BMR Vrs Spohn Vrs UMI
02-26-2005, 05:13 PM
#81
I'm glad we see eye to eye, I wasn't certain as to if you were unsure due to the comment made previously.
The larger rod end being superior can be deceiving. Not knowing your background, I figured I'd post to let you know you have absolutely no concerns regarding failure. It also may solidified any other persons concerns.
FWIW, no I have no affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this post. I would hope no one company is insulted by my comments as to their level of knowledge or background; I make no accusations towards any one company.
Steve
The larger rod end being superior can be deceiving. Not knowing your background, I figured I'd post to let you know you have absolutely no concerns regarding failure. It also may solidified any other persons concerns.
FWIW, no I have no affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this post. I would hope no one company is insulted by my comments as to their level of knowledge or background; I make no accusations towards any one company.
Steve
02-27-2005, 02:55 PM
#83
Originally Posted by sikws6
I'd have to agree with Steve if you break a "QUALITY" 5/8 chromolly rod end on a panhard or lower control arm you've got bigger problems than you think ...my.02
I really like this thread...
02-27-2005, 04:13 PM
#84
TECH Addict
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Waldwick, NJ
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MeentSS02
Things are cheaper for a reason, after all.
i.e. I think one of the companies listed on this thread is way overpriced across the board. Also a sponsor I used to work for buys a product from another sponsor here and simply rebadges it and charges more...Higher price, same product....Its a tough call sometimes
02-27-2005, 05:07 PM
#85
Well my ME opinion is that if 3/4" QA1's in the PHB are worn out after two seasons or less on my car, 5/8" QA1's will be worn out even more quickly. Ultimate, sudden failure isn't the concern with either.
02-27-2005, 06:34 PM
#86
Originally Posted by Jon A
Well my ME opinion is that if 3/4" QA1's in the PHB are worn out after two seasons or less on my car, 5/8" QA1's will be worn out even more quickly. Ultimate, sudden failure isn't the concern with either.
The larger rod ends are used (especially in the case of the aluminum tubing), due to the aluminum wall thickness commonly available. Standard available size tubing do not allow for threading of the smaller diameter rod ends. Using a large bearing then sleeve it down with an adapter bushing does not make engineering sense.
From a cost perspective using custom designed parts i.e. custom wall thickness tubing instead of using standard shelved parts is not cost-effective. In this particular case, choosing the larger rod end and sleeving it down to accommodate standard tubing makes more sense. I HIGHLY doubt there was any consideration that the very small surface area difference of the ball has any bearing on the purchase of the part.
Furthermore, additional costs savings can be seen using similar parts to build different components. Larger price breaks will be seen by purchasing larger quantities of a specific part. It also simplifies production.
It is find it humorous how folks are so concerned with longevity of the rod ends...certainly you don't want them to last 2 months and have to replace them, but in some conditions it may be necessary EVEN with any of the two choices that companies use. These things are not very expensive. Spending 30.00 to replace a rod end here or there is not a large expense. The cost to replace tires in a season is substantially larger. In comparison, rod ends are such a small investment when it comes to maintenance on the car.
Rod ends are not an everyday driver solution period. If your car is your everyday driver, then rod ends are not a good consideration for you unless your tolerance level is high. They are race parts, if you get two seasons out of a set that is great...probably more then most I'd say. It depends on each individual’s level of noise acceptance. FWIW, you could use them for longer if you don't mind an increase in noise. It all depends on how you drive the car, where you drive it and what conditions you’re driving in.
It seems that cost of the rod ends seems to be an issue with folks here. What I don't understand is why if folks are so concerned with spending additional costs on replacing the rod ends down the road, why they aren't just considering using lower cost rod ends to dramatically reduce the consumers overall price for the parts they pay. The MAIN reason why the arms are so expensive is for the most part due to the cost of the rod ends themselves. One could DRAMATICALLY reduce the cost of the parts if they choose a lower cost rod end....you may have to replace them in a season, but even with the higher cost rod ends, you may only get or two seasons out of them anyways.
We listen to what our consumers want; we change designs to accommodate trends or desires. The reason why you’ve seen the manufactures change to the same rod ends is the simple fact on the net in the discussion groups, folks get into “grooves” and a company listen to them if they want to sell a product.
I'm surprised that no one discusses which rod has less deflection or the fact that aluminum has no fatigue limit and stress cracks over time and they won’t run it because this is a concern …or one will last 3 years and the other 3.5 years, not the rod ends itself.
I wish I never even responded to this post as it becomes a waste of typing due to someone attempting to pick and dissect a rod end and its application. I can't believe there is so much discussion about a rod ends.
I think in the end, folks can come to a conclusion; rod ends regardless of which brand you choose for the most part will be quite w/low mileage. Strength characteristics for the most part are NOT a concern as they are all over designed with a high SOF. The differences between the higher end rod-ends such as the standard QA1 style everyone is using, will bide time a bit.
Steve
02-27-2005, 07:11 PM
#87
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I dont want the "cheap" rod ends due to rattles, noise etc. I have had great results with the Endura series QA1's I run so I am sticking with them. So to have a better rod end and a part that is to strong the extra bucks seem worth it to me.
Also I would rather have a overkill part rather then a underkill part
Also I would rather have a overkill part rather then a underkill part
02-27-2005, 08:51 PM
#88
Both expensive and inexpensive models will be quiet, one will be more quiet for a period of time, this is the difference. I would not call the less expensive ones "cheap", I'd call them less expensive as they both will provide enough strength and FOS for failure criteria. Failure from fatigue will NOT be an issue with less expensive similar style models.
The lesser expensive if not lubricated will wear faster thus being creating more noise. Just because they are less expensive doesn't mean they are overkill or underkill.
Both will wear and need replaced over time. The more expensive rod ends may give some additional time before it needs replaced. How much time, well that is dependant on a number of variables. Drive the expensive ones on dirt roads, and they will be short lived.
Don't get me wrong, from a marketing standpoint the QA1's are the only choice especially on these boards. I think this whole post states what the cosumer wants. This rambling I’m doing isn't worth much as there is NO company on these boards whom use anything but QA1's. This is due to the fact that many folks as you think feel better with them. Nothing wrong with that at all. The companies meet your perceived criteria. Many times the companies create the perceived criteria and use it as a marketing tactic. These parts are not new industry research. LCA's, PHR, rod ends have been used for many many years.
A company would not have much success selling suspensions components with the less expensive rod ends on here. This was already attempted by some manufactures which came in with an inexpensive choice. It was driven away by a folks whom stated they thought it was too loud over time. Everyone switched. The other companies whom switched first to more expensive brands boasted that theirs were better as they only use high end rod ends. Now this is all that anyone uses so the parts are overall more expensive due to the costs involved. Now that everyone is using only more expensive rod ends, the only thing they can pick straws at is we use this size and they use that size...a marketing tactic.
Which company is better?? Consider someone whom supports their products is a good choice. When you see companies stating they pre-heat parts or special process, are most likely blowing smoke. For example, I recall seeing somewhere at one time a company stated they are pre-heating their material (I have no idea where I saw it, though I laughed when I read it). It certainly can't be done with a torch; the process of pre-heating requires specific criteria w/considerations of material thickness, processing time. I highly doubt any one of them have the facilities to correctly follow procedure. Pre-heating with a torch can do more damage. I don't even care for powdercoating as it hides welding sins, but that's just me. Other area's (not these boards) folks may weigh the cost vs. function and consider the less expensive a much better alternative.
If you live in an environment that is dirty or harsh conditions, lesser expensive rod ends may be a better alternative as you'll be replacing the more expensive versions quickly also. It may be more cost effective to purchase 50.00/year in rod ends vs. 120.00/year.
I'm done...no disrespect to anyone on here. My conversation is intended as lite discussion. I certainly do not want to stray the conversations from their path. You guys can go back to your comments. I see these posts all the time never really wanted to get involved...though I did on this one, and now wish I didn't spend the time. (some folks may feel the same)
The lesser expensive if not lubricated will wear faster thus being creating more noise. Just because they are less expensive doesn't mean they are overkill or underkill.
Both will wear and need replaced over time. The more expensive rod ends may give some additional time before it needs replaced. How much time, well that is dependant on a number of variables. Drive the expensive ones on dirt roads, and they will be short lived.
Don't get me wrong, from a marketing standpoint the QA1's are the only choice especially on these boards. I think this whole post states what the cosumer wants. This rambling I’m doing isn't worth much as there is NO company on these boards whom use anything but QA1's. This is due to the fact that many folks as you think feel better with them. Nothing wrong with that at all. The companies meet your perceived criteria. Many times the companies create the perceived criteria and use it as a marketing tactic. These parts are not new industry research. LCA's, PHR, rod ends have been used for many many years.
A company would not have much success selling suspensions components with the less expensive rod ends on here. This was already attempted by some manufactures which came in with an inexpensive choice. It was driven away by a folks whom stated they thought it was too loud over time. Everyone switched. The other companies whom switched first to more expensive brands boasted that theirs were better as they only use high end rod ends. Now this is all that anyone uses so the parts are overall more expensive due to the costs involved. Now that everyone is using only more expensive rod ends, the only thing they can pick straws at is we use this size and they use that size...a marketing tactic.
Which company is better?? Consider someone whom supports their products is a good choice. When you see companies stating they pre-heat parts or special process, are most likely blowing smoke. For example, I recall seeing somewhere at one time a company stated they are pre-heating their material (I have no idea where I saw it, though I laughed when I read it). It certainly can't be done with a torch; the process of pre-heating requires specific criteria w/considerations of material thickness, processing time. I highly doubt any one of them have the facilities to correctly follow procedure. Pre-heating with a torch can do more damage. I don't even care for powdercoating as it hides welding sins, but that's just me. Other area's (not these boards) folks may weigh the cost vs. function and consider the less expensive a much better alternative.
If you live in an environment that is dirty or harsh conditions, lesser expensive rod ends may be a better alternative as you'll be replacing the more expensive versions quickly also. It may be more cost effective to purchase 50.00/year in rod ends vs. 120.00/year.
I'm done...no disrespect to anyone on here. My conversation is intended as lite discussion. I certainly do not want to stray the conversations from their path. You guys can go back to your comments. I see these posts all the time never really wanted to get involved...though I did on this one, and now wish I didn't spend the time. (some folks may feel the same)
02-28-2005, 12:01 AM
#89
Wow. I didn't really mean to light off a two page defensive rant followed by the, "I'm taking my ball and going home"-type response with my very simple two-sentenced point.
This is simply untrue. Perhaps with all the extra time you have from not posting here, you could use some of it to peruse documents such as SAE AS81820, etc for various testing procedures. Then you can report back all the rod ends of same brand and construction where a 5/8" has the same dynamic load rating as a 3/4".
When I made my LCA's & PHB, there were plenty of aftermarket rod-ended parts available (all used cheap rod ends at the time). They used 3/4" rod ends. They were all steel. When you're welding on a tubing adapter, it's quite easy to use the size you want.
You're preaching to the choir. I've told people for years that having to peroidically replace rod ends isn't much money in the big picture. It's almost anoying to me how people are so afraid of using them because they might need to be replaced sometime. Then again, you can go too far in this direction and pretty soon people will be putting their stock LCA's back on because they're sick of it. Like below:
Been there, done that. Spend 1/2 as much per and replace them 10 times as often.... Life is too short for that nonsense.
More like every two weekends for the cheap ones to come to the same amount of clearances.
I could, but I simply wouldn't for very long. Annoyance is only one of the reasons (although a big one). When a rod end is rattling excessively, that's because it has developed excessive clearances. You can clearly see this below even without the use of a feeler-guage:
New:
Rattling:
That's a lot of slop. Beyond making noise, it allows slop in the suspension. The rod end is no longer performing its function as well as it once was. If you're going to run rod ends so loose they're flopping around and not locating the suspension with precision (the exact reason you put them on in the first place) you might as well put the stock parts with rubber bushings back on.
For automotive applications, who exactly is it you think that spends $80-$120 for each rod end in 3/4" sizes? The weekend warriors reading this board who are concerned about noise? Yeah, right. No, those high end pieces go to higher-end racecars (asphalt, dirt is different) who have budget well beyond my wildest dreams. Simply because a rod end flopping around on its ball by the end of the race isn't doing its job properly.
And now that they are, people are a whole lot happier with their products. A few years ago when everybody sold their parts with cheap rod ends it was poly or nothing for a car that's even occasionally street driven. And especially in LCA's, poly stinks for handling.
I can't believe you found so much "picking and dissecting" in two friggen sentences. It's just a discussion, lighten up.
Originally Posted by steve10
Wear differences will NOT be an issue. This is a moot point. Both will wear almost identical in identical tests.
The larger rod ends are used (especially in the case of the aluminum tubing), due to the aluminum wall thickness commonly available. Standard available size tubing do not allow for threading of the smaller diameter rod ends.
It is find it humorous how folks are so concerned with longevity of the rod ends...In comparison, rod ends are such a small investment when it comes to maintenance on the car.
What I don't understand is why if folks are so concerned with spending additional costs on replacing the rod ends down the road, why they aren't just considering using lower cost rod ends to dramatically reduce the consumers overall price for the parts they pay.
One could DRAMATICALLY reduce the cost of the parts if they choose a lower cost rod end....you may have to replace them in a season, but even with the higher cost rod ends, you may only get or two seasons out of them anyways.
FWIW, you could use them for longer if you don't mind an increase in noise.
New:
Rattling:
That's a lot of slop. Beyond making noise, it allows slop in the suspension. The rod end is no longer performing its function as well as it once was. If you're going to run rod ends so loose they're flopping around and not locating the suspension with precision (the exact reason you put them on in the first place) you might as well put the stock parts with rubber bushings back on.
For automotive applications, who exactly is it you think that spends $80-$120 for each rod end in 3/4" sizes? The weekend warriors reading this board who are concerned about noise? Yeah, right. No, those high end pieces go to higher-end racecars (asphalt, dirt is different) who have budget well beyond my wildest dreams. Simply because a rod end flopping around on its ball by the end of the race isn't doing its job properly.
The reason why you’ve seen the manufactures change to the same rod ends is the simple fact on the net in the discussion groups, folks get into “grooves” and a company listen to them if they want to sell a product.
I wish I never even responded to this post as it becomes a waste of typing due to someone attempting to pick and dissect a rod end and its application. I can't believe there is so much discussion about a rod ends.
02-28-2005, 01:12 AM
#90
Jon,
You probably missed my last comment stating that my discussion was lite...last paragraph...lol I don't feel any of my comments were in a defensive manor. Posting any SAE AS81820, SAE AS81934, (yes I'm aware of others too)...specifications is ridiculous... Come on.
Regarding dynamic loading, there is more then just a simple answer which I have no intent to go into. Dynamic loading is not the only consideration shock loading etc is also an important variant among others. As mentioned BOTH far exceed loads that they would see. We can both stick our chests out ranting our knowledge though it is not worth the time.
Your must be taking my rod end comment literally regarding rod ends as meaning EVERY one. Of course there are a variety of styles with varying materials. I don't feel the need to rant every style. No one is going to use anything else anyways but QA1's due to the mis-understanding and misleading statements by the masses. The whole conversation is worthless to even be involved in. I'm sorry I even posted anything at this point. Both QA1 rod ends far exceed the loading requirements for a PHR or LCA, they are both completely safe. You’re picking at straws...really.
They BOTH are very good choices, though between picking from the two, the 5/8ths is lighter by almost 1/2 lb per assembly. Why add the extra weight when it's not necessary. As you should be aware, there is a point of over-engineering which reaches a point of diminishing returns. Real-world testing differences from a longevity point between the two will not show absolute differences. L10 ratings or even L5...etc are guidlines, between the two, both will be very close...many factors to consider and not worth the time.
The easily measurable test is the 5/8th inch rod-ends will show each assembly will be ~.5 lbs lighter or up to 1.5 lbs for the PHR and LCA set. Not a big gain or anything to celebrate over, though it is lighter. I suppose it would turn into...the boasting....lightest on the market suggestion. You missed my comment regarding the aluminum LCA's, using a 5/8 inch rod end is not an economically good decision due to availability of standard wall thickness materials. Of course using steel, variable rod end inserts are easily obtainable.
There are a variety of choices in rod ends that are far less expensive that are quite good, the particular style you chose you obviously didn't have good results with. Like mentioned, if Spohn, BMR or other considered ever anything else then QA1's on it, no one would purchase their parts with comments like you and a variety of others suggested...this discussion is so beat to death...lol
Steve
You probably missed my last comment stating that my discussion was lite...last paragraph...lol I don't feel any of my comments were in a defensive manor. Posting any SAE AS81820, SAE AS81934, (yes I'm aware of others too)...specifications is ridiculous... Come on.
Regarding dynamic loading, there is more then just a simple answer which I have no intent to go into. Dynamic loading is not the only consideration shock loading etc is also an important variant among others. As mentioned BOTH far exceed loads that they would see. We can both stick our chests out ranting our knowledge though it is not worth the time.
Your must be taking my rod end comment literally regarding rod ends as meaning EVERY one. Of course there are a variety of styles with varying materials. I don't feel the need to rant every style. No one is going to use anything else anyways but QA1's due to the mis-understanding and misleading statements by the masses. The whole conversation is worthless to even be involved in. I'm sorry I even posted anything at this point. Both QA1 rod ends far exceed the loading requirements for a PHR or LCA, they are both completely safe. You’re picking at straws...really.
They BOTH are very good choices, though between picking from the two, the 5/8ths is lighter by almost 1/2 lb per assembly. Why add the extra weight when it's not necessary. As you should be aware, there is a point of over-engineering which reaches a point of diminishing returns. Real-world testing differences from a longevity point between the two will not show absolute differences. L10 ratings or even L5...etc are guidlines, between the two, both will be very close...many factors to consider and not worth the time.
The easily measurable test is the 5/8th inch rod-ends will show each assembly will be ~.5 lbs lighter or up to 1.5 lbs for the PHR and LCA set. Not a big gain or anything to celebrate over, though it is lighter. I suppose it would turn into...the boasting....lightest on the market suggestion. You missed my comment regarding the aluminum LCA's, using a 5/8 inch rod end is not an economically good decision due to availability of standard wall thickness materials. Of course using steel, variable rod end inserts are easily obtainable.
There are a variety of choices in rod ends that are far less expensive that are quite good, the particular style you chose you obviously didn't have good results with. Like mentioned, if Spohn, BMR or other considered ever anything else then QA1's on it, no one would purchase their parts with comments like you and a variety of others suggested...this discussion is so beat to death...lol
Steve
Last edited by steve10; 02-28-2005 at 01:32 AM.
02-28-2005, 02:44 AM
#91
Originally Posted by steve10
Regarding dynamic loading, there is more then just a simple answer which I have no intent to go into. Dynamic loading is not the only consideration shock loading etc is also an important variant among others. As mentioned BOTH far exceed loads that they would see.
The bigger point you're missing is that even QA1 XMR/XML's, as good as they are, do not have durability that far exceeds the application. You could vacuum pack those things on there so not a spec of dirt touched them...and they would still wear out in a year or three, depending upon use. Under identical use, the 3/4" would last longer.
Both QA1 rod ends far exceed the loading requirements for a PHR or LCA, they are both completely safe. You’re picking at straws...really.
They BOTH are very good choices, though between picking from the two, the 5/8ths is lighter by almost 1/2 lb per assembly. Why add the extra weight when it's not necessary.
You missed my comment regarding the aluminum LCA's, using a 5/8 inch rod end is not an economically good decision due to availability of standard wall thickness materials.
Like mentioned, if Spohn, BMR or other considered ever anything else then QA1's on it, no one would purchase their parts with comments like you and a variety of others suggested...this discussion is so beat to death...lol
When I got my first set of QA1's, not one, not a single one of the aftermarket manufactureres offered rod ends of equivalent or better quality. I didn't hear about them on the F-Body boards--everybody in F-Body land just assumed rod ends rattled like hell all the time. I found that spending just a couple extra bucks gave me a rod end that was many times better. Word sort of got around.
Now there are many people running rod ended parts and enjoying it. They're happy with the parts. This was not possible before. Before, only "race" cars got rod ends. I'm glad to see the F-Body aftermarket has stepped up the quality a bit.But, people are prone to oversimplifying things somewhat. All I've ever said about the QA1 XMR/XML's is that they are an outstanding value. Many times better than the "cheapies" (many also made by QA1, in fact). That they're affordable, will perform well and last quite a long time.
They certainly aren't the only good rod end out there. They certainly aren't the best. People don't spend the money on those $100 ends because they're stupid and are getting ripped off. You do get what you pay for. The XM's are a very good value, but they're only $30 each. But I simply wouldn't waste my time with anything less than that.
Since I'm now on my third set of QA1's, I can vouch for the fact that they don't last forever. But I never would have gone this long running rod ends with the cheaper two-piece swaged type. I would have gone nuts long before replacing 30+ sets of those things....
02-28-2005, 03:45 AM
#92
I didn't miss the point. I believe you overlooked my comments. Load rating was stated using standardized L10 rating or if you want to use a higher critical factor L5. If you’re not familiar with these terms, they are the rating life typically shown in hours. I addressed specifically your comments.
The static load has little effect in the ball selection, it can come into effect if the bearing is stationary for a long period of time...the 5/8th actually has a higher static load rating then the typically used 3/4...will our cars ever see them...hell no!! both are complete overkill. Dynamic load is directly entered into the process of selecting the component, I completely agree (as stated), it can be shown that the load and life of a bearing are related statistically, these are ranges though YMMV as they say.
Furthermore, the differences between the two bearings we are considering are once again very small. The main difference really only lie in the weight and cost. The other critical areas are not of minimal importance. In some cases, such as the aluminum rod, the 3/4 ends are the only economical choice, when one can make a choice, the 5/8th from a weight standpoint and cost is a better choice. It also prevents the necessary downsleeving.
Both will have similar life hours. Will one last 100 hours more then the other...well once again your picking straws...they are both too close to call taking into other factors. Depending on your resolution necessary there is room for error thus the reasoning you choose a higher "L" or reliability factor such as L5 which is used primarily for reliability >90%.
There's been quite a bit of conversation back and forth at this point, you may have missed my comment stating that other quality rod ends were previously utilized...I’m not a few years behind the times:-)
I don't know where our conversation is going as I feel both are good choices...Both will reap VERY similar results with the 5/8th being a tad lighter. The weight is not a huge factor obviously, since they are so close in similarities in all other aspects, my only basis left to consider with the 5/8th is that it's a better choice solely looking from a cost and weight perspective. If you have aluminum rods, this isn't an option as standard wall thicknesses don’t apply.
Why do I feel like i'm going in circles with this...lol
BTW, my name is Steve, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
The static load has little effect in the ball selection, it can come into effect if the bearing is stationary for a long period of time...the 5/8th actually has a higher static load rating then the typically used 3/4...will our cars ever see them...hell no!! both are complete overkill. Dynamic load is directly entered into the process of selecting the component, I completely agree (as stated), it can be shown that the load and life of a bearing are related statistically, these are ranges though YMMV as they say.
Furthermore, the differences between the two bearings we are considering are once again very small. The main difference really only lie in the weight and cost. The other critical areas are not of minimal importance. In some cases, such as the aluminum rod, the 3/4 ends are the only economical choice, when one can make a choice, the 5/8th from a weight standpoint and cost is a better choice. It also prevents the necessary downsleeving.
Both will have similar life hours. Will one last 100 hours more then the other...well once again your picking straws...they are both too close to call taking into other factors. Depending on your resolution necessary there is room for error thus the reasoning you choose a higher "L" or reliability factor such as L5 which is used primarily for reliability >90%.
There's been quite a bit of conversation back and forth at this point, you may have missed my comment stating that other quality rod ends were previously utilized...I’m not a few years behind the times:-)
I don't know where our conversation is going as I feel both are good choices...Both will reap VERY similar results with the 5/8th being a tad lighter. The weight is not a huge factor obviously, since they are so close in similarities in all other aspects, my only basis left to consider with the 5/8th is that it's a better choice solely looking from a cost and weight perspective. If you have aluminum rods, this isn't an option as standard wall thicknesses don’t apply.
Why do I feel like i'm going in circles with this...lol
BTW, my name is Steve, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
02-28-2005, 06:58 AM
#93
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by steve10
Which company is better?? Consider someone whom supports their products is a good choice. When you see companies stating they pre-heat parts or special process, are most likely blowing smoke. For example, I recall seeing somewhere at one time a company stated they are pre-heating their material (I have no idea where I saw it, though I laughed when I read it). It certainly can't be done with a torch; the process of pre-heating requires specific criteria w/considerations of material thickness, processing time. I highly doubt any one of them have the facilities to correctly follow procedure. Pre-heating with a torch can do more damage. I don't even care for powdercoating as it hides welding sins, but that's just me. Other area's (not these boards) folks may weigh the cost vs. function and consider the less expensive a much better alternative.
02-28-2005, 10:23 AM
#94
Originally Posted by 2w0s060
How do you know these companies or this company does not actually use Pre-heat treated Material? You are just guessing they don't, correct? Material can be bought pre-heat treated or can be heat treated using the correct processes, they are shop's/businesses that specialize in just heat treating. Many of these companies have been doing fabrication for more years then we know. They most likely know there material specs. To say they are blowing smoke could be true, but you are guessing. Is pre-heat treated material overkill for most applications, I would think so, so most likely its a sales thing. I just don't agree because you "think" a certain company isnt using a item they state automatically makes you correct. If the fact is they are lying then that is just poor business practice and the company will not survive.
When welding, expecially specific materials such as 4130, 4140, the heat effected zone alters the materials properties and creates an embrittlement condition. This greatly decreases the strength of the material near the weld, thus the material has a greater chance of failure as the microstructure around the weld has been altered. The process of pre-heating reduces this effect. It CANNOT be done with a torch and anyone welding in this mannor need to be recertified take a class on material structure or some reading before they go back to work. What I've discribed is extremly basic, there is much more then what I would like to get into.
02-28-2005, 12:05 PM
#95
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by steve10
Without getting into an elaborate explaination, pre-heating is not in reference to the spec that you purchase raw material. Material is worked to a alter their properties into the desired state. Process types such as normalized, annealing, spheroidizoing etc are performed. For the company whom may be stating this SHAME on them, it shows their ignorance and is further promoting false understandings of their products. They should not be in the industry if they are claiming their products are pre-heated in terms of the the raw material. I wish I could recall whom the company was...
When welding, expecially specific materials such as 4130, 4140, the heat effected zone alters the materials properties and creates an embrittlement condition. This greatly decreases the strength of the material near the weld, thus the material has a greater chance of failure as the microstructure around the weld has been altered. The process of pre-heating reduces this effect. It CANNOT be done with a torch and anyone welding in this mannor need to be recertified take a class on material structure or some reading before they go back to work. What I've discribed is extremly basic, there is much more then what I would like to get into.
When welding, expecially specific materials such as 4130, 4140, the heat effected zone alters the materials properties and creates an embrittlement condition. This greatly decreases the strength of the material near the weld, thus the material has a greater chance of failure as the microstructure around the weld has been altered. The process of pre-heating reduces this effect. It CANNOT be done with a torch and anyone welding in this mannor need to be recertified take a class on material structure or some reading before they go back to work. What I've discribed is extremly basic, there is much more then what I would like to get into.
My statement was material such as 4140, 4130 can be boughten Pre-Heat treated OR can be boughten Annealed then heat treated if needed.
So if the company says they use Pre-Heat treated Steel what makes you think that was heat treated with a torch? Maybe they are actually using the correct material they state?
02-28-2005, 12:53 PM
#96
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2w0s060
So you are assuming that they are heat treating with a torch? And how do you know this?
My statement was material such as 4140, 4130 can be boughten Pre-Heat treated OR can be boughten Annealed then heat treated if needed.
So if the company says they use Pre-Heat treated Steel what makes you think that was heat treated with a torch? Maybe they are actually using the correct material they state?
My statement was material such as 4140, 4130 can be boughten Pre-Heat treated OR can be boughten Annealed then heat treated if needed.
So if the company says they use Pre-Heat treated Steel what makes you think that was heat treated with a torch? Maybe they are actually using the correct material they state?
02-28-2005, 05:42 PM
#97
Stating you are pre-heating material is completly different then stating that you are purchasing say, 4130 condition N (n meaning normalized). Two COMPLETLY different scenerios.
I recall reading they mentioned they pre-heated specific materials, not just quoting the material properties. This is what I referred to as blowing smoke for someone whom knows nothing about it and thinking....o this must be good they are pre-heating it.
Depending on the material properties, thickness etc, there are certain criteria must be met when welding the components. When welding you alter the initial heat treatment. The inerstitial structure is altered to the point that the material can become brittle. Not so much an issue with mild steels i.e 1020 etc...more of an issue with alloys like 4130...Inconel, Hastelloy, or Haynes alloys.
When I see a company state they are pre-heating their components (which I did see...I wish I could freaking remember where...it may not have even been an F-body company...I don't recall...lol) and noticed their pricing. don't tell me that the company must purchase in huge bulk or some other excuse...I am VERY familiar with costs of production, raw material etc.
Either they may not even doing what they said they were...or they may be doing it incorrectly. Face it, any cottage industry can manufacture, copy or design something and sell it. This doens't mean they are doing what they say, or even using the material they state they are using... ...this is why when you hear about aftermarket parts, sometimes, they may not fit like oem, work like oem or be as durable as oem parts. Quality control is not the same as a million dollar companies budget and contrainsts in which specific laws/by-laws must be met.
Are you asking if I had proof they are not following proper proceedure when building a part...heck, I have no idea. I'm only making an educated assumption. I haven't named any names or tried to defame any one company. I only made a comment on an observation I have read about.
By attempting to pre-heat the material to bring it to a more durable state, there are guidlines that must be met
Jon...if you'd like to chime in, feel free...my fingers are getting tire of posting in here...certainly i'm sure many of the readers are getting tired of reading solely my long winded posts...lol
Have a good one guys!!
I recall reading they mentioned they pre-heated specific materials, not just quoting the material properties. This is what I referred to as blowing smoke for someone whom knows nothing about it and thinking....o this must be good they are pre-heating it.
Depending on the material properties, thickness etc, there are certain criteria must be met when welding the components. When welding you alter the initial heat treatment. The inerstitial structure is altered to the point that the material can become brittle. Not so much an issue with mild steels i.e 1020 etc...more of an issue with alloys like 4130...Inconel, Hastelloy, or Haynes alloys.
When I see a company state they are pre-heating their components (which I did see...I wish I could freaking remember where...it may not have even been an F-body company...I don't recall...lol) and noticed their pricing. don't tell me that the company must purchase in huge bulk or some other excuse...I am VERY familiar with costs of production, raw material etc.
Either they may not even doing what they said they were...or they may be doing it incorrectly. Face it, any cottage industry can manufacture, copy or design something and sell it. This doens't mean they are doing what they say, or even using the material they state they are using... ...this is why when you hear about aftermarket parts, sometimes, they may not fit like oem, work like oem or be as durable as oem parts. Quality control is not the same as a million dollar companies budget and contrainsts in which specific laws/by-laws must be met.
Are you asking if I had proof they are not following proper proceedure when building a part...heck, I have no idea. I'm only making an educated assumption. I haven't named any names or tried to defame any one company. I only made a comment on an observation I have read about.
By attempting to pre-heat the material to bring it to a more durable state, there are guidlines that must be met
Jon...if you'd like to chime in, feel free...my fingers are getting tire of posting in here...certainly i'm sure many of the readers are getting tired of reading solely my long winded posts...lol
Have a good one guys!!
02-28-2005, 07:40 PM
#98
Originally Posted by steve10
When welding, expecially specific materials such as 4130, 4140, the heat effected zone alters the materials properties and creates an embrittlement condition....
There's a subject that could make a lot of manufacturers here hate us. 
However, this still isn’t one of them. I’m always looking for new data and info, so I would like to continue the discussion, so I'll chime in.
I think the heart of our disagreement comes from the fact we’re looking at different data. Exactly what data do you have for these particular rod ends, (or even their type) showing similar life for the two sizes when subjected to the same absolute loads? Or what data shows either of them having a respectable load rating when moving at all?
I sure would like to see it. It’s nothing I’m allowed to use, that’s for sure. The data I have and use shows similar life for various types when the ¾” end is subjected to 30%-55% higher loads in an otherwise identical test. That’s quite a difference in durability.
But I don’t have any such data on these particular ends—or even their type. Why? Because standard design practice in the Aerospace Industry forbids using these types of ends for any application where they are under load while moving. They have their application, but this isn’t it (despite what the manufacturer might tell/try to sell you on). They are a very poor choice for such an application—so poor that they simply aren’t used—and therefore not rated for this use.
So if you have data that contradicts what we use, by all means, I’d like to see it! Instead, I have additional actual test data from my own car sitting in front of me, which shows graphically why they are not a good choice, from an Engineering standpoint, for this application.
Refer back to the picture of the worn out end I posted above. You see that gaping clearance between the body/race and ball? This is typical of these ends when they’re worn out and rattling around. Take a look at one sometime—now, flip it over. There isn’t nearly as much clearance on the other side. Sometimes only a fraction of what’s on the first side.
When you realize the manor in which these particular ends are constructed and the resulting strength differential between each side of the body/race, this is to be expected when they wear.
And realizing this makes it clear that this has nothing to do with dirt. And that any application that does that to a ¾” end is going to do it to a 5/8” end all the faster.
So are ¾” ends overkill for this application? They certainly are. But the simple fact of the matter is this:
The people reading this simply will not pay for the proper end. “Proper” from an Engineering standpoint. The XMR/XML series is simply about the limit that people here are willing to pay for.
And even though it isn’t the correct end for the application, it’s about the best they can get for that much money. It outperforms the cheaper 2-piece swaged body rod ends by a huge margin. It gets the job done and lasts a pretty reasonable length of time. So, for that amount of money it’s a pretty good practical choice.
But since they aren’t the correct part for the application, if you want them to last a reasonable amount of time, using ones that are a size or two bigger than what would make “Engineering sense” is a good idea. Given their poor performance in such an application, those sizes aren’t “overkill” at all for a reasonable life expectancy.
So, my challenge to you is to show me some data—any data for these particular ends or even their type that rates them for an oscillating load. Data that shows these ratings to be overkill for the application.
If they were overkill for the application, I wouldn't have a pile of worn out ones (some even kept very clean with boots their entire life) on my floor.
03-07-2005, 03:03 PM
#99
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greensburg,PA
Posts: 1,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after all of this discussion on rods ends, which by the way I read the whole thing and know a lot more about rods ends from reading(reason I am a member here) 
, yet I refer you ALL back to the first post in this thread. LOL what have we decided. Is any worth buying over the other
, yet I refer you ALL back to the first post in this thread. LOL what have we decided. Is any worth buying over the other
03-08-2005, 05:38 AM
#100
Originally Posted by daryl2cb@yahoo.com
Is any worth buying over the other
I'll tell you this. If you like to turn corners and don't have the knowledge to Engineer these things yourself and you don't want to copy somebody who does, buy from somebody who actually does put some Engineering effort into the parts and tests them on the racetrack as you will. I feel so, so, sorry for those poor chumps who end up being (insert popular brand name here)'s "Test Engineers" unknowingly and unwittingly. And end up busting parts and endangering their lives while at speed.
A pretty powdercoating and good internet rep' among boulevard cruisers, does not a raceworthy part make.
So Steve, what's the deal? Still lost in your roller bearing ratings?
