Hancha Rear Toe Link

[Hancha Group]

Originally Posted by robispec

I have a no ebrake car....tester?on the extended shank???

I was hoping to model the rear suspension before we built in the adjustment so we know what the range should be. It's too expensive for us at the moment to do one-off's. BUT if you purchase the toe link and have a local machinist that can give you a discount, I can send you the CAD file and 2D drawing so you can have the shop make you the shank. Sound good?

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Hancha Group

Originally I wanted to design the shank longer to allow for 10mm of bump steer adjustment, but because of the trailing arm and e-brake cable I decided to scrap that idea. With our prototype version, it touches the e-brake cable as you can see here (our production version is 5mm shorter with a thin nylon lock nut so it won't touch).



I will keep an eye out with the prototype and see what happens over time. I am not 100% comfortable with releasing an extended shank at this time. I'm sorry I couldn't find a solution for this, I really wanted to make it happen. However, if we find there aren't any ill effects, in the future, we will offer an extended shank for bump steer adjustment as an option. The nice thing about our design is if you want the bump steer shank in the future, you can just change the shank and buy a few extra shims rather than having to buy a new toe rod or ball joint.

Do you need the nut on the bottom? Why not a shoulder on the bottom and a machined inhouse and to size nut on the top? The nut would be in contact with the knuckle so you wouldn't be able to use a castellated nut. But you shoudn't need one as long as the nut is torqued properly.

Am I way out in left field?

Or if the rotational forces are too great to have a normal nut between the heim joint and knuckle, would lock wiring it work?

[Shit Luck]

A shoulder on the bottom side of the stud going through the link and hub should be fine. As long as you use a castle nut on top and torque it correctly. I dont see why you would run two nuts on that shank?

[Hancha Group]

Originally Posted by Calum

Do you need the nut on the bottom? Why not a shoulder on the bottom and a machined inhouse and to size nut on the top? The nut would be in contact with the knuckle so you wouldn't be able to use a castellated nut. But you shoudn't need one as long as the nut is torqued properly.

Am I way out in left field?

You know, I hadn't thought of that design. I don't see why that couldn't work. That also simplifies the part, but it gets wider on the bottom adding weight. The e-brake cable doesn't touch the castle nut, it touches the threaded portion of the shank. I like your way of thinking though. You'd still need to pull the shank out of the knuckle to make the adjustments, but it might be a good way to make the extended shanks as a RACE ONLY part since the e-brake cable won't be in the way. When I have more time I will model the part and FEA it. Thanks for the idea!

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Shit Luck

A shoulder on the bottom side of the stud going through the link and hub should be fine. As long as you use a castle nut on top and torque it correctly. I dont see why you would run two nuts on that shank?

Originally Posted by Hancha Group

You know, I hadn't thought of that design. I don't see why that couldn't work. That also simplifies the part, but it gets wider on the bottom adding weight. The e-brake cable doesn't touch the castle nut, it touches the threaded portion of the shank. I like your way of thinking though. You'd still need to pull the shank out of the knuckle to make the adjustments, but it might be a good way to make the extended shanks as a RACE ONLY part since the e-brake cable won't be in the way. When I have more time I will model the part and FEA it. Thanks for the idea!

I was thinking shoulder-bearing-bolt-knuckle-bolt, but a simple spacer as @Shit Luck alluded to seems plausible to.

Glad I could contribute an idea to the cause!! :happy0180:

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Hancha Group

You know, I hadn't thought of that design. I don't see why that couldn't work. That also simplifies the part, but it gets wider on the bottom adding weight. The e-brake cable doesn't touch the castle nut, it touches the threaded portion of the shank. I like your way of thinking though. You'd still need to pull the shank out of the knuckle to make the adjustments, but it might be a good way to make the extended shanks as a RACE ONLY part since the e-brake cable won't be in the way. When I have more time I will model the part and FEA it. Thanks for the idea!

I demand you give Calum royalties or at least a free proto.

[Hancha Group]

Originally Posted by Calum

I was thinking shoulder-bearing-bolt-knuckle-bolt, but a simple spacer as @Shit Luck alluded to seems plausible to.

Glad I could contribute an idea to the cause!! :happy0180:

I will look into it so you can do shoulder-(shim)-bearing-(shim)-knuckle-nut. Since we have a flare under the taper, it alleviates stress in case the tolerance is slightly off. We have our tolerances to .001" in some spots, but the tolerances would need to tightened in a few areas of our design because the taper would need to be SPOT on. That is why it never crossed my mind to do a through bolt/shank.

[SkullWorks]

where is the FEA on the QA1 rod ends? that is the failure point you should be most concerned with especially if the threads were cut and not roll formed.

anytime you have an anodized surface you really need not worry about galvanic action the base material (Al Mg or Ti) has already been covered in corrosion...er rather an oxide layer.

Is there a reason you aren't having the rods anodized? I know (proprietary grade Al) looks great in type III class 1 undyed anodize this would add to the long term corrosion resistance. I know they said it's better than 6061 for corrosion resistance...but they say 6061 is hard to machine too...

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Hancha Group

I will look into it so you can do shoulder-(shim)-bearing-(shim)-knuckle-nut. Since we have a flare under the taper, it alleviates stress in case the tolerance is slightly off. We have our tolerances to .001" in some spots, but the tolerances would need to tightened in a few areas of our design because the taper would need to be SPOT on. That is why it never crossed my mind to do a through bolt/shank.

I see your point. You need to keep the hole in the knuckle in compression axially, without putting too much radial force on it. A slight irregularity in the facing of either a nut or spacer could cause uneven loading. A thou difference in height, in either direction, could change the engagement force on the shank from loose to welded on... poop

For anyone wondering, many ships, even navy ships, use nothing more then a close tolerance taper to hold their propellers on.


Edit. To reduce the tolerance issues, could you keep the top half of the original design but with an internal thread and a bolt vise a nut from the bottom? I'm guessing there wouldn't be enough material but I had to ask.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Thanks for listing to my ramblings.

[Hancha Group]

Hi guys, the group buy is now open! I hope you find the price reasonable :]

You can check out the group buy here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...506#post804506

[Hancha Group]

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

great responsiveness and appears the vendor has a handle what they are doing, so thats good. I'm game to hear and see more.




is that what the factory bend helps with, that bit of offset?

for those of us needing to put strength 1st and weight second, is there an HD end link option? I mean, this thing made of steel would likely be fine by me, for my needs, I just need unbreakable. this is not a high priority part for weight shave for me

I can only speculate as to why the factory rod end tapers by the ball joint. I can offer you any rod end you'd like or you can even get your own rod ends in the future. From my research, the QA1 XM is the best bang for your buck. It's made of chromoly with a protective coating and twice as strong. I'd say it's almost overkill because it's rated at 18000 lbs. Keep in mind eventually the aluminum and steel will corrode due to the electrochemical potential. It's not too bad if you're not going to drive around in the salt. However, if you don't mind, I can swap the AM to the XM for no additional cost. Just place a note at the time of order.

[Hancha Group]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

where is the FEA on the QA1 rod ends? that is the failure point you should be most concerned with especially if the threads were cut and not roll formed.

anytime you have an anodized surface you really need not worry about galvanic action the base material (Al Mg or Ti) has already been covered in corrosion...er rather an oxide layer.

Is there a reason you aren't having the rods anodized? I know (proprietary grade Al) looks great in type III class 1 undyed anodize this would add to the long term corrosion resistance. I know they said it's better than 6061 for corrosion resistance...but they say 6061 is hard to machine too...

I got the engineering data from QA1 and I have experience with other rod ends (Aurora) for the same application and the QA1 is rated for a higher load capacity and lighter. Therefore I didn't think it was necessary to do the FEA. The aluminum parts will be clear anodized, I didn't do it for the prototype since it's a fixed cost to dip everything in the bath at once. No need to do it for one part that's just made for testing.

Originally Posted by Calum

I see your point. You need to keep the hole in the knuckle in compression axially, without putting too much radial force on it. A slight irregularity in the facing of either a nut or spacer could cause uneven loading. A thou difference in height, in either direction, could change the engagement force on the shank from loose to welded on... poop

For anyone wondering, many ships, even navy ships, use nothing more then a close tolerance taper to hold their propellers on.


Edit. To reduce the tolerance issues, could you keep the top half of the original design but with an internal thread and a bolt vise a nut from the bottom? I'm guessing there wouldn't be enough material but I had to ask.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Thanks for listing to my ramblings.

I don't think I understand... sorry. You guys are sure keeping me busy, I wanted to do some more FEA analysis on our rear lower control arm and start on our trailing arm. ;P

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Hancha Group

I got the engineering data from QA1 and I have experience with other rod ends (Aurora) for the same application and the QA1 is rated for a higher load capacity and lighter. Therefore I didn't think it was necessary to do the FEA. The aluminum parts will be clear anodized, I didn't do it for the prototype since it's a fixed cost to dip everything in the bath at once. No need to do it for one part that's just made for testing.



I don't think I understand... sorry. You guys are sure keeping me busy, I wanted to do some more FEA analysis on our rear lower control arm and start on our trailing arm.

My original suggestion was to use a shoulder on the bottom, and a nut on the top of the heim joint. You mentioned some issues that would arise from the cost of keeping the tolerances that design would require. So I thought it might be possible to put an internal thread on the bottom of the shank and use a bolt from the bottom. But that wouldn't allow sufficient bolt stretch to put sufficient tension on the bolt to stop it from turning out. It also wouldn't allow for the use of either a cotter pin or lock wire. And a stack of Belleville washers would eat up all the space I was trying to save, so really it was a stupid suggestion.

[EarlQHan]

Originally Posted by Calum

My original suggestion was to use a shoulder on the bottom, and a nut on the top of the heim joint. You mentioned some issues that would arise from the cost of keeping the tolerances that design would require. So I thought it might be possible to put an internal thread on the bottom of the shank and use a bolt from the bottom. But that wouldn't allow sufficient bolt stretch to put sufficient tension on the bolt to stop it from turning out. It also wouldn't allow for the use of either a cotter pin or lock wire. And a stack of Belleville washers would eat up all the space I was trying to save, so really it was a stupid suggestion.

I think I understand what you're saying if you were to bolt it from the bottom, but then that design isn't much different from what we have now.

- Earl