[DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms

[Ken Green]

I would assume that if the rear carrier moves without binding when the shock is off, there is no problem?  It weighs so much that it may be hard to tell.  I suppose the any miss-alignment might result in stress on the control arms or where the control arms connect to the frame, more than in an obvious binding?
Ken
      From: Kirby Schrader <kirbyschrader at mac.com>
 To: David Nunn <dnunn at telus.net> 
Cc: detomaso at poca.com; Mike Drew <MikeLDrew at aol.com>; Ken Green <kenn_green at yahoo.com>
 Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 3:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms
   
So three cars I’m associated with are bad?

????




> On Dec 3, 2015, at 17:44, David Nunn <dnunn at telus.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.


 
-------------- next part --------------
   I would assume that if the rear carrier moves without binding when the
   shock is off, there is no problem?  It weighs so much that it may be
   hard to tell.  I suppose the any miss-alignment might result in stress
   on the control arms or where the control arms connect to the frame,
   more than in an obvious binding?
   Ken
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: Kirby Schrader <kirbyschrader at mac.com>
   To: David Nunn <dnunn at telus.net>
   Cc: detomaso at poca.com; Mike Drew <MikeLDrew at aol.com>; Ken Green
   <kenn_green at yahoo.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 3:56 PM
   Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Adjustable upper rear A-arms
   So three cars Iam associated with are bad?
   ????
   > On Dec 3, 2015, at 17:44, David Nunn <[1]dnunn at telus.net> wrote:
   >
   > 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
   > [2]DeTomaso at poca.com
   > [3]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
   >
   > To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
   use the links above.

References

   1. mailto:dnunn at telus.net
   2. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
   3. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com