Custom Balljoints / RCA Options

[Unclejake]

Bricon Engineering in Auckland would be my first choice Mikuni

[mikuni]

Cheers for the feedback guys. That ball joint place down the line looks to be very professional. If I end up opting to go with an extended ball joint I think those guys will be the best to talk to.

I think I'll go with either a local engineering firm or Bricons as mentioned above. Getting a "total engineering solution" is probably more what I'm after. I know I'll end up paying through the nose, but as long as it isn't stupidly exorbitant I'll probably go with it because the ball joint in this case is quite important And engineering firm may be able to suggest a simpler and better solution to the problem than just mindlessly extending the ball joint like I wanted to do.

Will see how I go.

[Spencer]

I like the spherical bearing idea means you can make the 'extended' shaft part quite substantial. Where an extended factory one has to keep the same diameter to keep its range of motion

[KKtrips]

Thinking outside the box - How about finding a hub of the same overall height with a vertically "higher" stub axle. Have balljoints custom made with the correct taper to match the foreign hub. Potentially you may end up with a better range of brake components to choose from..

Though this idea may suck cos you would have to make sure the steering knuckle position is approx the same as the factory position..

IMO it may be safer than extending the balljoint which looks like it could be a bit "elephant balancing on a broomhandle"...

[mikuni]

Thinking outside the box - How about finding a hub of the same overall height with a vertically "higher" stub axle. Have balljoints custom made with the correct taper to match the foreign hub. Potentially you may end up with a better range of brake components to choose from..

Though this idea may suck cos you would have to make sure the steering knuckle position is approx the same as the factory position..

It's a front wheel drive car. That pretty much answers why I can't do this.

IMO it may be safer than extending the balljoint which looks like it could be a bit "elephant balancing on a broomhandle"...

Remember, this lower ball joint acts as a pivot point to keep things inline. Sure it will go under substantial load when cornering but the majority of the weight will still be suspended by the hub and the suspension above. No weight "rests" on the lower arm.

I like the spherical bearing idea means you can make the 'extended' shaft part quite substantial. Where an extended factory one has to keep the same diameter to keep its range of motion

When talking "ball joint" I'll almost certainly not use a standard one. Part of the reason I'd like to talk to the engineers and ball joint fabricators is because they may be able to offer an off the shelf ball joint that is appropriately uprate and then we can just whip it apart and machine the taper to suit. Or something like that.

The pillow ball option does give scope to have some level of adjustment in it, which I think would be the main advantage, other than the fact that it will likely be beefier than the other options. I think all I will do is just reset the bottom arm and the steering arm the same amount, probably as much as I can with what ever method I end up going with. Say 50mm is probably as much as I'd be able to get. It may not be perfect but at least the car wil retain factory alignment and the two should still be parrallel.

[FLAWLES]

HBI engineering make all my odd ball tractor tie rod ends

03 348 3624

email

hbi@xtra.co.nz

they do alot of car/truck/light commercail stuff

edit i see i have been beaten to it

meh

[KKtrips]

I only skim read before putting in my suggestion - oops didn't realise it was FWD - I thought you were talking about the Shuvit with double wishbone...

[mikuni]

if its strut then i would recomend a pillow ball (??) like a rose joint end. retained in a sleve that threads into factory

ball joint location. then a tapered shaft to fill the gap. much eaiser to change roll center. make it with shims/double nuts ect to adjust

Following on from this good idea, I've done a bit of digging and managed to find this, which looks close to ideal in concept.

is it strut suspension? does the steering arm bolt up on down into the taper? this will need changing also. or rack repositioned.

Tie-rod/rack attachment will be offset by other means the same amount.

[eke_zetec_RWD]

if its strut then i would recomend a pillow ball (??) like a rose joint end. retained in a sleve that threads into factory

ball joint location. then a tapered shaft to fill the gap. much eaiser to change roll center. make it with shims/double nuts ect to adjust

Following on from this good idea, I've done a bit of digging and managed to find this, which looks close to ideal in concept.

is it strut suspension? does the steering arm bolt up on down into the taper? this will need changing also. or rack repositioned.

Tie-rod/rack attachment will be offset by other means the same amount.

yea yea thats exactly what i was meaning. do that ect

[Spencer]

Yea thats what I had pictured in my head from your explanation, looks by far the best way to roll

[Spencer]

Hey, Drag this up from the dead but found a sweet pic. This will be what Im doing

Had any insight to what you want to do brad?

[Testament]

I have to say that looks sketchy as hell. unless the car was a very lightweight racecar I don't think I would be too keen on that setup. even then I don't know.

would be alot better/safer to alter the mounting points on the car side of the control arm.

[mikuni]

I'm still quite keen to progress with this same idea, but undecided on whether I will go with a plate like the picture I posted, or a threaded pillow ball setup like what you posted spence. The plate will be cheaper and easier to fit, because it involves no modification to the lower arm, but this option with have much less adjustibility. I would probably just set it wide, with a lot of negative camber and then adjust it at the top to suit.

Which brings me to my next point, I'm going with later model Vectra B struts now, which are a much better mcpherson strut setup, with more adjustment, bigger brakes, and best of all, a better ball joint setup at the bottom, which will make adapting an RCA setup onto the lower arm much easier.

Pictures aren't being my friend right now, but I will try and get something sorted later, so show what I mean.

I have to say that looks sketchy as hell. unless the car was a very lightweight racecar I don't think I would be too keen on that setup. even then I don't know.

would be alot better/safer to alter the mounting points on the car side of the control arm.

There will be a bit of twist on it under very heavy braking, but other than that the forces shouldn't be too high. When you look at factory setups I think this option is very much doable, providing the extension is of single piece billet material, to ensure maximum structural integrity.

Regarding moving the mounts on the body, if only life was so easy. This was the first option I looked into but the subframe that the lower arms bolt on to, bolts directly up to the chassis rails, as you would expect. This means altering the chassis at a critical point to allow for an alternative lower arm mount point. Having looked at several setups now, I've found a lot of examples where the lower arm is fixed onto the car body as high as it can be, directly to the chassis rails, so I imagine this is some that is not very easily changeable on most cars.

[Testament]

the cornering forces go through that joint - and you have just given them something like 4 or 5 times more leverage. I doubt even with CrMoV steel etc. that it is as strong as the factory setup. I would at least calculate the possible forces/stresses to check it's strong enough rather than hit a pothole on a corner at 100km/h and say good bye wheel, hello drainage ditch (if your lucky)

[mikuni]

I would at least calculate the possible forces/stresses to check it's strong enough rather than hit a pothole on a corner at 100km/h and say good bye wheel, hello drainage ditch (if your lucky)

ooohhhhh.......

DISCLAIMER: THIS MODIFICATION IS FOR TRACK USE ONLY

My car won't be seeing the road at all. Which is not to say that I should compromise the build in any way, because travelling into the sweeper at Hampton Downs at near on 200km/h, I wouldn't want anything to be compromised, especially bits holding my wheels on.

And as with anything that requires fabrication to this level, I won't be doing it myself. I'll be talking to engineers that know cars and the forces involved with cornering, braking and general suspension travel. I'm sure there will be a solution along the lines that we are thinking that will be suitable for the application.

[Testament]

I would at least calculate the possible forces/stresses to check it's strong enough rather than hit a pothole on a corner at 100km/h and say good bye wheel, hello drainage ditch (if your lucky)

ooohhhhh.......

DISCLAIMER: THIS MODIFICATION IS FOR TRACK USE ONLY

My car won't be seeing the road at all. Which is not to say that I should compromise the build in any way, because travelling into the sweeper at Hampton Downs at near on 200km/h, I wouldn't want anything to be compromised, especially bits holding my wheels on.

And as with anything that requires fabrication to this level, I won't be doing it myself. I'll be talking to engineers that know cars and the forces involved with cornering, braking and general suspension travel. I'm sure there will be a solution along the lines that we are thinking that will be suitable for the application.

yeah on the track failure could be even worse. Like I'm sure if it's engineered it could be ok. and if you are getting someone else to engineer it then even more reason to have them supply you with their calculations/assurance (signed by them) saying that it is strong enough for the expected forces.