Dont post about droplinks
Discussion
Surely if you are posting objective factual information rather than non-evidenced comments, that is allowable.
For example, I bought drop links from X in July 2010 and they have just broken (shows picture of broken drop link).
This could be safety critical information for other PHers so it is important that we can discuss this.
Perhaps an administrator can clarify the rules here ?
For example, I bought drop links from X in July 2010 and they have just broken (shows picture of broken drop link).
This could be safety critical information for other PHers so it is important that we can discuss this.
Perhaps an administrator can clarify the rules here ?
TJC46 said:
As the title says dont post/discuss any manufacturers drop links by name as you are likely to get the topic closed.
And i thought forums were all about discussions/comparisons etc. How wrong was I.
And i thought forums were all about discussions/comparisons etc. How wrong was I.
in all honesty I as other mods can't see a reason for it's closure so it's live again?Apologies for the inconvenience.
To be honest, I don't understand why either. It would be nice to understand why.
As far as I can see it was a discussion about the problem with the rear mounting plate which is not exactly new news but simply pointing out that the older ones can break and that stiffer replacement plates are available.
The reason why they break is quite simple: the top of the drop link is bolted onto the plate. It needs to provide articulation and this can only be done through moving the droplink arm which in turn tries to twist the plate. This induces stress and fractures. If the bush is hard which is what you want to get the ARB to work correctly, the twist will flex the plate more. If the bush is sloppy, there is less flexing but equally the ARB doesn't apply the correction force correctly. This why the plates were breaking with the original drop links.
To use the "flawed" original design and get it reliable then the plate and arm must be strengthened but then the question is where does the twisting force go and what effect does it have? BTW the original droplink was designed to be used with thin roll bars of about 10mm diameter and not the monsters that TVR used.
I had seen the plate failures with the original droplinks which is why I put a second rose joint to allow the articulation and reduce the twisting stress. I looked at simply reproducing the original fitting but as it had been responsible for breaking plates, I didn't use that design. Others have.
As far as I can see it was a discussion about the problem with the rear mounting plate which is not exactly new news but simply pointing out that the older ones can break and that stiffer replacement plates are available.
The reason why they break is quite simple: the top of the drop link is bolted onto the plate. It needs to provide articulation and this can only be done through moving the droplink arm which in turn tries to twist the plate. This induces stress and fractures. If the bush is hard which is what you want to get the ARB to work correctly, the twist will flex the plate more. If the bush is sloppy, there is less flexing but equally the ARB doesn't apply the correction force correctly. This why the plates were breaking with the original drop links.
To use the "flawed" original design and get it reliable then the plate and arm must be strengthened but then the question is where does the twisting force go and what effect does it have? BTW the original droplink was designed to be used with thin roll bars of about 10mm diameter and not the monsters that TVR used.
I had seen the plate failures with the original droplinks which is why I put a second rose joint to allow the articulation and reduce the twisting stress. I looked at simply reproducing the original fitting but as it had been responsible for breaking plates, I didn't use that design. Others have.
shpub said:
TTo use the "flawed" original design and get it reliable then the plate and arm must be strengthened but then the question is where does the twisting force go and what effect does it have? BTW the original droplink was designed to be used with thin roll bars of about 10mm diameter and not the monsters that TVR used.
I had seen the plate failures with the original droplinks which is why I put a second rose joint to allow the articulation and reduce the twisting stress. I looked at simply reproducing the original fitting but as it had been responsible for breaking plates, I didn't use that design. Others have.
If you are going to replace the wishbone mount + droplinks, wouldn't it make more sense to make the plate face vertical rather than horizontal for strength as well as allowing easier articulation with rose joints top & bottom?I had seen the plate failures with the original droplinks which is why I put a second rose joint to allow the articulation and reduce the twisting stress. I looked at simply reproducing the original fitting but as it had been responsible for breaking plates, I didn't use that design. Others have.
Big Al. said:
So what one do you want to remain open.
This one can now be removed,[i dont know how to ]as it was my original post highlighting the weakness of the arb tie in point on the wishbone that had earlier today been "topic closed" this has now been reopened so "ill pick my dummy up and climb back in my pram" 
Decision made this one goes so for the main thread please see here
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff