This thread is awesome.

 

Well, how about that. The holy grail we've all been looking for- GM's own calculations. I note that they that AGREE with mine. Read the text on page 5 and look the text at the bottom of figure 7. GM states that there is still a positive inward load of 19%. Not negative 19%.

Thanks!

 

Actually Mike, they are saying the side loading is reduced by 81% leaving the snap ring to hold 19%. If you read the paragraph it says:

"The cornering loads in the drive shaft are kept low by the choice of attachment points of the control rod and suspension spring.The schematic drawing in Figure 7 represents one side of the suspension and the forces that occur and what happens to them. Side forces turn in the bottom of the wheel placing the lower torque rod in compression and the axle receives a tension load. The weight of the vehicle imposes a spring force that tends to turn the bottom of the wheel outward. This causes an opposite loading in both members which partially cancels side force.The result is a considerable reduction in the potential axle load.

I other words it reduces how much load the clips have to hold on an outside turn. It does not eliminate it. Game over!

 

Disagree in how it's read, but agree that it could have been more clear.

 

You have got to be kidding!!!!!
Let me see...
1 visual .... The video
2 personal experiences ... Many
3 the GM papers

And you think it's how it's read?!?!???:wi lly:

what would it take? a decree from god all mighty himself?

you know I got to post this new evidence to the old thread also.... just to dam good to let it hang...
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...post1575220330

David... U be dA BoMb!!!!!!

 

Right, I've had overnight to think about this-and am altering tack.

I'll join your camp that the 1963 GM paper is saying there is a load reversal under extreme cornering conditions. My numbers were done using physical measurements taken from my '73. The only relevant differences I am aware of between the two years would be tire height, vehicle weight and centre of gravity, all of which would favour the '73. These small changes add another data point as does the video of the modified car up at the top of this post

It's unfortunate that there are no hard numbers to accompany the text and graph, but if if I understand the implications correctly, the stock geometry reduces the outward load on the yoke by 81%.

If my original numbers are correct that there is an inward load of 300lbs with the car going straight ahead, then does that infer the maximum outward load on the c clip would be 300 x 19% or 57lbs?

If so, this is a far cry from the claims made that c-clips are being fractured from huge axial impact load, and also brings into question the theory that yoke ends are being mushroomed from 'hammering'. Again, the video can be used to show that the transition from compression to tensile back to compression is anything but a 'hammer' effect. The GM text is not definitive in nature by not stating at what point the load reversal takes place. That's unfortunate, but it does state that side force is required to negate the 'spring force' imposed by the weight of the vehicle. This latter point agrees with the original analysis by myself and others here and is an oft ignored or underrated parameter.

I don't think the point made by David about camber change is relevant as this is purely a function of geometry and not dynamic loads on the vehicle.

All this to say that the claim of yokes wobbling in and out under normal driving conditions or while highway cruising is still unsubstantiated.

Thanks David at Triumph and V2racing for doing some research and bringing forward some technical data or analysis to chew on. This is very refreshing after months of listening to nothing but others who were too lazy or incompetent to look up anything for themselves or were just looking for any opportunity to go for the jugular. Oh- I see he's been here already.

 

The position of the strut rod was changed by 73. You may have included that in you mention of a lower center of gravity.

Yokes very seldom mushroomed before 74. You almost never saw one on a midyear. I don't remember ever getting one in the shop that was worn until the 74 or 75 model years. The 76-79s were awful. Many of them were seen with mushrooms. It is a matter of quality and heat treating, not hammering that causes the problems of the later shark cars.

 

Yes, you're right that the C2s and C3s have a different strut rod attaching bracket. This alters the geometry also. Thanks.

 

I'm not sure i agree with any of this. I think it's very hard to predict where the forces are going to be much less the percise numbers.

So far, nobody has mentioned that there are loads induced as the car travells down the road in a straight line due to set toe in. The toe in is dynamic depending on spring compression.

This is not a simple calculation.

 

You can say that again. My head hurts.

 

Hey, Turtle,

Believe it or not, I agree with ya.

 

1. you altering track? how about just saying... sorry.. I was wrong...just how many have you led to believe that these C clips are not needed? And thus left them out.... before you give advice, AND incest you are correct, over and over again,,, make sure you are correct next time...

2. you admittedly never did the "numbers" you were only quoiting phantom engineers somewhere in BFE

3. your starting to FINALLY understand...

4. and again.... there are loads that these calculations do not take into account... but, you are finally getting to understand... uhh,, right?

5. so many other overwhelming inputs, but now you got it... really?

6.. The comment that made me respond.... If someone disagrees with you you insult them... typically Mike...

 

I posted at the beginning of this thread and stated that my '69 has not had these snap rings (they are not c-clips) for the last 31 years with no noticeable effect. My car is street driven as is the OP's car. No where is there any evidence that anything bad will happen with street tires. Just ask me, I'll tell ya.

BTW, you're really starting to get obnoxious.

 

beginning of this thread? you are not the OP...

And yes, if you drive like grandpa, you will be fine... but there are others of us that like to do more than go to the local parade.. to his, his own..

and I think your reply is nothing but obnoxious,,,,did you see the video? AAAA DUH!

Mike is being obtuse...... but again, you to are allowed your own opinion also.. and I am cool with that.

hey... you don't need all those motor mount bolts ether....one on each side should hold up just fine in those parades...

 

I never said I was the original poster. I said the OP's car was also street driven.

And I may drive like grandpa now, but 30 years ago I certainly didn't. Again, with no problems.

 

30 years ago you car had the C clips. And the OP was auto-crossing.... not driving to the parade... I suggest you watch the video once more.

 

30 years ago my car DID NOT have them. It's a '69 and I bought it in '79. It did not have them when I bought it.

I need to apologize about the OP. I thought I was posting to the other thread, where the OP's car is only street driven.

 

im cool... peace brother...

ps... nice car

 

Starting? He's been an outright a-hole for a long time on this and other threads, despite his 'apologies' to me via PM. That's why he's on my 'ignore' list. It's pretty obvious he's only interested in personal attack and nothing else. Look at his response to you and complete dismissal of your own experience- simply because it contradicts his own thinking.

CF doesn't need trolls like this.

 

I tried to make peace with you Mike, and you threw it in my face, not to worry...That was my mistake... wont happen again

no mike, YOU dismiss everything anyone says, and if you like I will copy and post PAGES of proof for you if your memory is that bad...(second thing to go)

and not a personal attack so much as setting the record straight and correct.... and you are also on my ignore list... I have no use for close minded obtuse people,,, just dont want people to take your bad advice.

would you like me to copy and post Mike? I will be glad to if you insist.

and I agree, CF does not need trolls, so maybe you should find somewhere else to go.. pm me and I can tell you just where that is...