KuHL 951

Be very careful thinking that the damage might be only cosmetic, intergranular cracking may have occurred especially if the copper was displaced from a yet unknown electrolytic mix. Personally I wouldn't use them or sell them until all the facts are known. 2024 is not an alloy to be taken lightly; as others have stated it is an aircraft alloy used to resist stress corrosion cracking for critical parts and components. From what I have read you did not provide the parts in this condition, friend or not. The plater should have known the correct process for any given alloy. Hopefully the buyer relayed this fact to the shop that caused the damage. Unfortunately this is a lose-lose for all parties involved and none of the damage was intentional. I hope you can work it out amicably between friends.

Rich Sandor

What we have here is a no-win situation. From your side of the story, you have done no wrong. I'm sure the plater wouldn't ever admit to doing anything wrong, even if he inadvertantly did. Of course, you can't blame the customer for anything, since you agreed on anodizing the arms in the first first place.

Lessons learned: Warranty void if arm is modified by third party. Anodizing instructions must be very clear.

If you absolutely do not want to eat the cost, try to find out exactly what steps the anodizer guy did, over the phone, put him on the spot. And if he says he did something which you know he shouldn't have, boom, you got him. However that would not do any good for anyone other than keep you from being 1G in the hole. If worse comes to worse, you may be able to meet the anozider half way on your cost, if you can convince him that he did something wrong.

situation sucks for all. I hope you get it worked out. it's situations like this that kill the aftermarket supply for our cars!

Skip Wolfe

I really struggled with whether or not I should chime in on this one. I typically hate it when customers and vendors fight it out in public, so I am stating right now – I WILL NOT GET IS A PISSING MATCH WITH ANYONE ON THIS PUBLIC FORUM ABOUT THIS. I will merely state my case and partake in discussion, but nothing good comes out of people getting all riled up and get personal. I am still not sure if this is the right thing to do but here it goes.

I am the Mid-West guy that Mumzer is referring to. For the most part what he described is accurate but there are a few important issues I would like to clarify.

1. Mumzer did in fact tell me that I should get them anodized. I was a bit surprised when he told me this since I assumed when I agreed to buy them they were already coated/anodized. The were advertised as "complete" which to me means they are ready to bolt on, which was not exactly the case. I have bought a fair amount of aluminum and steel parts for this car and this is the first time that I EVER got anything that was uncoated and I was responsible for the coating myself. So I did not “modify the part” on a whim – I did it per the vendors direction. Also I did find out that 2024 is very susceptible to corrosion because of the elevated copper content so leaving them raw wasn't really an option.

2. The plater is a very large shop - largest supplier of ABS brake pistons to the big 3 in Detroit and the guy who did me the favor was one of the owners. I did not tell him that it was 2024 - that is true. I am not a metallurgist nor am I a coatings expert so I had no way of knowing. Should they have asked? Probably. Should Mumzer told me to make sure that I tell the plater that it was 2024 as there are issues surrounding this alloy? I think so. (Hindsight is a wonderful thing)

3. The plater called me as soon as it happened. He told me that it happened in the etch/desmutt baths and the part was in each bath for less than 30 seconds. I have talked to this plater extensively since this has all happened. He has maintained that they have done 2024 before with no problems like this and that the only issues they have had is problems getting a thick enough hard coat

4. The plater had some pieces of certified 2024-T351 from a known vendor that he performed a variety of tests. Etch, no etch, short duration in anodizing tank, long duration in anodizing tank, etc. He also followed the exact procedure he used for the arms. While he had a variety of different thickness of hard coat, none of them showed any signs of pitting. To the plater this is not a money issue - it is a matter of pride.

So look at it from my point of view. I bought these parts from Mumzer who was very pleasant and helpful to deal with and seems to know his stuff - but I don't know him except from this list. I dealt with a very large anodizer that my company has done a lot of business with, and has a long relationship with. The anodizer does all sorts of tests to prove it wasn't his process, and he is also one of the owners so it not like he would get in trouble for having to cut me a check for $1,200 and this company is a >$30 million/year business so its not like they would be hurt by reimbursing me.

So where do I go from here? My plater proved that his chemistry is compatible so the only thing I can do is call him a liar or accuse him of being incompetent – neither of which I believe is true. This is a good guy who has been running this business for over 20 years. I guess I still keep coming back to the fact that I feel the part should have been coated when I bought and I shouldn’t have been put in this position. I feel like I am in a total no win situation. I am out $1,200 – which believe me I really can’t afford, I had to put the Charlie arms on my credit card. And everyone involved is going to be ticked off by this whole thing.

Do I think Mumzer intentionally screwed me? No. Do I think manufacturers need to step up and make things right in a situation where it is questionable who is at fault? Absolutely - especially since I did persoannly do anything wrong - I am stuck between 2 vendors. We are really at an impasse. There really isn’t any way to prove what happened. I have a plater that I know personally and know him to be a very stand-up guy. He tells me its not his fault, tests 2024 with his process and it come through with flying colors. The parts sat in the box in my office since I got them, and went from there straight to the paters. What would you all do/think?

Finally, yes I did buy a used set of Charlie Arms. I got them used (1 year old) for $1,200 and they included the caster blocks so that is $2,000 worth of product (thanks Ski), and I felt a darn good deal. My track season has already started and this could take a while to resolve and good ole' Murphy would love to bite me in the **** by having my stock arms break while I am wrestling with getting this resolved. So I felt I really couldn't wait and deals such as this one come around VERY infrequently.

I’m still not sure that this is all that smart to be posting here, but what the hell. The way my luck has been going, it can’t get any worse.

Skip

Travis - sflraver

This seems like one of the most civilized part/vender discrepancies ever posted on rennlist. This could be due in part to the fact that no one seems to be at fault. Something is not right and it has nothing to do with the manufacturer or the customer.
The only things that can be wrong here is the anodizer hung the part on titanium racks (which causes major pitting and is outlined in every guide I have read) or the people who produced the billet let inpurities slip in that effected its reaction in the etch.
So we are down to a lying anodizer or lying foundry. From what I have read there is no way I can even come close to making an educated guess as to what went wrong, but by posting here we may be able to get to the bottom of it. There are some intelligent people here on rennlist so someone must have a little incite as to what went wrong.
Besides the blame factor (which doesn't appear to reside with the manufacturer or customer directly) another thing to think about is what can be done. Maybe with a piece in hand the foundry can shed some light on what happened after a few tests. Maybe you should bring it to a third party metals manufacturer for a unbiased opinion.

Just some ideas..

Sam Lin

Skip, I'm glad you posted - I think a logical next step is send the damaged arm to an independent metallurgist, see if it is indeed 2024, though mumzer's supplier has the certification sheets on it, mixups do happen, however rarely.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that mumzer should have warned you that 2024 needs special treatment, it's really no different from any other <specific> alloy - each has its own page in the ano book. In this respect, I feel the ano shop should have asked, and the fault is theirs for not asking.

When your plater tested 2024 did he use the same racks and were there the same other parts in the tank? As that link above showed, having a titanium rack, OR titanium parts in with the same run, would cause the bloom.

Sam

Sam Lin

Travis, not only is it the most civil I've seen, the reason is not only no clear fault, but both parties willingness to accept the fault if it is indeed theirs.

Sam

Skip Wolfe

The pitting happened it the etch/desmutt tanks and the part was held in the tank by hand (gloved hand).

Travis - sflraver

Maybe you could put up a pic of the pitting. The plating place down the street from my shop may be able to shed a little light on this.
To be honest, one of the main reasons I am taking such an interest in this thread is I have been playing with different aluminum alloys lately and I am extremely curious to find out what went wrong. I do all my own "one off" anodizing and I would like to avoid something like this if at all possible.

Matt H

Good news is both parties are known to be pretty damn good listers and this kind of discussion is pretty healthy. It just sucks that both of you are going to lose.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

turbo951fan

I think you are making the mistake here assuming that the plater didn't make a mistake. Most people here suggested that this may have happened. If you feel that you have to protect the plater/his company then you are the one who has to let go and take the "loss".

Jason_86_951

I hope that things remain civil, and the parts get sent in for analysis. If the plater did or didn't do something only this will prove it. Seems like it's worth it to do so.
Or each splits the loss and chalks it up to sh$t happens.

Skip Wolfe

It is not about "protecting" my plater. This is a guy I and my company knows quite well, and has always been first class to deal with. He has never done anything the least bit shady. So when he did his tests with the 2024 he either proved that his chemistry is compatible or he made up a very elaborate story to convince me that he is not at fault. I find that very hard to believe that he made up the whole story. Nothing is impossible, but it would be way out of character for someone we have a long history.

What if you had an issue and instead of my plater, it was Jason at Paragon who was being scrutinized. We all know Jason is first class, and I'm guessing pretty much everyone here would have a hard time he was lying and making up this elaborate cover up because it would be way out of character. My anodizer has been like Jason in all dealings with my company - why wouldn't I find it hard to believe he was telling the truth.

My problem here is there is a very good chance we will never know exactly what happened. Yes we could send the part out for analysis. But the only way to really do this is to pick a neutral lab and split the analysis costs so there isn't any question of loyalties. Then the lab will most likely give us what could have possibly happened or theoretically happened but I can't see how they could say "this is exactly what happened". So then we would be pissing away good money after bad and just be out more cash with no real resolution.

Believe me guys, I have obsessed about this thing constantly and tried to look at every angle and I keep coming back to one thing. Why did I have to coat the part in the first place. Neither the Fabcar arms nor the Charlie Arms need to be coated by the customer - why this one? All this goes away if I didn't have to fool with it in the first place. This whole things makes me feel like I got punched in the stomach.

mumzer

before i get into this let me say that the part that was damaged badly doesnt belong on anything except a test bench...it is by no means cosmetic. I dont have any idea how to post pics, but i would welcome them if skip wants to post some.

im glad skip came out here too. This is civilized for two reasons....we both behave like adults, and no one is pointing fingers. I think its fair to say both of us are totally nonplussed by this, and are struggling to come to the right solution.

Skip, i never would have outed you here...i do want to get the right answer, and to the extent that i have been frustrating to deal with, i apologize....i too am frustrated. Getting you in here should also go to prove to the extraordinarily immature that it is possible to have a disagreement without the 2nd grade cockfoolery that these things always seem to become.

Im not going to get in a pissing match either. Its pointless...getting pissed off about this and yelling and screaming will simply make half of you guys think im an ******* and the other half think skip is an *******. I think we are both legitimately after the right answer.


the reality is that neither of us is an *******; we are just linked by this set of bad facts. The typicall vendor dispute here is a result of some poor sod paying for parts, and a vendor taking off to mexico with his cash, or sending the money to pay off the state board of equalization.

Skip's a good guy in bad situation...so am I.

I am not going to rebut him, becuase there is very little of what he says that i with which I disagree. I take him at his word that he is indeed stuck in the middle of this. I cant speak to the competence of his plater, but Im sure he believes that the guy is qualified. The only red flag to me is the failure of the plater to ask for alloy spec before plating.

Most of you probably know who carol smith is....if you dont, you should...and you should go buy his books. He has the most intellectually accessible books on materials science, fasteners, and rac car engineering potpourri that one can absorb without routine sidebars from the SAE.

he regards 2024 as " the primary alloy of the ssubsonic aircraft industry. There is a strong possibility that it should als be ours. It is not weldable and not very formable, but its tensile strength and its stiffness are well above those of any other alloy that can be formed at all. ... 2024 has exceptional strenght and stability at high temps. I use it exclusively for brake bells (hats) and aluminum flywheels"

For those of you who like numbers 2024-t351 has nearly double the tensile and shear strengths of 6061-t6 65kpsi and 40kpsi versus 35kpsi and 25kpsi respectively.

he goes on to say that the best corrosion protection regime he has found, is to periodically wipe parts down with a commrecially available metal prep compound, but his favorite is WD-40 (no...im not kidding) this is not practical on street cars...since we all know very few of us are disciplined enough to routinely clean aluminum parts and wipe them down with corrosion inhibitors, anodizing is a great alternative....the only problem with it is it tends to hide flaws that would otherwise be visible...and folks tend to think it and therefor the coated part, will last forever and never require service.

The point of all this is that although 2024 is prohibitively expensive and not very common outside of racing and aerospace circles...it was chosen thoughtfully with an eye to producing the best part...there is nothing strange about it, except maybe that people who should know better dont use it as much as they should...an uncoated racing part is not unusual either...a film of ATF on a part, weighs nothing, costs nothing, and doesnt require constant touch up.

The reason the parts are not coated is im trying to build a part that is accessible for more people...i dont want to add the cost...this is the same reason i dont make a part that requires a costly aftermarket caster block, or machining the stock spindles to install. This part costs a little more than half the all-in costs of the competition.

I think the failure analysis metallurgy would be the best way to deal with this, assuming such a process can be dispositive. The only part about this that i wish he had handled differently was his non-acceptance of my offer to replace the damaged part with a replacement. It complicates the resolution of this situation should some kind of metalurgical analysis in fact be possible. Charlie arms complete for 1200 bucks...a great deal to be sure...hard even to get upset about that.

to the list, i hope you guys dont think this is innapropriate content. i daresay there is more real tech in this thread than in most.

so skip...im not blowing you off....im chewing on this and trying to learn more. im going to go chew on this some more, and try to learn more. by the way, in your mind is the right hand arm still serviceable?

Travis - sflraver

It did not need to be anodized. Aluminum, even with a higher than usual brass content, should not oxidize to the point of questionable structural intregrety for a very long time.
Anodizing causes a uniform oxidation of the outside .0005" skin of the aluminum. Once oxidized, the inner material is protected from further natural oxidation. It is most needed in marine environments where salt and sea water can cause the initial natural oxidation to penetrate deeper than is acceptable.
If you look at the OEM aluminum arms, they were never anodized. From what I can see they were never even painted with a clear coat.
Besides protecting the piece from uneven natural oxidation the anodized skin also does 2 more things.
It causes the skin of the piece to become harder and thus more resistant to dings in the material. The down side is that this outer, hard, anodized skin can crack when pushed past its limits. You cannot really see the cracks on a "clear" anodized piece but is more visible on a "colored" anodized piece.
The other thing that anodizing does is it causes the skin of the aluminum to become non-conductive to an extent. This helps in the marine environment when the piece is placed in sea water along side a dissimilar metal. When an unanodized aluminum piece is placed in sea water with a piece of iron, it creates a battery condition. When this happens the aluminum is the first to degrade and it happens at an astounding rate.

Now thats not taking sides. I personally feel anodizing is just to make stuff look pretty, but I do it. Why?, because it looks pretty. Just wanted to throw out some facts on what anodizing does and does not do and how it is used in real world applications.

I am still interested in getting to the bottom of this. I have been playing with some new stuff ($180 per lb for just the additives) and I would like to avoid any mistakes after the pieces are finished.
And its not for the 944 incase anyone has raised brows... its for the "real" job.

Tom M'Guinn

I'm neither a metallurgist nor an ethisist, but having read all of this, I think Mumzer should eat the $1200 (and try to pass it on to his metal supplier) if there was something wrong with the metal to start with, and Skip should eat the $1200 (and try to pass it on to his plater) if there was nothing wrong with the metal to start with. Assuming Mumzer can prove that he bought and paid for good 2024 metal, I would think the burden of proving otherwise is on Skip (i.e., the cost of testing the metal is on Skip). However, the gentlemenly thing to do is probably share that cost and let the chips fall where they may.

The fact that is was not plated initially would have been a reason to undo the transaction if there was a misunderstanding on that point, but once Skip undertook to get it plated, I think he effectively agreed to accept them unplated at that point.

This is one of many good reason to always have some form of contract or written terms and conditions. Think about how this conversation would look if the arms failed at speed.

None of this is legal advice. Just one car-guy's opinion.