I originally accidently put this in tech forum.

These are on a DC2 / R front lower control arm.




Close up of Bearing in bushing.
Each bushing holds 2 bearings, one on either side. this will make it a true spherical bearing suspension and minimize and or rid off any twist in the control arm. At the same time the steel bushings will eliminate caster changes for the outside corner wheel.



Opinions are expected, bad or good.
Keep in mind this is the prototype.

 

what are you thinking using TWO bearings on each side of the opening? so thats 2 spherical bearings in the same place only 1 bushing existed right?

thats totally redundant! it constrains any free movement to ONLY 1 axis of rotation, totally negates the use of sphericals. you might as well make one solid bushing.

you can only use one spherical bearing to allow the spherical bearing to do its job.

 

I agree, and understand what you mean. I use the Spherical cause I had a few of them.
Next version I am looking into the standard bearings as well as different OD speherical bearings, but the cost for the spherical bearings, well at least from the new supplier does not hurt the wallet.

As I said I started with the design of one bearing but with several bearing in hand I went with double spherical bearings for the prototype.

This is mostly to have something where the chasis only makes contact to the bearing and not a metal shaft and washers which will restrict the free movement fo the arm as some other available kits do.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Renegade &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This is mostly to have something where the chasis only makes contact to the bearing and not a metal shaft and washers which will restrict the free movement fo the arm as some other available kits do.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

well, you ended up restricting all free movement....

why dont you just copy progress groups spherical bearing design and go from there... better yet, just buy a set from them and call it a day.

 

That is the biggest thing I am tryin to understand and it is why I post.

Besides the up and down movement, does there need to be lateral movement in the arm as well or is it better without it?

I accept if I am wrong in my frame of thinking, this is why I am here I appreciate any knowledge I don't know or have that you can provide.

 

i would put the spherical in the middle of the hole, and design a conical spacer on each side to give the proper overall width and prevent any lateral movement. you lock the bearing in the middle by using a c clip, so you machine an inside groove in the sleeve.

that would be the basic way of designing this, which is what progress does. adding some kind of outer protection from dirt and oil containment would be the only improvement over progress' design i can think of.

 

I guess in the end that is the best way. I knew of the ring clip to hold the bearing in centered in the bushing I did not know they used a conical spacers to keep it from moving.

I did not want to spend the $175 for a pair, I am positive these can be made sold for much cheaper.

Even though the 2 bearings may be overkill, it still is made much cheaper than buying the kit from Progress.

So even though it has one bearing too many where do you see the flaw in this design for control arm movement? ( not being sarcastic, this is all good information)

Essentialy the chassis bushing can be centered and eliminate any twist with the cone spacer, but even a cone spacers will still allow for the shock fork and control arm to move and change caster in a turn.

Is the caster change neccessary for better handling or is static caster better?

 

you dont see how you completely eliminated all but one freedom of rotation by using two spherical bearings? lateral movement aside.

good


bad, redundant



yes, you want the freedom of movement. if you didnt, why are you even using spherical bearings?

this is effectively what youve done using 2 spherical bearings.

 

I'm curious, where do you get your spherical bearings from?

 

pegasus, aurora bearings... lots of places, lots of manufacturers. (NSK, ***) even from taiwan!

 

Well I meant him in particular We get ours from Aurora.

 

Read this
http://fsae.com/groupee/forums...22521
Should answer all your wild *** spherical questions. If thats not enought do a find in their forum and theirs a couple more threads on the subject.

 

PS if you dont know that the RLCA's need a slight side to side motion to go thought the range of travel then you shouldnt be messing with your suspension at all. NOTHING moves in a straight line. Every thing moves on a slight arch on more than one plane.

 

I see what you mean, my question is, do you want the control arm to rotate on it center axis or just have ability to move up and down.
which is what the constraint drawing shows.

I undestand that 2 spherical bearing kill the purpose of using a spherical bearing, to save time and research for bearing taht would hold up to the weight and forces from the suspension I decided to use the spherical bearings I already had for the prototype.
I agree that standard bearing would be better. So we can understand what I am trying to say make believe the spherical bearings are standard bearings. Cool?

Here is the reason why I put 2 bearingsin the bushings

http://www.imagestation.com/pi...a.jpg

Looking at the control down the lenght of the arm, a single spherical bearing would allow for the fork and control arm to rotate on its center axis (a long the lenght) in a turn it would cause the arm or fork to rotate changing the caster.
I hope it makes sense. This is what I am asking that does the caster need to change in the turn?
or would a static caster be better?

If you set the caster to 1 degree, Is is better for the caster to stay at 1 degree through the turn or is it better for it to change as the weight of the car is on that corner?

Does this make sense. this is why face to face conversions are better.....

-The bearings I am using now are Aurora.

 

ohjolt2 - that is the information I need, that I do not know.
I'll look at you URL you posted.

In the end if none of this works it is very good as a learning experience.

 

Dude your killing me here!! How much do you think rear caster is going to change? Have you ever seen the trailing arm?? You think its letting the wheel move front and back on the car?? Come on man. NO, no
one said use a conventional ball bearing. You need to use one large spherical. Right in the middle of the arm. Not one on each side. Listen to tyson. Seriously if caster is being discussed on a traling arm double wish bone rear set up then your not qualified to do this. I will say your machining skills look fine though. Your engineering just sucks.

 

I see what Tyson is saying now.
I think you might be over-estimating the amount of movement that would be experienced by the suspension. If the LCA was only joined to the shock fork and nothing else, then maybe you would see that much movement, but since it is joined to the TA and the chassis as well, it wouldn't be that extreme. And by isolating all movement like you are doing with two spherical bearings, you are not allowing proper suspension movement and that will lead to binding, I think.

 

ohjolt2, this is on a front control arm, not rear.

Also not the trailing arm, but i guess most of the info here can apply to rear control arm.


Modified by Renegade at 12:45 AM 9/10/2005

 

renegade, i understand now what you are trying to accomplish, given that you now admit using two spherical bearings would be the same as if they were normal ball bearings.

your picture describes a very extreme case, but thats exactly what you want to ALLOW. why? because, you WANT the fork to rotate freely in any direction. if you did not, it would create a binding situation, and work AGAINST the natural movement of the suspension. so your thinking is NOT what you want.

the suspension movement is defined by the upper and lower control arms, and the rear compliance bushing. those are the three points of contact in hondas double wishbone setup. the shock's movement should follow the suspensions movement, not direct or limit it, which you seem to think it should.

ohjolt, uh yeah, we're talking about front suspension. the first pic of a 94-00 front LCA.

 

the rear suspension is even crazier. you definately do not want to restrict movements in just one axis...

 

You know i was looking at the LCA and i thought that looked like a really funky RLCA. Now it makes sense why your talking about caster. But anyway one large spherical is what you want. The radius arms off the front crossmember should stop your lca from moving, you might want to look at a full race setup with rodends on the radius arms. Or just steal their idea and make your own.

 

Hey for real, sorry about thinking that was a rear LCA, i guess my brain was going faster than my eyeballs and i owned my self.

 

i got a set myself from orjin







they work pretty good

 

I've got the same kit. We'll see how well it performs once I get the car off the stands.

 

why is the bearing already corroded?