[DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms

[Bill Moore]

JoeGo to www.tmitch.comVader RacingNumbers, drawing, and more numbers.



Cheers,
Bill MooreIncendium SupplyCalgary

-------- Original message --------
From: "Joseph F. Byrd, Jr." <byrdjf at embarqmail.com> 
Date: 2015-12-03  5:03 PM  (GMT-07:00) 
To: detomaso at poca.com 
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms 



-----Original Message-----
From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of David Nunn
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 18:44 PM
To: detomaso at poca.com
Cc: 'Mike Drew'; kenn_green at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms

Ken wrote: "I have a vague recollection that some of the modified upper rear
control arms included adjustment to reduce possible binding in the rear
suspension because the upper ball joint may not exactly line up with he top
of the carrier?  It seems like a control arm with adjustable frame ends
could be adjusted to align the ball joint with the carrier?"

About 20 years ago, Ted Mitchell and Dennis Quella had a lively discussion,
via the POCA newsletter, about adjustable rear upper control arms. If I
remember correctly, it all began when Ted wrote that adjustable rear upper
control arms, that replace the ball joint with a rod end (AKA: Heim joint),
were a poor design because it placed the rod end in single shear. Dennis
took obvious offense to Ted's remark which Ted defended aggressively! He
(Ted) went on to write, the proper way to make an adjustable upper rear
control arm was to replace the chassis mount bushings with adjustable,
Teflon lined rod ends and leave the ball joint alone. Such a design places
the rod ends in double shear, which is correct from an engineering
standpoint. Such a design also removes any bind from the rear suspension by
allowing the ball joint to be perfectly aligned with the tapered hole in the
upright. This is accomplished by lengthening and/or shortening the rod ends.
The entire control arm can also be moved forward or backward by
adding/removing the shims that position the rod ends in the chassis mounts.



_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at poca.com http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com

To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use
the links above.

_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at poca.com
http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com

To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use the links above.
-------------- next part --------------
   Joe

   Go to www.tmitch.com

   Vader Racing

   Numbers, drawing, and more numbers.

   Cheers,
   Bill Moore
   Incendium Supply
   Calgary

   -------- Original message --------
   From: "Joseph F. Byrd, Jr." <byrdjf at embarqmail.com>
   Date: 2015-12-03 5:03 PM (GMT-07:00)
   To: detomaso at poca.com
   Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms
   -----Original Message-----
   From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of David
   Nunn
   Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 18:44 PM
   To: detomaso at poca.com
   Cc: 'Mike Drew'; kenn_green at yahoo.com
   Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms
   Ken wrote: "I have a vague recollection that some of the modified upper
   rear
   control arms included adjustment to reduce possible binding in the rear
   suspension because the upper ball joint may not exactly line up with he
   top
   of the carrier?  It seems like a control arm with adjustable frame ends
   could be adjusted to align the ball joint with the carrier?"
   About 20 years ago, Ted Mitchell and Dennis Quella had a lively
   discussion,
   via the POCA newsletter, about adjustable rear upper control arms. If I
   remember correctly, it all began when Ted wrote that adjustable rear
   upper
   control arms, that replace the ball joint with a rod end (AKA: Heim
   joint),
   were a poor design because it placed the rod end in single shear.
   Dennis
   took obvious offense to Ted's remark which Ted defended aggressively!
   He
   (Ted) went on to write, the proper way to make an adjustable upper rear
   control arm was to replace the chassis mount bushings with adjustable,
   Teflon lined rod ends and leave the ball joint alone. Such a design
   places
   the rod ends in double shear, which is correct from an engineering
   standpoint. Such a design also removes any bind from the rear
   suspension by
   allowing the ball joint to be perfectly aligned with the tapered hole
   in the
   upright. This is accomplished by lengthening and/or shortening the rod
   ends.
   The entire control arm can also be moved forward or backward by
   adding/removing the shims that position the rod ends in the chassis
   mounts.
   _______________________________________________
   Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
   Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes DeTomaso mailing list
   DeTomaso at poca.com http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
   To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
   use
   the links above.
   _______________________________________________
   Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
   Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
   DeTomaso mailing list
   DeTomaso at poca.com
   http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
   To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
   use the links above.