mclarenno9

I thought these were going to be able to use the stock caster blocks? In that case the bushing for the rear mounting point is within the mount itself, and there is no need for that bushing back there. It justs need to be able to accept the stock eccentric stud that goes through there. I am unsure of the allowances on that hole on a new stock arm with a new stud, though.

Looks nice otherwise! Keep up the good work.

Chads996

Thank you....as I mentioned (before you yo-yo's go nutty) this is version 1. We are well past version 3. MUCH has changed since the 1st version.

The following criteria forms our direction:

1. Retain the use of OE and existing aftermarket rubber, delrin, and monoball bushings.
2. Retain the existing OE sway bar mounting position as many performance drivers use the OE 968 sway bars.
3. Retain the use of the early spherical bearings/pins (or comparable), allowing for removal & replacement of worn out joints.
3. Provide a low cost, durable alternative to present OE and aftermarket control arms.


C.

roman944

[shameless plug for company I work for]

when you get it all done with machining etc I can run by our metalurgists/boss's and see what they would suggest as far as treating goes so it's proper/strong

hell I could just ask them for the hell of it to see what material they would recomend, if you would like me to

we treat all kinds of things here, from machined parts, to aerospace, to bearings that we 944 guys use (yes, SKF/*** bearings)

bgiere

will there be early and late versions?

Riff

Looks good Chad!

Does the early arm ever suffer the same ball joint breakage issue of the Al arms? Does your new design allow for lowered cars?

Chads996

Trying to offer that. We need a set of crappy early offset arms for dimensions. At the moment, late offset is what we have.




All ball joints fail over a period of time. From my understanding, the early steel arms bend. So I am not aware of major spherical failures. However, as I mentioned...I would like to find a comparable solution that is as cheap and replaceable as the OE joint.

As we learn more...more is to come.

I am working to turn over the sketch to a Motorsports fabrication group. they will take on the testing and final material specifications.

Chad

racerbvd

I have a set of early ones!!!!!! Will there be a set that will work with 952 spindles???

Chads996

One thing at a time. Let's solve the problem 1st.

If you have early ones and you want to send the for free. Cool. I am not buying a set for specs.

C.

comatb

Vertex sell a new steel arm part #171407153D for $26 and the ball joint #171407365G for $17. It's not that much to invest in your venture is it? Consider that you will be sure these are straight and their dimensions are repeatable. One are fits both sides. Yes I'm also interested in your final product. Good luck

vt951

Chad,

This looks like a good concept; thanks for sharing. I was wondering if you are concerned at all about the early ball joint failure problems mentioned by North Coast Cab. I don't know how valid that concern is; hopefully some guys with early steel arms will chime in about ball joint failure modes, or North Coast Cab will reply with some more details.

Also, is that sway bar mount located in the correct position (fore/aft) for the oem sway bars to be used?

Are you planning to do any analysis on the design?

PorscheDoc

All the aftermarkert arms have replaceable ball joints as you know, but what most people don't know is that, for instance, Fabcar says you must change your ball joints IIRC every 30 hours of track use. We have broken 2 19mm ball joints at the track, so even those high dollar ball joints fail. IIRC, the replacements are about $150 for fabcars (pin and bearing). So depending on how many track events you hit a year, you are probably looking at $300 in ball joints every couple of years in the other aftermarket arms. A cheaper alternative would be nice

Anyway, that's my input for the day. The design is looking good. Good luck!

vt951

Is there a 19mm pin alternative for the early style ball joints? I know rennbay offers a 19mm rebuild kit for the late style arms (also requires opening up the hole in the spindle from 17mm to 19mm, of course).

What I'm getting at is this would be a limitation of Chad's proposed design, whereas if it were designed to use the late style ball joints, a racer could choose to use the rennbay 19mm kit. Yes, they can fail as well, but 19 > 17, so it will fail less often.

Chad, don't take offense. I like your design; just a little devil's advocate coming out.

PorscheDoc

I don't know if there is or not. The nice thing about a 17mm pin, is if you have a spindle problem at the track and need to swap one out, you don't have to go looking for a spindle already bored to 19mm, or find some place to bore it for you (which I have found to be damn near impossible in the past, as shops don't want to cut that out larger, due to the slot in there). With a 17mm pin, just slap it on and go. There is the argument that the 19mm hole weakens the spindle mount, but I have never seen a failure there, it is always in the ball joint pin (sheering). I don't see anything wrong with a 17mm pin, especially if it is so cheap to replace (making it annual, or bi annual maintenance)

PorscheDoc

Chad,

I have a set of early offset aluminum arms that are junk if you need them for specs. Cover the shipping and I'll send em out!

North Coast Cab

When the 44 first came into the US Fred Baker ran it a lot, including in the 24 hours of Nelson and they had ball joint failures. Yes those ball joints are cheap and should be replaced every year, but spending $1000 on a set of arms with $10 BJ's and a potential to fail isn't ideal in my mind. I run reinforced steel arms and these ball joints myslef, but the whole set-up is $100. I want a better alternative, but I'm not convinced the early ball joint should be a part of it.