Re: [Amc-list] 'Flexible Flyers' con't

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

The double spherical rod ended strut sold up there in Canada would stop that twist.
It would transmit all the harsh road bumps directly to the floor/subframe of the the car however. 
   You would think we could come up with a strut rod that would universally bolt into our cars.
Not beat the snot out of them in the process either!
    With rod ends on both ends length would be easy to address.
Harshness is probably not fixable however. Would it not be possible to design a bolt in insert to sit snugly [very snugly!] into the stock strut bushing hole. Then you could bolt a rod end into the bracket and onto the lower control arm. 
   You then take out all binding and rubber slop. With a sleeve it could easiliy be adjusted for caster. It would be totally bolt in.
    Why has no one built a bolt in kit???
Don't look at me! I just think this crap up!!!


--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
" I was different before people dared to be different" 

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 09:03 -0400, Brien Tourville wrote a bunch of
> stuff:
> 
> 
> > Snip - Gotcha' .  The 'pressed metal' Upper Control Arms where
> > the bushings press in isn't that much more 'Awe Inspiring' than
> > the lower control arms.  
> > 
> > Making the bushing insert 'tube' out of
> > something thicker walled would make me feel better. 
> 
> The upper control arms have nearly all forces constrained to vertical
> motion. The only non-vertical force they receive is when the lower arm
> moves fore/aft (eg. hit the brakes HARD or bonk a curb) which would move
> the lower ball joint/trunnion rearward, which would torque the upper
> joint with a long lever, twisting the trunnion and therefore the arms.
> 
> (You could argue that an upper ball joint is superior if the only thing
> it did was not transmit torque from the steering knuckle to the upper
> arm, since it is free to move in any direction except up/down (the
> balljoint guts that is).)
> 
> 
> 
> > Snip - So if I have the upper and lower control arms crafted out
> > of Hi-Strength Tubular Steel - it will accelerate the Failure Rate
> > of the Bushings / attachment points ?
> 
> Upper arms with a ball joint -- doesn't matter what you do within
> reason.
> 
> Lower arm, if the arm can't twist longitudinally then all the energy
> driving that rotation has got to dissipate somewhere!
> 
> That lower arm twists A LOT! It has to -- ignore the inner bushing for
> the moment -- consider that the balljoint rides on the end of the strut
> rod anchored in the chassis a mere 16" or so away. That's a 16" radius
> circle. That means for a 4" vertical travel of the tire and wheel, the
> balljoint-end of the lower arm rotates about 14 degrees. If you make the
> lower arm super-stiff you'll break something.
> 
> 
> 
> Americans as a car market have never cared about handling performance,
> for the most part. Horsepower and the drag strip were it, and style.
> They were engineered for low cost and safety first. AMC had it's own
> peculiar form of engineering conservatism that I personally like a lot.
> I love the slow evolution and the frugality that means we have so many
> interchangable and adaptable parts. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list