821252][img]http://wrx.dicknogs.net/suspension/racecomp_camberplates/offcar_smallres.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE]Just the opposite, it seems. I think he is trying to get his car higher than his oilcovers allow with full engagement of the body to damper threaded portion.
| Scooby South | 04-15-2006 07:55 AM |
[QUOTE=nhluhr]Just the opposite, it seems. I think he is trying to get his car higher than his oilcovers allow with full engagement of the body to damper threaded portion.[/QUOTE]exactly...
Bill
Bill
| BIGSKYWRX | 04-15-2006 12:38 PM |
Curious what ride heights your running- as mentioned Tein's recommended heights are very (very) low- low enough that roll is actually increased. Don't they offer a variety of different rate/length springs as well?
Not knocking your idea- very nice :)
Not knocking your idea- very nice :)
| makofoto | 04-15-2006 12:54 PM |
>>>unwanted flex under load which results in non-optimal geometry changes.<<<
If this was happening, wouldn't there be evidence of the threaded strut body becoming loose in the receiver?
My Flex's have done hundreds of R tire AX runs. They're as tight as ever with as much as half of the receiver not being "filled."
[IMG]http://images9.fotki.com/v165/photos/4/43793/1961534/MakoFat-vi.jpg[/IMG]
If this was happening, wouldn't there be evidence of the threaded strut body becoming loose in the receiver?
My Flex's have done hundreds of R tire AX runs. They're as tight as ever with as much as half of the receiver not being "filled."
[IMG]http://images9.fotki.com/v165/photos/4/43793/1961534/MakoFat-vi.jpg[/IMG]
| FTD | 04-15-2006 04:30 PM |
I have had my flexes loosen up many times. Usually it is worst on high grip concrete. Rears never loosen up but the front constantly do. It is not a good design to have an aluminum nut jam up to a thin metal bracket.
I agree that more engagement with the threaded body would decrease the likelyhood of the brackets/nuts loosening. I would be concerned about the long through bolts shear and bending strength as well.
Could you counterbore the slot as well to reduce the fastener length?
I agree that more engagement with the threaded body would decrease the likelyhood of the brackets/nuts loosening. I would be concerned about the long through bolts shear and bending strength as well.
Could you counterbore the slot as well to reduce the fastener length?
| crystalhelix | 04-15-2006 08:35 PM |
[QUOTE=FTD]I have had my flexes loosen up many times. Usually it is worst on high grip concrete. Rears never loosen up but the front constantly do. It is not a good design to have an aluminum nut jam up to a thin metal bracket.
I agree that more engagement with the threaded body would decrease the likelyhood of the brackets/nuts loosening. I would be concerned about the long through bolts shear and bending strength as well.
Could you counterbore the slot as well to reduce the fastener length?[/QUOTE]
All the dimensions are related to how much spacer you want. The couterbore changes and there is also the aspect of design for machining as well as keeping enough "substance" to the spacer. I will probably be talking with the shop this week. I will let everyone know how it goes.
I agree that more engagement with the threaded body would decrease the likelyhood of the brackets/nuts loosening. I would be concerned about the long through bolts shear and bending strength as well.
Could you counterbore the slot as well to reduce the fastener length?[/QUOTE]
All the dimensions are related to how much spacer you want. The couterbore changes and there is also the aspect of design for machining as well as keeping enough "substance" to the spacer. I will probably be talking with the shop this week. I will let everyone know how it goes.
| makofoto | 04-15-2006 09:38 PM |
Interesting how different people perceive things. I think this spacer creates a weaker link then having the strut body screwed partially out of it's receiver. I do agree that the Tein locking nut against the thin receiver section is not ideal, but except for some occasional loosening of that nut I've had no trouble. I'm pretty sure that the strut body itself hasn't rotated out of position.
| zzyzx | 04-15-2006 09:49 PM |
[QUOTE=FTD]I have had my flexes loosen up many times. Usually it is worst on high grip concrete. Rears never loosen up but the front constantly do. It is not a good design to have an aluminum nut jam up to a thin metal bracket.[/quote]
Exactly. The reason they loosen up that jamb nut is because the structure is flexing. Repeated flexing is what leads to it becomming loose.
You have to keep in mind that to have one part thread onto another, there has to be clearance - "play" - between the threads. Otherwise the threads would lock up on each other. Putting a jamb nut on one end does little to address the play between the threads. It's still there.
Though I haven't seen it happen on the Teins, also keep in mind that CUSCO Zero2 Rs and JICs have experienced total failure on the lower flange; usually ripped apart at the welds. It seems most of the forces that lead to these failures was under braking. One must keep in mind that metal just doesn't fail - it experiences fatigue through repeated flexing. And of course it's that flexing under load that we really don't want on a high-performance competition car.
I recently had a set of '05 fitment Teins and, frankly, I was appauled at the design of the lower flange:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/tein/tein05-1.jpg[/img]
Earlier designs had more structure than this. I'm not sure when the design changed but I am sure I'd never suggest putting this on an STi that is expected to pull high Gs.
Contrast the Tein part with this:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve
Exactly. The reason they loosen up that jamb nut is because the structure is flexing. Repeated flexing is what leads to it becomming loose.
You have to keep in mind that to have one part thread onto another, there has to be clearance - "play" - between the threads. Otherwise the threads would lock up on each other. Putting a jamb nut on one end does little to address the play between the threads. It's still there.
Though I haven't seen it happen on the Teins, also keep in mind that CUSCO Zero2 Rs and JICs have experienced total failure on the lower flange; usually ripped apart at the welds. It seems most of the forces that lead to these failures was under braking. One must keep in mind that metal just doesn't fail - it experiences fatigue through repeated flexing. And of course it's that flexing under load that we really don't want on a high-performance competition car.
I recently had a set of '05 fitment Teins and, frankly, I was appauled at the design of the lower flange:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/tein/tein05-1.jpg[/img]
Earlier designs had more structure than this. I'm not sure when the design changed but I am sure I'd never suggest putting this on an STi that is expected to pull high Gs.
Contrast the Tein part with this:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve
| zzyzx | 04-15-2006 09:56 PM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]Interesting how different people perceive things. I think this spacer creates a weaker link then having the strut body screwed partially out of it's receiver. I do agree that the Tein locking nut against the thin receiver section is not ideal, but except for some occasional loosening of that nut I've had no trouble. I'm pretty sure that the strut body itself hasn't rotated out of position.[/QUOTE]
You need to keep in mind that the braking and cornering forces are being applied at the tire contact patch. The lower ball joint is the "lever" on which these forces act. On the other side of this level, the forces experienced as you move away from the lever are less - simple mechanics. Hence, the forces seen at the flange far exceed those seen at the camber plate. I don't see the "bump" - compression - forces being an issue at all.
You need to keep in mind that the braking and cornering forces are being applied at the tire contact patch. The lower ball joint is the "lever" on which these forces act. On the other side of this level, the forces experienced as you move away from the lever are less - simple mechanics. Hence, the forces seen at the flange far exceed those seen at the camber plate. I don't see the "bump" - compression - forces being an issue at all.
| makofoto | 04-15-2006 10:39 PM |
Crystal ... my buddy and I might need to get a couple sets of your innovation. Hmmm ... his gf's name is Crystal ...
I guess we know why they're called Flex's ... it's not like they were trying to hide anything! :D
Steve ... your creation is beautiful ... I wish you hadn't posted those two pictures next to each other. :)
Crys ... keep us posted ... we would be ready to test it. Atwater in two weeks ...
I guess we know why they're called Flex's ... it's not like they were trying to hide anything! :D
Steve ... your creation is beautiful ... I wish you hadn't posted those two pictures next to each other. :)
Crys ... keep us posted ... we would be ready to test it. Atwater in two weeks ...
| crystalhelix | 04-16-2006 01:58 AM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]Crystal ... my buddy and I might need to get a couple sets of your innovation. Hmmm ... his gf's name is Crystal ...
I guess we know why they're called Flex's ... it's not like they were trying to hide anything! :D
Steve ... your creation is beautiful ... I wish you hadn't posted those two pictures next to each other. :)
Crys ... keep us posted ... we would be ready to test it. Atwater in two weeks ...[/QUOTE]
I'll see what I can zip up real quick, lol. 2" spacer with the tein flex with 10k springs in the front give me 100% engagement at 13.75 ride height. Would you guys like to try the 2" version first? Because I need to order up 6061 AL sheet stock and it get's pricey for larger pieces. I would have to get a quote from teh shop and I'll post something up on Monday or Tuesday. If you have a MSC big-book you know what I am talking about. It wouldn't take much time to redesign for 1". Also while I was at it I added indicators "tick marks" in the design for every 10 degrees of axial rotation so we "tweakers" can easily figure things out. Should be cool and I am excited to try one out and be able to very easily change caster as easy as it is to change camber. All you need to do with the design is loosen your top 3 nuts and you can change caster. The camber plate will work the same as it did before. TEh awesome.
Also, although small, there is a small increase in the negative camber curve based on some rough stuff I have mocked up but it's all relative to the length of the coil-over you are using
Steve - thanks for the great info. I am a Mechanical Engineer and when I got the flex's it was my first worry after seeing simple "plate" welded to a threaded section. Even my JIC's had better ears. I do have to say that teins lock nuts perches are much better design. The top perch works as a stop so you can properly torque the top-nuts which is awesome. The lower locknuts and perches have a smooth outer ring that protects the teeth (and my tires) the JIC's had exposed teeth. So far I have had no issues.
I had my first TnT this weekend. I had cut the front bump stops because they were so damn huge, bad-luck I should have cut the back. I was all over the place and took out a timing reflector. This could be cured by stepping up rates and resizing the rear bump stops to the same as the front. Still a lot of work to due to get the car the way I want. It was fun today finally getting back in teh drivers seat! :banana:
Happy Easter everyone.
I guess we know why they're called Flex's ... it's not like they were trying to hide anything! :D
Steve ... your creation is beautiful ... I wish you hadn't posted those two pictures next to each other. :)
Crys ... keep us posted ... we would be ready to test it. Atwater in two weeks ...[/QUOTE]
I'll see what I can zip up real quick, lol. 2" spacer with the tein flex with 10k springs in the front give me 100% engagement at 13.75 ride height. Would you guys like to try the 2" version first? Because I need to order up 6061 AL sheet stock and it get's pricey for larger pieces. I would have to get a quote from teh shop and I'll post something up on Monday or Tuesday. If you have a MSC big-book you know what I am talking about. It wouldn't take much time to redesign for 1". Also while I was at it I added indicators "tick marks" in the design for every 10 degrees of axial rotation so we "tweakers" can easily figure things out. Should be cool and I am excited to try one out and be able to very easily change caster as easy as it is to change camber. All you need to do with the design is loosen your top 3 nuts and you can change caster. The camber plate will work the same as it did before. TEh awesome.
Also, although small, there is a small increase in the negative camber curve based on some rough stuff I have mocked up but it's all relative to the length of the coil-over you are using
Steve - thanks for the great info. I am a Mechanical Engineer and when I got the flex's it was my first worry after seeing simple "plate" welded to a threaded section. Even my JIC's had better ears. I do have to say that teins lock nuts perches are much better design. The top perch works as a stop so you can properly torque the top-nuts which is awesome. The lower locknuts and perches have a smooth outer ring that protects the teeth (and my tires) the JIC's had exposed teeth. So far I have had no issues.
I had my first TnT this weekend. I had cut the front bump stops because they were so damn huge, bad-luck I should have cut the back. I was all over the place and took out a timing reflector. This could be cured by stepping up rates and resizing the rear bump stops to the same as the front. Still a lot of work to due to get the car the way I want. It was fun today finally getting back in teh drivers seat! :banana:
Happy Easter everyone.
| remowgn | 04-16-2006 02:33 AM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve[/QUOTE]
Holy moly, what's that off of? Nice looking piece. Especially those slotted camber adjustment holes... :D
(edit)
Nevermind... found em on your website. Bitchin.
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve[/QUOTE]
Holy moly, what's that off of? Nice looking piece. Especially those slotted camber adjustment holes... :D
(edit)
Nevermind... found em on your website. Bitchin.
| makofoto | 04-16-2006 02:39 AM |
With my 12K/10K Flex Springs/WRX ... I'd like to try a 1" spacer. My buddy Roman will probably like a 2" spacer with his oem Flex springs for his STI.
Thanks Crys ... let us know what we need to contribute.
Note, that if you rotate your camber plates back for more Caster ... you will need to elongate the slot in order to get maximum Camber.
Thanks Crys ... let us know what we need to contribute.
Note, that if you rotate your camber plates back for more Caster ... you will need to elongate the slot in order to get maximum Camber.
| FTD | 04-16-2006 11:57 AM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix]All the dimensions are related to how much spacer you want. The couterbore changes and there is also the aspect of design for machining as well as keeping enough "substance" to the spacer. I will probably be talking with the shop this week. I will let everyone know how it goes.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point, I agree. I do see that you have the slot counter bored slightly to allow the mounting surface for the top mount to be flat. There has to be some compromise between the depth of that counterbore on the slot relative to the length of the fastner.
I haven't layed this out on any cad program it looks as if you have. Is there enough clearance to get to the bolt head below after the top mount is fastened to the spacer? I see you mentioned some amount of rotational adjustment. It appears that some would be necessary to allow for socket clearance. Those may not be easy to get to on install.
I am hopeful that this works out, I do believe that this would be an excellent improvement if it proves to be robust.
Excellent point, I agree. I do see that you have the slot counter bored slightly to allow the mounting surface for the top mount to be flat. There has to be some compromise between the depth of that counterbore on the slot relative to the length of the fastner.
I haven't layed this out on any cad program it looks as if you have. Is there enough clearance to get to the bolt head below after the top mount is fastened to the spacer? I see you mentioned some amount of rotational adjustment. It appears that some would be necessary to allow for socket clearance. Those may not be easy to get to on install.
I am hopeful that this works out, I do believe that this would be an excellent improvement if it proves to be robust.
| FTD | 04-16-2006 12:05 PM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]Exactly. The reason they loosen up that jamb nut is because the structure is flexing. Repeated flexing is what leads to it becomming loose.
You have to keep in mind that to have one part thread onto another, there has to be clearance - "play" - between the threads. Otherwise the threads would lock up on each other. Putting a jamb nut on one end does little to address the play between the threads. It's still there.
Though I haven't seen it happen on the Teins, also keep in mind that CUSCO Zero2 Rs and JICs have experienced total failure on the lower flange; usually ripped apart at the welds. It seems most of the forces that lead to these failures was under braking. One must keep in mind that metal just doesn't fail - it experiences fatigue through repeated flexing. And of course it's that flexing under load that we really don't want on a high-performance competition car.
I recently had a set of '05 fitment Teins and, frankly, I was appauled at the design of the lower flange:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/tein/tein05-1.jpg[/img]
Earlier designs had more structure than this. I'm not sure when the design changed but I am sure I'd never suggest putting this on an STi that is expected to pull high Gs.
Contrast the Tein part with this:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve[/QUOTE]
I like the pinch bolt design shown in blue also. I totally agree with your disgust of the Tein Flex lower bracket locking method.
However, comparing the brackets pictured is kind of an apples and oranges comparison considering one of the brackets is aluminum. Right?
I talked with Tein USA at lenght about my disapproval. They mentioned that on some of the struts they include some sort of lock washer. I still can't see that being effective when jaming against a bracket that is <1/16" thick.
Take care and Happy Easter also!
You have to keep in mind that to have one part thread onto another, there has to be clearance - "play" - between the threads. Otherwise the threads would lock up on each other. Putting a jamb nut on one end does little to address the play between the threads. It's still there.
Though I haven't seen it happen on the Teins, also keep in mind that CUSCO Zero2 Rs and JICs have experienced total failure on the lower flange; usually ripped apart at the welds. It seems most of the forces that lead to these failures was under braking. One must keep in mind that metal just doesn't fail - it experiences fatigue through repeated flexing. And of course it's that flexing under load that we really don't want on a high-performance competition car.
I recently had a set of '05 fitment Teins and, frankly, I was appauled at the design of the lower flange:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/tein/tein05-1.jpg[/img]
Earlier designs had more structure than this. I'm not sure when the design changed but I am sure I'd never suggest putting this on an STi that is expected to pull high Gs.
Contrast the Tein part with this:
[img]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/img]
Note I use two holes and a slot on the backside of the flange. The Allen bolts "clamp" the flange onto the shock body. This eliminates all clearance between the threads and all the thread surface area wedges the two parts together. Once torqued, this structure is about as strong as it gets.
- Steve[/QUOTE]
I like the pinch bolt design shown in blue also. I totally agree with your disgust of the Tein Flex lower bracket locking method.
However, comparing the brackets pictured is kind of an apples and oranges comparison considering one of the brackets is aluminum. Right?
I talked with Tein USA at lenght about my disapproval. They mentioned that on some of the struts they include some sort of lock washer. I still can't see that being effective when jaming against a bracket that is <1/16" thick.
Take care and Happy Easter also!
| makofoto | 04-16-2006 12:26 PM |
Just note that a lot of people have been AX'ing with Teins for awhile ... winning National Championships in STX a couple of times ... with no complaints ... as opposed to the problems one hears about other struts. My two buddies (WRX & STI) with fabulously expensive custom Koni 2817 racing struts are having nothing but problems. One has had his off his car six times this year already ... and is just hoping to get them back from another rebuild on the other side of the country in time for our next national event. I'm sure they will be terrific eventually ... but the Flex's are Plug and Play. Still ... I don't disagree that your spacer might be a nice addition ...
| crystalhelix | 04-16-2006 07:56 PM |
[QUOTE=FTD]
I haven't layed this out on any cad program it looks as if you have. Is there enough clearance to get to the bolt head below after the top mount is fastened to the spacer? I see you mentioned some amount of rotational adjustment. It appears that some would be necessary to allow for socket clearance. Those may not be easy to get to on install.
[/QUOTE]
;) I already got the bolts spec'd and measured, the slot under the spacer for clearance are dimensioned to hold the the head of the bolt so you don't have to disassemble on the car to tighten after adjustment. Just a quick change of caster by loosening the 3 top nuts. The actual camber plate and holes could easily be integrated into the design. I have seen different diameter holes for the pillowball retainer and slot sizes so this would work universally with the GD platform bolt pattern.
I appreciate everyone's good comments. :)
I haven't layed this out on any cad program it looks as if you have. Is there enough clearance to get to the bolt head below after the top mount is fastened to the spacer? I see you mentioned some amount of rotational adjustment. It appears that some would be necessary to allow for socket clearance. Those may not be easy to get to on install.
[/QUOTE]
;) I already got the bolts spec'd and measured, the slot under the spacer for clearance are dimensioned to hold the the head of the bolt so you don't have to disassemble on the car to tighten after adjustment. Just a quick change of caster by loosening the 3 top nuts. The actual camber plate and holes could easily be integrated into the design. I have seen different diameter holes for the pillowball retainer and slot sizes so this would work universally with the GD platform bolt pattern.
I appreciate everyone's good comments. :)
| FTD | 04-16-2006 08:53 PM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix];) I already got the bolts spec'd and measured, the slot under the spacer for clearance are dimensioned to hold the the head of the bolt so you don't have to disassemble on the car to tighten after adjustment. Just a quick change of caster by loosening the 3 top nuts. The actual camber plate and holes could easily be integrated into the design. I have seen different diameter holes for the pillowball retainer and slot sizes so this would work universally with the GD platform bolt pattern.
I appreciate everyone's good comments. :)[/QUOTE]
Great idea to make the bolt head held by the counterbore! Nice touch.
BTW, why do you want adjustable caster? Why not just max it out? That is what I did when I made my top mounts.
Take care,
Chris
I appreciate everyone's good comments. :)[/QUOTE]
Great idea to make the bolt head held by the counterbore! Nice touch.
BTW, why do you want adjustable caster? Why not just max it out? That is what I did when I made my top mounts.
Take care,
Chris
| BIGSKYWRX | 04-16-2006 09:00 PM |
adjust cross caster :)
| Calamity Jesus | 04-16-2006 10:00 PM |
[QUOTE=nhluhr]Just the opposite, it seems. I think he is trying to get his car higher than his oilcovers allow with full engagement of the body to damper threaded portion.[/QUOTE]DOH! :o I see now.
| grippgoat | 04-17-2006 04:32 PM |
I've had my Tein flex loosen up in front before. But ever since I started putting my torque wrench on 150ft-lbs (max), and putting the coil-over wrench on that, and then pulling until it clicks, and then pulling some more, I never had it loosen up. I believe the flex instructions tell you to tighten the lower bracket to like 162ft-lbs.
-Mike
-Mike
| makofoto | 04-17-2006 04:41 PM |
Wow ... scary putting that much force against those little nubs.
How do you attach the Coil-Over wrench to your Torque wrench?
How do you attach the Coil-Over wrench to your Torque wrench?
| crystalhelix | 04-17-2006 05:27 PM |
100 ft.lbs but you have to take into account the extra moment arm so I set the TQ to 80 to be safe. There is a square receiver in the oil-cover wrench.
| FTD | 04-17-2006 05:51 PM |
Using the square receiver mentioned above on the Tein supplied spanner wrenches I have torqued my lower bracket jam nuts to 200ft-lbs (the limit of my torque wrench)... and they still loosened up.
I love the struts they work great in every other way, however this issue is definately not a figment of anyone's imagination!
I love the struts they work great in every other way, however this issue is definately not a figment of anyone's imagination!
| crystalhelix | 04-18-2006 09:25 AM |
Just talked to the machine shop. They are working up a quote. I will also try to work out the 1" version today so I can get both quoted. The 1" version will be much much cheaper than my 2" special.
Justin
Justin
| crystalhelix | 04-18-2006 09:33 AM |
1" and 2" versions.
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/camsterplates2.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.spryracing.com/products/sprycamsterplates/camsterplates2.JPG[/IMG]
| SloRice | 04-18-2006 09:46 AM |
[IMG]http://zzyzxmotorsports.com/pics/coilovers/blue-04.jpg[/IMG]
^^^I want this color!!! :p
^^^I want this color!!! :p
| zzyzx | 04-18-2006 12:01 PM |
LOL
Yeah, was testing out powerdercoating. Now, all the flanges on my RS are Subie blue. :alien:
I dunno, I still think the polished ones are absolutely blingstatic! :)
Yeah, was testing out powerdercoating. Now, all the flanges on my RS are Subie blue. :alien:
I dunno, I still think the polished ones are absolutely blingstatic! :)
| angryfist | 04-18-2006 01:09 PM |
[QUOTE=zzyzx]I dunno, I still think the polished ones are absolutely blingstatic! :)[/QUOTE]
I like the polished too... i just wish my whole set was polished... ;)
-Jason
I like the polished too... i just wish my whole set was polished... ;)
-Jason
| SloRice | 04-18-2006 01:18 PM |
^^no kidding, the mustard yellow and baby blue doesn't really do a whole lot for me. :lol:
| zzyzx | 04-18-2006 01:21 PM |
[QUOTE=SloRice]^^no kidding, the mustard yellow and baby blue doesn't really do a whole lot for me. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Hey now. Be nice.
Hey now. Be nice.
| SloRice | 04-18-2006 01:42 PM |
Sorry Steve.....they are still a kick ass coilover :D
| angryfist | 04-18-2006 01:46 PM |
^^^ agreed... i dont really care that much how they look, cause they can PERFORM! :)
| crystalhelix | 04-18-2006 01:55 PM |
cough....hi-jack...cough
:lol:
:lol:
| SloRice | 04-18-2006 02:22 PM |
More fun to talk about the coilovers than your hamster...er, camster plates. :lol:
Back on topic....I'm guessing you have the shock really high in the lower collar to get good droop, but at the same time have a good ride height?? I'd be curious to know the extended and compressed lengths of the Tein's vs. the Koni DA's. Back when I had my Tein's, I got about 1 3/8" of droop in the front and rear. With the zzyzx, I have at least 2"....haven't measured yet.
Back on topic....I'm guessing you have the shock really high in the lower collar to get good droop, but at the same time have a good ride height?? I'd be curious to know the extended and compressed lengths of the Tein's vs. the Koni DA's. Back when I had my Tein's, I got about 1 3/8" of droop in the front and rear. With the zzyzx, I have at least 2"....haven't measured yet.
| crystalhelix | 04-18-2006 02:43 PM |
[QUOTE=SloRice]More fun to talk about the coilovers than your hamster...er, camster plates. :lol:
Back on topic....I'm guessing you have the shock really high in the lower collar to get good droop, but at the same time have a good ride height?? I'd be curious to know the extended and compressed lengths of the Tein's vs. the Koni DA's. Back when I had my Tein's, I got about 1 3/8" of droop in the front and rear. With the zzyzx, I have at least 2"....haven't measured yet.[/QUOTE]
Nope, nothing to do with droop in the front, purely the fact that the teins are just too damn short for the ride height I want with the 275's
Back on topic....I'm guessing you have the shock really high in the lower collar to get good droop, but at the same time have a good ride height?? I'd be curious to know the extended and compressed lengths of the Tein's vs. the Koni DA's. Back when I had my Tein's, I got about 1 3/8" of droop in the front and rear. With the zzyzx, I have at least 2"....haven't measured yet.[/QUOTE]
Nope, nothing to do with droop in the front, purely the fact that the teins are just too damn short for the ride height I want with the 275's
| makofoto | 04-18-2006 10:59 PM |
And you don't have any pre-load to speak of correct?
| crystalhelix | 04-19-2006 08:42 AM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]And you don't have any pre-load to speak of correct?[/QUOTE]
I have a small amount of preload but the ride height doesn't change with pre-load from what I can tell it makes not difference because the spring are linear.
J
I have a small amount of preload but the ride height doesn't change with pre-load from what I can tell it makes not difference because the spring are linear.
J
| SloRice | 04-19-2006 09:51 AM |
What ride height are you at right now?
I know I was above 14" hub center to fender in the front with my old Teins and I never had a problem. Are you trying to wuss out on your fender cutting by raising ride height??? :p
I know I was above 14" hub center to fender in the front with my old Teins and I never had a problem. Are you trying to wuss out on your fender cutting by raising ride height??? :p
| angryfist | 04-19-2006 10:47 AM |
maybe you shuold just run RA's, then you wouldnt have this problem... i know someone thats got a set for sale...
<------- ;)
<------- ;)
| SloRice | 04-19-2006 11:15 AM |
^^But he has 05 hubs now.
| crystalhelix | 04-19-2006 11:26 AM |
[QUOTE=SloRice]Are you trying to wuss out on your fender cutting by raising ride height??? :p[/QUOTE]
Grrr...you got it. :rolleyes: :p
Grrr...you got it. :rolleyes: :p
| angryfist | 04-19-2006 01:10 PM |
[QUOTE=SloRice]^^But he has 05 hubs now.[/QUOTE]
DOH :D
DOH :D
| crystalhelix | 04-20-2006 09:36 AM |
Who's interested?
�
�
Ok - I heard back from the machine shop. The best way things work out (and the smallest amount of reasonable material I can buy) I would be able to make a set of 2" spacers for my self and 4 sets of 1" spacers. The 4 set's of spacers would be a minimum of $90 just for materials plus machining. They shop said they would have a better idea of machine time/cost after they did 1 set. So basically I would have to fork up about $330 of my own money just to get these things started.
Is there 4 of you interested in 1" spacer/caster adjusters if these things end up being $150-200 bucks for a pair?
Thanks,
Justin
Is there 4 of you interested in 1" spacer/caster adjusters if these things end up being $150-200 bucks for a pair?
Thanks,
Justin
| makofoto | 04-20-2006 10:46 AM |
Too much for me at this point ... thanks
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét