Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, R32 TT said:

Well I'll start by saying I'm not an engineer.

I am going to go with the KiwiCNC ones.  They are made of 7050 alloy have good fillets and radius.  The material alone is in the order of double the strength and fatigue resistance -

Those bolts, once torqued correctly place most of the load at the flat face of the mating surface - the 'stretch' you're talking about through torqueing them up would be far more than the extra stretch 'load' placed on them from a steering input or bump. (in my opinion) so I doubt they would flinch.    - but again "not an engineer".     :)

But again, the engineers said your cast aluminium would be fine based on the load that would be stretching that section. Same load stretching the bolts in a flex (not the twist), with a much smaller cross sectional area than the original part you've broken. It's why you'd need to be using higher strength bolts, but that's just making up for the strength you lose with less area...

22 minutes ago, MBS206 said:

But again, the engineers said your cast aluminium would be fine based on the load that would be stretching that section. Same load stretching the bolts in a flex (not the twist), with a much smaller cross sectional area than the original part you've broken. It's why you'd need to be using higher strength bolts, but that's just making up for the strength you lose with less area...

Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers.

The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure.

Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force.

Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers.

The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure.

Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force.

Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.

Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers.

Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things.

And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it.

Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...

 

The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.

 

I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 

38 minutes ago, MBS206 said:

I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece.

There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.

  • Like 1

Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly...

These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..  

I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing.

R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look.

Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too.

IMG_3863.JPEG

IMG_3864.JPEG

Edited by R32 TT

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I don't know if you can disassemble the thing and put it backwards for different ramp rates. They're both "2 ways" or both "1.5 ways" because well, 2 ways and 1.5 ways are the same 'thing' I do not know for sure, but I believe the 38420-RSS15-B5 is the 1 way, and 38420-RSS20-B5 is the two way. In other words, I predict Nissan considers this: to be a 1.5 way. No idea what actually happens when it arrives/you disassemble it. It would be an excellent question to ask Nismo directly! I somehow doubt you will get an answer though, I feel you would be the first person to document what you encounter when you open the box and the internet would be grateful.
    • I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...