Myles,

You are absolutely correct. The threaded bit is not at all optimum.

But the loads were considered and the threaded bit is adequate for the application as long as the chassis is subjected to loads below 25G's.

I really doubt that fatigue will become a problem with this joint as the teflon will cold flow and fail well before cyclic material failure occurs.

In other words, the joint will become loose and vibration will occur, hopefully prompting the driver to look into the reason for the above.

There are units out there with >50k miles and the joints are just like new.

I am amazed!!!!!!!!

Really!! You would think that the life would be much shorter.

But there you are.

Hi Richard,

I changed my tie rod ends to 5/8" teflon lined 4130 rod ends. My main concern about them was keeping the dust and dirt out of them. Do you use any kind of dust cap or seal arrangement on the rod ends in your suspension or is the dust and dirt not a problem?

Cheers

Mike,

I have not seen any wear from dirt as of yet. But these cars are not used in really bad/dirty environments.

I have seen these same rod ends in off road race vehicles and they do not seem to wear excessively but they replace them after every race, therefore poor data about wear.

I think that some of the sprint car guys here will have much more history on these units as they run in the worst conditions for a spherical bearing.

I know that there are a few companies that sell dust shields for the sprint car crowd.

Surely the nature of fatigue failure is that the part can appear 'just like new' right up until the point that it fails.

I guess that some things like this may look wrong 'on paper' but in practice the failure never occurs; The proof of the pudding is in the eating and >50K is a pretty good practical test.

On the subject of 'that' front suspension: why did you go for rocker arms and inboard springs? I always thought that was for aerodynamic reasons on open wheeled cars. Just interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mylesdw Surely the nature of fatigue failure is that the part can appear 'just like new' right up until the point that it fails. I guess that some things like this may look wrong 'on paper' but in practice the failure never occurs; The proof of the pudding is in the eating and >50K is a pretty good practical test. On the subject of 'that' front suspension: why did you go for rocker arms and inboard springs? I always thought that was for aerodynamic reasons on open wheeled cars. Just interested.

You are correct that the nature of fatigue failure is that the failure point often looks normal until it fails.

As you know, metal fatigue is caused by repeated cycling of of the load. It is a progressive localized damage due to fluctuating stresses and strains on the material. Metal fatigue cracks initiate and propagate in regions where the strain is most severe.

The process of fatigue consists of three stages:

1. Initial crack initiation
2. Progressive crack growth across the part
3. Final sudden fracture of the remaining cross section

I have had a number of the rod ends magnafluxed at varying points in their life and have yet to find any stress cracks in the units.

Even after some fair shunts that left the rod ends bent, there has been no cracking. However, I do stress that these joints as well as all rod ends on the chassis should be inspected between each session for damage or wear.



As to your second query.


1. Packaging. Look at all of bits and see how everything is centrally located and quite compact. Think polar moment. The new cars have pull rod rear suspension for the same reason.

http://jblmotor.com/images/ENGCOMP3.jpg[


2. Motion ratios. Over-square to produce high damper shaft movement.

http://www.jblmotor.com/images/rockers2.jpg

3. Aero. When a splitter is fitted, air needs to flow through the wheel well as cleanly as possible to insure accelerated flow on the underside of the splitter. This was also a consideration, but it is really much like gilding the lily.

Thanks Richard, That's given me a bit more confidence.

Cheers

Thanks Richard, certainly appreciate the time taken to answer these questions.

Great looking, Richard.....as are all your cars.

I think more manufacturers should be concerned about getting their cars registered - not just in California. Of course ignoring the issue is akin to Remington continuing to make typewriters.

Good luck with it.

Thanks Pat,

I think that California folks are dreaming if they think they are going get a pass on smog rules much longer.

SB100 does not cover the amount of cars that are built per year for CA use and I doubt it will be around that much longer......

I agree on the rest of the states as well. My thoughts are to provide a 50 state platform so the vehicle can be legal from the emissions standpoint.

That way at least someone who wants this type of car has a chance with the various state DMV's.

We've been in the grip of emissions laws down here for years. Pretty much the only options for V8s now are the 5.4 Quad cam Ford or the LS1/LS2 Chev. All new builds will have to meet Euro 3 next year.

Cheers

Emissions
 

Aussie Mike,

With your current and new emission laws, if you started a build and had the first inspection before a new law comes in, are you exempt from changes in law?

Reason is with NZ low volume certification vehicles any current law at time of initial certification stands eg type of lights, steering shaft modifications, I think the engine should be the same, otherwise we get the "moving the goal posts syndrome"

Hi Ant,

Fortunately we have a 3 year grace period to finish the car with the engine that complies at the start of that 3 years.

Unfortunately that wasn't the case in all states and a lot of NSW guys were rushing to finish their cars by January last year.

We are trying to get a scheme going with the rego authorities like the Hot Rod guys have. Anything pre 48 just needs to run on unleaded fuel. That's even if it's a fiberglass body on a reproduction chassis. (Sounds a lot like a Cobra to me except for the pre 48 bit)

Cheers

It will come out this one does http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/s...00&ppuser=9500

Hey Folks,

Larry finally got around to sending me some more photos and kit details.

They are at the JBL website.

Just click on the Touring Car photo.

What an awesome roller, at a damned good price.

Looking nice - More JBL's
 

Larry & Richard

Looks really nice... I would like to see this motor in the comp chassis...might just have to get another :cool: Not sure how it would effect the weight ratio. Right now the comp chassis is near 50/50...

figure I have never driven a car with a carb....why start now (thus my JBL has EFI 351w) :3DSMILE:

For those that do not know Larry did my stage 3 build... pictures are on my website. Good work...and Dilion, MT is a fun place to visit :eek:

http://www.thenolands.com/gallery/v/Cobra/JBL_Build/

Nice work...wonder where he got the idea for the color for the new car....hmmmm