Ball joint extenders, was Re: need beta testers (tie-rod relocation)

[ralexander03@snet.net (Rick Alexander)]

I've been thinking about this for a few days now. In the air cooled
aftermarket world there are all sorts of replacement spindles to raise or
lower the car. Why hasn't the water-cooled aftermarket industry addressed
this? I'm planning to deliver a set of bearing carriers to my fabricator to
see what he has to say about producing something like this for us. Any
strong feelings here on this idea?

Rick Alexander

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Bubb" <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Ball joint extenders, was Re: need beta testers (tie-rod
relocation)


> From the Frankentruk website:
> "So far it's been 20,000+ miles with no problems (but then, last time I
> wrote this kind of thing it was about the balljoint extenders and they
broke
> a week later!). "
>
> I have all sorts of reservations about these ball joint extenders, from
the
> strength of the extender itself , but primarily the strength of the hub
> carrier where the ball joint (or extender) is secured.
> The extender will create resisting forces in the hub carrier that are 2 to
3
> times what it will see with a normal ball joint installation.
> I've kept my mouth shut so far for one reason;
> It's impossible to calculate the forces in the hub carrier without doing
> finite element analysis since it has very complex geometry. It's
impossible
> even to do a reasonable simplified representation of it to give an order
of
> magnitude of the stresses. So, I cannot say at what point this is
DEFINITELY
> a hazard.
>
> In any event, if you plan on installing ball joint extenders, plan on
> inspecting them for cracks or deformation weekly. Definitely inspect and
> perhaps even remove and magniflux them before and after any track day or
> extended hard driving. Same goes for the hub carrier!
> This isn't a joking matter! This modification will significantly increase
> the stresses in a critcal area that is already high stress. If your lower
> ball joint seperates from the hub carrier there will be extensive damage
to
> your car and perhaps worse!
>
> As much as this seems like a wonderful modification to improve handling, I
> will not be doing it!
> Dan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T Berk" <tberk@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: need beta testers (tie-rod relocation)
>
>
> >
> > > So, where'd it go???
> > > Dan B.
> > >
> >
> > > Dan Bubb wrote:
> > >
> > > Fascinating!
> > > This link was in the e-mail you responded to right below "check out
> > > this link":
> > >
> > > <http://www.ghiagirl.com/phrankentruk/balljoints_table.htm>
> > >
> >
> > Intuitive Mechanical Design hat upon my head.
> >
> > I'm somewhat concerned about the 'neck' aspect of the ball joint
> > extender. I would want it butt up against the hub like the current
> > control arm does. Hmmmm, I'll have to go out and study the ball joint
> > contraption again. Looks spindly though.  Also I agree a stepped
> > cylinder is not optimal.
> >
> > (In fact on the 'lowered car correction via raised struts' page is
> > mention of a remorseful acknowledgment of broken parts after claiming
> > no problems beyond 20K miles). <jinx>   btw- Wood as a suspension
> > component. Hmmmm.
> >
> >
> > More later,
> > TBerk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l