Been having another look

It would appear that another thread has been merged with the original topic :rolleyes:

End result .... Total loss of all of the original posts in Ash's thread :confused:

Here's what's left of it

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/view...=132551&page=1


EDIT

All fixed now .... Thankfully it was as a result of an admin error :)

Definately some serious food for thought there ;)

Yes I see that as well.
Was tempted to reply. But thought better of it.:mad:
Bet it would have been a different story if it was his adjusters that had gone.

One failure is too much on something as important as the thing that holds the wheel on.........:mad:

Blimey what a cafuffle Ash's adjuster has caused..glad you are ok though dude.

Idea or a copy of an old idea for you:
Instead of the adjuster being made from hex bar use round and turn it down so it has a shoulder then drill a hole in the end like a box spanner...You can't really get a spaniard on the hex anyway as it's too tight in the end of the wishbone.
Before any one shouts and says pants just take a look at a Van Dieman single seater...nowt is ever really new don't yer know and it's where the idea for the GTS adjusters came from as I just happened to have a Van Dieman sat in my workshop at the time...and was cheaper to make them from hex bar than fanny about with round then drill the end:D

How on earth can telling people of a failure be scare mongering.
Dont think I will be bothering with LCB. :rolleyes:

I agree on that matey and problem is the bloody internet is full of "billy no mates" types who do nowt but rubbish everything, they are brave online but face to face are usually complete and utter knobheads.. as for me? I'm just a cock but I can own up to it:confused:

Very wise David .... I am afraid it would just fall on to deaf ears !!??

Once you have sorted the wheat from the chaff, there is some good information in that thead.

From my own point of view, that of your average joe " Home builder "

I am not in the slightest bit interested in the science or mathematics of any given material.
Dare say, if I was so inclined .... I too could trawl the net & find some maths or theory , copy this infomation & post it in a thread to make me look smarter than you average bear.

The failure of the camber adjuster on Ash's car interests me greatly .... It proves that this particular component has the potential to fail .... The most disturbing aspect of all this is the fact that things could have ended with a devestating fatality :eek:

Not too convinced by the supposed stress test .... Heath Robbinson to say the least, just about the least scientific test I have ever seen .... If not tested to destruction & accurate measurements taken, any such test is meaningless !!??

In light of recent events, I have decided to abandon the use of the quick adjusters .... Also concerned that mine were bought about the same as the one that failed & at this stage, a faulty batch cannot be ruled out !!

Thumbs up for Ash's revised wishbone boss with built in failsafe .... Alas I do not have the tooling to make these but would be interested in buying them if they became commercially available :) :)

Well that's my little rant over .... Safe motoring guys :cool:

Very well put Ronnie...
I would have just told them to F*****f........:cool:

Totally agree with 99% of your statement Fabby (defo not the cock bit).

I think you people have to be careful when they say these parts are likely to fail - what has been shown is that they may fail in this application on the Haynes roadster. Rally design sell a camber adjuster to suit the locost - that is where it is classified - it does not state anywhere that it is suitable for any other car. As a result - by using it on any other car you could be going outside the original design intent - in this case it is upto the person using them to assess whether they are suitable for this application.

Thinking about the design of the haynes wishbones compared to the locost, the angle will have a major difference on the loads. Consider a locost and roadster at their normal ride height with the wishbones parallel. Imagine hitting a bump, an upward force is applied (this could be many G). In the locost design, with the tube horizontal, resolving the forces, the adjuster would see a vertical load. In the Haynes design, resolving the forces would give an upward load, but also a horizontal component that would be trying to pull the adjuster out. As the wishbone travels through an arc, both designs will see a horizontal and vertical load but the haynes design will be seeing a greater component of force trying to pull the adjuster out than the locost design.

Hopefully that makes some sense - the point I am trying to make is that by using these parts outside their original design intent should not result in a backlash against various manufacturers.

In terms of a solution I intend to make a copy of the adjusters from EN24T steel as I have some kicking around. If I had had some I would probably have gone for 7075 T6 aluminium if it wasn't so expensive.

As a further bit of interest for this - I've done a graph comparing the bump loads that the Locost and Haynes sees. The actual values don't really matter, but i've taken a 35kg unsprung mass combined with a 5g bumpload. As you can see from the graph - both designs see the same loads - but becuase of the angle that the camber adjuster is at in the Haynes design - the load curve is shifted along - meaning that the ulitmate load seen by the Haynes trying to pull the adjuster out is 17% greater than that on the locost.