FT-86 SpeedFactory LCA by Verus - Lightest LCA for the Twins - Development Thread

[whataboutbob]

Exact wording for the Street Touring rules.

[FT-86 SpeedFactory]

Originally Posted by FRSCanuck

serious? ordered mine from FT86speedfactory back in December and haven't heard from them since. They were suppose to be mailed in Feb.

We're being told June last we asked. Shoot us an email, we can always cancel and refund. These have been missing since Feb of 2014 so it's one heck of a back order.

[FRSCanuck]

Originally Posted by FT-86 SpeedFactory

We're being told June last we asked. Shoot us an email, we can always cancel and refund. These have been missing since Feb of 2014 so it's one heck of a back order.

e-mail sent!

[VerusEric]

I've spoken with Jeremy, we will look into a poly in-board mount for those autocrossing. No guarantees, but we will look into it!



Onto bump load testing. We will be subjecting it to the force from a 4.5g bump condition. This will hopefully happen Friday and we will have enough data from there to pull the trigger on production.

Thanks,
Eric

[Shankenstein]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

Onto bump load testing. We will be subjecting it to the force from a 4.5g bump condition. This will hopefully happen Friday and we will have enough data from there to pull the trigger on production.

Thanks,
Eric

Hi Eric!

Are you guys following an established test standard?

My department performs validation testing for interior and door components. Slightly different from your hardware (sprung vs unsprung)... but if you want to compare notes about equipment, methods, etc feel free to PM me.

Static loads (tensile and bending) will go along ways for proving the accuracy of your FEA and comparing with the OE parts. Dynamic testing for unsprung masses is usually a drop test (to prevent quality control issues during installation), a couple shock tests (pothole and collision events), and vibration (both high and low frequency content for unsprung masses).

Good to see someone actually testing their products, and putting it all out there. If the pre-order sales are any indication, our community really appreciates this type of work!

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by Shankenstein

Hi Eric!

Are you guys following an established test standard?

My department performs validation testing for interior and door components. Slightly different from your hardware (sprung vs unsprung)... but if you want to compare notes about equipment, methods, etc feel free to PM me.

Static loads (tensile and bending) will go along ways for proving the accuracy of your FEA and comparing with the OE parts. Dynamic testing for unsprung masses is usually a drop test (to prevent quality control issues during installation), a couple shock tests (pothole and collision events), and vibration (both high and low frequency content for unsprung masses).

Good to see someone actually testing their products, and putting it all out there. If the pre-order sales are any indication, our community really appreciates this type of work!

We aren't suspension engineers for OEMs, so we aren't following any established standard that we know about, but it may be something close to what is out there? We created our own test standard that we feel is indicative of the life of the LCA (in race conditions).

Thanks for the compliments. Feel free to PM any thoughts on anything.

[Yoniyama]

This is so exciting, I salute the dedication to help realise the maximum potential of the Toybaru.

The OEM LCA is reasonably light, but strength is lacking.

Some after-market offering is much stronger, but also heavier. That would be a trade-off between greater unsprung weight and greater strength, not necessarily an absolute improvement.

A stronger LCA at the same weight would be an improvement. But if the weight is lower AND the strength is also higher, then it is an all-round improvement.

I am very interested and will watch this closely.

[Talus1]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

Onto bump load testing. We will be subjecting it to the force from a 4.5g bump condition. This will hopefully happen Friday and we will have enough data from there to pull the trigger on production.

Please, please, please do fatigue testing in bending under bump loads. I have personal experience with rod end shanks failing in the threads at the top of the jam nut under remarkably low cyclic loads.

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by Talus1

Please, please, please do fatigue testing in bending under bump loads. I have personal experience with rod end shanks failing in the threads at the top of the jam nut under remarkably low cyclic loads.

That is one of our tests. At what kind of load though? Ours will fail eventually (all aluminum does), but like I said previously, at the loads we're testing, only a small percentage of people will even be able to subject the parts to the loads we are testing at (2-3%). Do you have a thread of pictures of the failed rod end?

We will update the thread when the tests are finished .

[Talus1]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

That is one of our tests. At what kind of load though? Ours will fail eventually (all aluminum does), but like I said previously, at the loads we're testing, only a small percentage of people will even be able to subject the parts to the loads we are testing at (2-3%). Do you have a thread of pictures of the failed rod end?

We will update the thread when the tests are finished .

Male threads in bending can fail in fatigue at loads far below their static strength. Even the rolled threads on high quality rod ends act as a stress concentration factor. I don't have pics but just Google "thread bending fatigue cracks". Figuring out load spectra for fatigue testing is a science in itself and i have no relevant experience in automotive. A quick Google search shows some useful looking texts on the subject, though. All I can suggest is to keep very large safety margins on the threads. You can go nuts optimizing the arm itself.

Good luck.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

That is one of our tests. At what kind of load though? Ours will fail eventually (all aluminum does), but like I said previously, at the loads we're testing, only a small percentage of people will even be able to subject the parts to the loads we are testing at (2-3%). Do you have a thread of pictures of the failed rod end?

We will update the thread when the tests are finished .

Those 2-3% who DO subject the loads you are testing are the ones who will be upset if a part fails...

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Those 2-3% who DO subject the loads you are testing are the ones who will be upset if a part fails...

This is exactly why we are doing what we are doing . It's not a publicity stunt, we want to ensure the parts are up to the job, even at the reduced weight.

Also, we aren't going to falsify our results or skew figures in our favor. That wouldn't be wise for any party involved. We truly have positive intentions by doing all of these tests.

[kbye]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

I've spoken with Jeremy, we will look into a poly in-board mount for those autocrossing. No guarantees, but we will look into it!

Whelp, my Whiteline LCA order has been cancelled, so if you guys end up with a poly bushing option, consider me sold.

For those wondering what's going on with them, I had my shop contact Whiteline North America and basically they're redeveloping the LCA for the twins, since the KTA139s were actually 08+ STI arms that happened to fit our cars. Not sure what they're changing in the design exactly, but they're targeting a July/August release which will be too late in the season for me.

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit.

[2much]

Originally Posted by kbye

Whelp, my Whiteline LCA order has been cancelled, so if you guys end up with a poly bushing option, consider me sold.

For those wondering what's going on with them, I had my shop contact Whiteline North America and basically they're redeveloping the LCA for the twins, since the KTA139s were actually 08+ STI arms that happened to fit our cars. Not sure what they're changing in the design exactly, but they're targeting a July/August release which will be too late in the season for me.

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit.

I dont get it - did the KTA139's not work well? why would they spend money on redevelopment and lose sales if the product worked as intended and by all accounts worked very well relative to competition?