Spindle Bearing Retention

[Outcast]

Consider a front IFS spindle for a 4WD application with the spherical bearing oriented such that the through bolts were horizontal and faced longitudinally (Is that referred to as vertical heims/bearings?) instead of vertical or along the KPI. Also the bearings are in the spindle and not the A-arm. What side would be the best for the C-clip or retainer to go on, front (forward) side or back (aft) side? With 4WD, the spindle would be pulling instead of being pushed along by the a-arms but then again there would still be loads encountered from obstacles and what not. So which direction would the greater loads be taken?

Also if the condition was reversed such that the bearing was now in the A-arm and not the spindle, then would the retainer need to be on the opposite side from the previously mentioned condition?

Thanks, in advance.

[ntsqd]

Wouldn't mess with C-clip retainers at all. Make the sockets with screw-in retainers, and make the retainers lockable with a set screw thru the body of the socket ala some of the Johnnie Joint clones out there.

[Outcast]

Ahhh, didn't realise you could use threaded retention. Assuming that method (threaded retention), is there still a prefered side for the retainer?

[partybarge_pilot]

Ahhh, didn't realise you could use threaded retention. Assuming that method (threaded retention), is there still a prefered side for the retainer?

Which ever side see's the least load?

[ntsqd]

Think I'd be inclined go with the side that sees the least shock loads (duration, peak, et. al.) rather than just the least loaded. Though if there is room for a robust design it probably won't matter.

Just to be clear, I'm saying that the retainer threads into the socket and is castleated about it's OD. Then the set screw drops into one of the castleations. Probably need to do some sort of Vernier arrangement with the number of set screw holes and castle slots.

[Outcast]

I see, thanks. I was wondering which direction the greater loads would be in. With 2WD it's cut and dry because the A-arms are pushing on the spindle but with 4WD and the spindle being pulled, I wondered if perhaps that would make a big difference. Perhaps not since the spindle and the arms are being motivated together and you would still have loads from the obstacles.

[DPpatrol]

I would guess brake and shock loads would still be higher than the loads from the 4wd, but that is only an educated guess.

Jason

[matt_helton]

i say mount the retainers on the front side. the front side will se alot of load or maybe even shock loads at times from one place, the drive line. but the rear side will see shock loads from 2 places. hitting objects as well as braking forces.

[ntsqd]

Brake loads are nearly static, some dynamic but hard to get significant impulse.
X clamping force @ Y radial dist. = Q Torque -> rxn torque/lever dist. = force on bearing.

Object impact loads and traction/lack of traction tire shock loads I expect to be higher. Unfortunately those tend to be in opposite directions.

[matt_helton]

atta boy thom, i love when you make me look like a doof. :)

[Outcast]

So then for a 4WD application, it may be best to orient the spherical bearing horizontally (Or perhaps along the King pin axis) and take the retention issue out of the fore/aft loading situation? This would put the bearing in a stronger position with respect to the horizontal, fore/aft loads. Or are the vertical loads greater than the horizontal loads, and the bearing(s) should be kept vertical?

[ShaneR]

So then for a 4WD application, it may be best to orient the spherical bearing horizontally (Or perhaps along the King pin axis) and take the retention issue out of the fore/aft loading situation? This would put the bearing in a stronger position with respect to the horizontal, fore/aft loads. Or are the vertical loads greater than the horizontal loads, and the bearing(s) should be kept vertical?

Having the bearing horizontal in most applications limits your travel but in this application the 4X4 could possible limit the travel also and might be the strongest way to mount it?

I don't think I have ever seen a suspenison faluire related to a retianer faluire but it can also be hard to figure out what broke first after all the damage that happens when you wreck at speed.

Taking a look at the Herbst, Dondels, Hedgehog and Big Mac would tell you what has been done successfully in the past!

[DPpatrol]

Assuming the shock goes to the lower arm, the horizontal loads on the upper ball joint should be greater than the vertical loads. On the lower arm it would be difficult to say because since the shock is mounted to the lower arm, the lower ball joint is seeing much more vertical load than the upper. Also the location of the shock comes into play. But I would feel uncomfortable generalizing which load direction is greater on the lower ball joint with out getting out the ol pencil and paper.

Jason

[DPpatrol]

I don't think I have ever seen a suspenison faluire related to a retianer faluire but it can also be hard to figure out what broke first after all the damage that happens when you wreck at speed.

This is a good point. Though quite rare, every failure I have seen of a bearing retainer was due to an improperly manufactured retainer or improperly installed retaining ring.

Jason

[Outcast]

I would agree about the vertical loading being greater on the lower joint than the upper, assuming that shock location. Herbst, Dondels, and Mac appear to have horizontal orientation at the upper and lower. I am not familiar with the Hedgehog.

Also, what Pro-4's I've been able to see up close have that orientation as well.

[ShaneR]

I would agree about the vertical loading being greater on the lower joint than the upper, assuming that shock location. Herbst, Dondels, and Mac appear to have horizontal orientation at the upper and lower. I am not familiar with the Hedgehog.

Also, what Pro-4's I've been able to see up close have that orientation as well.

The Hedgehog is the all wheel drive buggy that I think was built by Nye Frank, the Riviera team raced it for a while and I think Dondel had a buggy that was very similar but not the all wheel drive one. I am pretty sure that it had a very funny looking S10 body on it and was raced as a TT at the Baja 500 this year but I can't remeber who owns it now.

Is this design for short course or desert racing? Pro 4's work great for short course but are not designed for desert use and wouldn't be competitive!

[Outcast]

Is this design for short course or desert racing? Pro 4's work great for short course but are not designed for desert use and wouldn't be competitive!

True, true. The application is short course, but very severe duty, LOL. Hense the consideration of what is done on TT's.

[ntsqd]

atta boy thom, i love when you make me look like a doof. :)
Sorry, wasn't my intention.
Braking forces tend to be over estimated. Bill Wood corrected me on that score about my 5th month of working for him. Tire traction limits braking force to way short of what the braking system is capable of.

[Outcast]

That is also true, TS.

Also thanks, Shane, for explaining the hedgehog reference. I hadn't heard it called that before.