Potholes and weak rear toe arms don't mix...

[dragoontwo]

Originally Posted by norcalpb

OP how close are you Verus HQ? It may be a good idea to drop off the broken bearing with them so they can send it to FK for inspection.

Said he's in Indy, so very close.

[norcalpb]

Originally Posted by dragoontwo

Said he's in Indy, so very close.

Oh I must’ve missed that.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Clay_from_Verus

Hey man! Sorry to see this happened. Can you please email me with photos and more details on what happened? We do not manufacture the rod ends and I've never seen one fail like that. clay@verus-engineering.com

while you're here...

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145783

i'm curious to hear your thoughts on that one

[Tcoat]

As soon as the word "pothole" hits the conversation there is no type of weird damage that will surprise me.
They are bad enough when you hit them on the straight edge but if you manage to catch the slope just wrong then you not only get vertical shock but sideloading at the same time. When you consider the amount of impact force involved anything can happen.
Many moons ago I managed to snap off a spring u-bolt and twist the rear end of a M-35 deuce and a half just by hitting a large pothole.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Bunsin

Sheesh couldn't wait a minute to get the broken parts off the car and the new ones ordered

Any reason you didn't just go with the factory part here?

The factory part will tolerate the complete disintegration of the bushing and not completely let go.

Aluminum will fatigue and fail eventually with repeated loadings, even at very low stress levels. The tiny amount of weight saved here by going with an aluminum rod end is IMO not worth it...

[Racecomp Engineering]

Be careful with the Whiteline toe arm...make sure the poly end pivots freely. Had some trouble with that on their first iteration...

- Andrew

[Bunsin]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Any reason you didn't just go with the factory part here?

The factory part will tolerate the complete disintegration of the bushing and not completely let go.

Aluminum will fatigue and fail eventually with repeated loadings, even at very low stress levels. The tiny amount of weight saved here by going with an aluminum rod end is IMO not worth it...

With the drop when I put on the RSR coilovers and LCAs the eccentric bolt on the OEM toe arm didn't have enough movement to align the rear wheels.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Bunsin

With the drop when I put on the RSR coilovers and LCAs the eccentric bolt on the OEM toe arm didn't have enough movement to align the rear wheels.

Why LCAs?

Fwiw I’m about 1.5” lower than stock running factory LCAs and toe links, no prob getting desired 0.0 rear toe.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Why LCAs?

Fwiw I’m about 1.5” lower than stock running factory LCAs and toe links, no prob getting desired 0.0 rear toe.

I couldn't get desired camber and toe without LCA's and toe links on my car.

[Bunsin]

Originally Posted by Clay_from_Verus

Hey man! Sorry to see this happened. Can you please email me with photos and more details on what happened? We do not manufacture the rod ends and I've never seen one fail like that. clay@verus-engineering.com

I sent you an email with pics and person contact info if you want any more info. Thanks for following up.

[marco_mc22]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Why LCAs?

Fwiw I’m about 1.5” lower than stock running factory LCAs and toe links, no prob getting desired 0.0 rear toe.

I can confirm, I used to run mine at -35 and -40 once but it depends on your application/goals, having everything adjustable within a wider range is useful to optimize things IMO.

On paper is easy: track duty only with lower ride heights resulting in more camber? Probably most times it won't be a problem;

Street car with mild drop and around -1.8 rear camber? Still acceptable but what if we're optimizing a dual duty car or something different? With more adjustability you don't make any compromises, just choose the ride height you need (or want) and then adjust camber and toe to suit tire choice and usage according to pyro readings.

Then I agree with your point, OEM is safer, no doubts with that, personally I'm using Hardrace links made of steel with sealed pillow ball, so far I'm still alive, tomorrow...who knows?

[ZDan]

My car is daily and also time trials at the track. I’ve always run factory arms and links at -2.7 rear camber, zero rear toe,street and track. Winter tires have never seen the track yet wear remarkably evenly. Radials can handle a lot of camber, I think people get worried about having too much when there’s not much if any negatives running that much on the street. So they get aftermarket LCAs and toe links. Which can cause REAL, ACTUAL problems…

[marco_mc22]

Originally Posted by ZDan

My car is daily and also time trials at the track. I’ve always run factory arms and links at -2.7 rear camber, street and track. Winter tires have never seen the track yet wear remarkably evenly. Radials can handle a lot of camber, I think people get worried about having too much when there’s not much if any negatives running that much on the street. So they get aftermarket LCAs and toe links. Which can cause REAL, ACTUAL problems…

How much temperature spread you've got with -2.7 and 0 toe? And how stiff is your rear setup? Tires?

I believe you cause I have tried everything from stock to -2.5 rear, while I have never had wear issues with both 0 and some toe in pyro said no more than 2.2 or so, I trust him more than my butt dyno and I didn't want to give away any bit of traction

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by marco_mc22

How much temperature spread you've got with -2.7 and 0 toe? And how stiff is your rear setup? Tires?

Dunno temp spread. I quit using pyrometer years ago. Evidence suggests that 90% of those who do use them at the track don’t really know how to use the info anyway…

I’m on 4.4 kg/mm front springs, 5.3 rear. Eibach front and rear sways set to about 150% stiffer than stock (softer setting front, stiffer rear). Tires are Yok A052, B’stone RE71RS, 245/40-17 (sometimes 235/45, sometimes staggered).

I believe you cause I have tried everything from stock to -2.5 rear, while I have never had wear issues with both 0 and some toe in pyro said no more than 2.2 or so, I trust him more than my butt dyno and I didn't want to give away any bit of traction

I think you should give yer butt a lot more credence than the pyrometer!
The pyrometer reading is only telling you temperatures, after you’ve pulled off the track. it isn’t telling you directly how much camber to run (or pressures either). Generally a setup optimized for lap times will have the inside running hotter than outside, no one should be aiming for even temp across the tread.

In my experience a quite broad range of rear camber settings can yield very similar lap times. On these cars having enough front camber is a lot more important than whether rear camber is “optimal”. IMO rear camber anywhere from -2 to -3 is gonna work fine. And if you’re front camber limited, reducing rear camber won’t help…