RotaryExtreme toelink upgrade and install - pics
04-01-04, 11:15 PM
#51
PV = nRT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Zealand (was California)
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck, you definitely *sound* defensive on some of this stuff and I like and have purchased some of your products. You are trying to defend only from an aspect of parts pricing when you probably should include "time and research to bring compatible parts together into a working piece." Nothing wrong with that.
Torsionally it is stronger.
Deflection, it should also be stronger.
Rupture point after passing limit of fatigue? Definitely lower for hollow bars. However a proper design should be more than adaquate for our purposes.
That's toilet paper roll. The weakness is in the thinness of the walls.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways - let alone have any thin walls.
I don't think the ability to withstand being "crushed into a pulp" is the most important thing when it comes to a toe-link or trailing arm. It'd be nice to be able to re-use one, yes - but you're not exactly going to be putting a g of cornering force on one after doing 70 mph into a wall.
Here's a more accurate example:
Let's say I lay out a 20 ft ladder made of soild aluminum 6 ft over a pond of alligators. Then let's say I lay out a ladder made of hollow tubed aluminum, with oversized dimensions (compared to the solid one), but maybe 70% of the weight of the solid one.
Which ladder will you be hoping won't allow 3 ft of flex when you get to the center of that pond?
But a solid one is NOT necessarily *stronger*. If solid were stronger we'd be using solid BEAMS of steel rather than girders and I-beams.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways.
That wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying in the end, I could have 2 toe-links that are dimensionally off by a freakin' 1/8" of an inch and the alignment process is still going to determine how close I can even use the precision.
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
Using the same material 6061 T6 aluminum, how is the hollow rod stronger than a soild one? Can you explain it to me in terms of physics?
Using the same material 6061 T6 aluminum, how is the hollow rod stronger than a soild one? Can you explain it to me in terms of physics?
Deflection, it should also be stronger.
Rupture point after passing limit of fatigue? Definitely lower for hollow bars. However a proper design should be more than adaquate for our purposes.
Let's explain it in a very simple way. The center roll of the toilet paper is made of paper. Can you crush it with your hands on each end? Yes, you can. Can you crush it if it's made of the same kind of paper but solid with both your hands? I doubt it unless you are the guy from the world's strongest man competition.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways - let alone have any thin walls.
I don't think the ability to withstand being "crushed into a pulp" is the most important thing when it comes to a toe-link or trailing arm. It'd be nice to be able to re-use one, yes - but you're not exactly going to be putting a g of cornering force on one after doing 70 mph into a wall.
Here's a more accurate example:
Let's say I lay out a 20 ft ladder made of soild aluminum 6 ft over a pond of alligators. Then let's say I lay out a ladder made of hollow tubed aluminum, with oversized dimensions (compared to the solid one), but maybe 70% of the weight of the solid one.
Which ladder will you be hoping won't allow 3 ft of flex when you get to the center of that pond?
So will be the hollow rod be strong enough for all kinds of situation? I don't care. I just know a solid one will be stronger and that's what I offer and I also know my toe links and trailing arms survived a severe crash during the D1 Grand Prix USA. The car's right rear wheel was smashed into the concrete wall at 70-80 mph and both components are ok.
Let's say the bushing you slip through the ball of the rod end is not precise so the diameter is smaller than the diameter of the ball, will you have play? Yes, you will. If you do, it will be the same as the ball on the rod end is worn out and you are going to have play. A alignment machine will not fix that.
I was talking about the play on the bushing, not the thread on the rod.
I was talking about the play on the bushing, not the thread on the rod.
If the alignment machine can fix anything, people with worn bushing can just put their car on the alignment machine and get everything fixed.
Chuck Huang [/B]
Chuck Huang [/B]
04-01-04, 11:17 PM
#52
Lives on the Forum
Hollow tubes loaded under torsion (sway bars) have nearly as much resistance as solid tubes with much less weight. When loaded in tension a solid tube will have a slightly higher yeild strength. When loaded in compression a solid tube will have quite a greater yield strength than a hollow one, but still not as much as you would think. The key is the wall thickness of the hollow tube. It's a moot point anyway. Fact is in the real world the tube will fail at the end of the threaded portion of the rodend inside the tube where the threads are cut since that is how the loads are fed in; whether the tube is hollow or solid doesn't much matter. An impact big enough to crush the tube is going to cause plenty of other damage to the suspension as well.
As for hitting things at 70 mph I guess it would be impressive to point out that a car is totalled yet the toe links are intact?
I have no problems with RE's toe links; they are obviously nicely crafted and will certainly not fall apart in use. Is it needed? The customer will decide; it's a free market. I know enough about CNC mills, machinists and fab guys to know that it takes no miracle to turn threads into a tube though. Redneck hillbillies (excuse the term; tongue in cheek) have been doing it for generations on their beat up dirt track cars.
As for hitting things at 70 mph I guess it would be impressive to point out that a car is totalled yet the toe links are intact?
I have no problems with RE's toe links; they are obviously nicely crafted and will certainly not fall apart in use. Is it needed? The customer will decide; it's a free market. I know enough about CNC mills, machinists and fab guys to know that it takes no miracle to turn threads into a tube though. Redneck hillbillies (excuse the term; tongue in cheek) have been doing it for generations on their beat up dirt track cars.
04-01-04, 11:18 PM
#53
PV = nRT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Zealand (was California)
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
Please enlighten me with some mathematic equations. I am very eager to see how you come up with 5%.
You can have a hollow sway bar but you forgot that the sway bar has stiffness rating. You can achieve the same kind of stiffness with a hollow rod or a smaller diameter solid bar. We are talking about absolute strength on the rod assuming they are made of the same material and same diameter.
Chuck Huang
Please enlighten me with some mathematic equations. I am very eager to see how you come up with 5%.
You can have a hollow sway bar but you forgot that the sway bar has stiffness rating. You can achieve the same kind of stiffness with a hollow rod or a smaller diameter solid bar. We are talking about absolute strength on the rod assuming they are made of the same material and same diameter.
Chuck Huang
04-01-04, 11:23 PM
#54
Lives on the Forum
What we have here is marketing vs. engineering. I think all of us are willing to completely agree that the price for the product is not unfair, but don't try to base an engineering argument on pride and marketing. That's folly.
04-01-04, 11:34 PM
#55
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
So info from another company who sells their hollow sway without any mathematic equation and quoted from their website: "for simplicity, complex equation will not be listedk, nor derived".
I guess I understand more in the terms of physics because I already pointed it out that you can achieve the same stiffness of a sway bar with a larger diameter hollow bar and with a smaller diameter soild bar. hmmm...
Chuck Huang
I guess I understand more in the terms of physics because I already pointed it out that you can achieve the same stiffness of a sway bar with a larger diameter hollow bar and with a smaller diameter soild bar. hmmm...
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by teeter
see the link posted above
http://www.hotchkis.net/pdf_files/HollowSwayTech-D.pdf
sorry...my estimate was off. Its a 6.5% loss in stiffness going from a solid 1 inch bar to a 1 inch bar with the center 0.5 inch hole cut out of the center...with a 25% decrease in weight.
john
see the link posted above
http://www.hotchkis.net/pdf_files/HollowSwayTech-D.pdf
sorry...my estimate was off. Its a 6.5% loss in stiffness going from a solid 1 inch bar to a 1 inch bar with the center 0.5 inch hole cut out of the center...with a 25% decrease in weight.
john
04-01-04, 11:35 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Northwest
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
What we have here is marketing vs. engineering. I think all of us are willing to completely agree that the price for the product is not unfair, but don't try to base an engineering argument on pride and marketing. That's folly.
What we have here is marketing vs. engineering. I think all of us are willing to completely agree that the price for the product is not unfair, but don't try to base an engineering argument on pride and marketing. That's folly.
however...I do want to make one sarcastic comment if I can
if the bars don't break when they crash into a wall at 70 mph in a race car...then they shouldn't have been on the race car in the first place
That says NOTHING about being potentially good for the street or the quality of the bars...but they're too strong...overengineered for their purpose. Anything that goes through that kind of impact situation that is not safety related should be destroyed or it is over engineered for a racing application.that statement has really nothing to do with street cars
but I think its always kind of funny when people think race cars are the toughest things out there and if its tough enough for a race car...then its good for a street car. Its actually kinda the other way around...or SHOULD be.race cars are really on the edge of reliability. Or at least top competitive ones are. I race rally cars...do I build a tank to go flying through the air...diving through ditches...no. I build a car that is just tough enough to handle it, but when I hit a tree...everything is sheared from the car and twisted into little bits. That's why my car doesn't weigh 4000 lbs. I see a lot of tanks out there...but they "usually" are the ones hitting trees and getting pulled off stumps cause they're so heavy they go sliding off the road.
I'm gonna hold off commenting any more cause this seems to be getting a bit personal and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
the bars chuck produces seem to be of a good quality, and he understands the key to long life of the bars is the use of a quality heim joint and seals...which are included in his kits.
john
Last edited by teeter; 04-01-04 at 11:43 PM.
04-01-04, 11:37 PM
#57
PV = nRT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Zealand (was California)
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
I guess I understand more in the terms of physics because I already pointed it out that you can achieve the same stiffness of a sway bar with a larger diameter hollow bar and with a smaller diameter soild bar. hmmm...
Chuck Huang
I guess I understand more in the terms of physics because I already pointed it out that you can achieve the same stiffness of a sway bar with a larger diameter hollow bar and with a smaller diameter soild bar. hmmm...
Chuck Huang
LESS WEIGHT.
04-01-04, 11:54 PM
#58
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
Clayton:
If you remember about the FEED manifold cover thead, you know I don't just tell people it works because I say so. I always like to explain why it works and even in mathematic equations if possible.
In this case, a solid bar is stronger than a hollow bar no matter what, given the same diameter. I used the toilet paper roll just for a example, maybe not the best one but that's the best thing I could think of at the moment. I understand the wall thickness and also wall diameter matters, which shows in my reply to Teeter. But as the wall thickness increase, the stronger it gets and by the time it becomes solid, that's the strongest stage. There is nothing to argue about.
Crashing into a wall just to show you that those bars are strong enough to even withstand a severw crash and nothing more. That's the worst situation you are goig to run into, am I right? Would you rather have somethign that can withstand severe crash or you would like to buy some new ones after that?
They use H beam to save weight and I fully understand the concept and I don't think I need to explain myself further.
This has nothing to do with me justifying the pricing. I really have no problem selling them at those prices and I think my prices are fair according to how they are done. If you like what you see, buy them. If not, you can make them youself or do whatever. I don't make a big profit on those so I don't really care if I sell a bunch or not. I do care if people have doubts on the quality of the products I offer.
Chuck Huang
If you remember about the FEED manifold cover thead, you know I don't just tell people it works because I say so. I always like to explain why it works and even in mathematic equations if possible.
In this case, a solid bar is stronger than a hollow bar no matter what, given the same diameter. I used the toilet paper roll just for a example, maybe not the best one but that's the best thing I could think of at the moment. I understand the wall thickness and also wall diameter matters, which shows in my reply to Teeter. But as the wall thickness increase, the stronger it gets and by the time it becomes solid, that's the strongest stage. There is nothing to argue about.
Crashing into a wall just to show you that those bars are strong enough to even withstand a severw crash and nothing more. That's the worst situation you are goig to run into, am I right? Would you rather have somethign that can withstand severe crash or you would like to buy some new ones after that?
They use H beam to save weight and I fully understand the concept and I don't think I need to explain myself further.
This has nothing to do with me justifying the pricing. I really have no problem selling them at those prices and I think my prices are fair according to how they are done. If you like what you see, buy them. If not, you can make them youself or do whatever. I don't make a big profit on those so I don't really care if I sell a bunch or not. I do care if people have doubts on the quality of the products I offer.
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by clayne
Chuck, you definitely *sound* defensive on some of this stuff and I like and have purchased some of your products. You are trying to defend only from an aspect of parts pricing when you probably should include "time and research to bring compatible parts together into a working piece." Nothing wrong with that.
Torsionally it is stronger.
Deflection, it should also be stronger.
Rupture point after passing limit of fatigue? Definitely lower for hollow bars. However a proper design should be more than adaquate for our purposes.
That's toilet paper roll. The weakness is in the thinness of the walls.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways - let alone have any thin walls.
I don't think the ability to withstand being "crushed into a pulp" is the most important thing when it comes to a toe-link or trailing arm. It'd be nice to be able to re-use one, yes - but you're not exactly going to be putting a g of cornering force on one after doing 70 mph into a wall.
Here's a more accurate example:
Let's say I lay out a 20 ft ladder made of soild aluminum 6 ft over a pond of alligators. Then let's say I lay out a ladder made of hollow tubed aluminum, with oversized dimensions (compared to the solid one), but maybe 70% of the weight of the solid one.
Which ladder will you be hoping won't allow 3 ft of flex when you get to the center of that pond?
But a solid one is NOT necessarily *stronger*. If solid were stronger we'd be using solid BEAMS of steel rather than girders and I-beams.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways.
That wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying in the end, I could have 2 toe-links that are dimensionally off by a freakin' 1/8" of an inch and the alignment process is still going to determine how close I can even use the precision.
Chuck, you definitely *sound* defensive on some of this stuff and I like and have purchased some of your products. You are trying to defend only from an aspect of parts pricing when you probably should include "time and research to bring compatible parts together into a working piece." Nothing wrong with that.
Torsionally it is stronger.
Deflection, it should also be stronger.
Rupture point after passing limit of fatigue? Definitely lower for hollow bars. However a proper design should be more than adaquate for our purposes.
That's toilet paper roll. The weakness is in the thinness of the walls.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways - let alone have any thin walls.
I don't think the ability to withstand being "crushed into a pulp" is the most important thing when it comes to a toe-link or trailing arm. It'd be nice to be able to re-use one, yes - but you're not exactly going to be putting a g of cornering force on one after doing 70 mph into a wall.
Here's a more accurate example:
Let's say I lay out a 20 ft ladder made of soild aluminum 6 ft over a pond of alligators. Then let's say I lay out a ladder made of hollow tubed aluminum, with oversized dimensions (compared to the solid one), but maybe 70% of the weight of the solid one.
Which ladder will you be hoping won't allow 3 ft of flex when you get to the center of that pond?
But a solid one is NOT necessarily *stronger*. If solid were stronger we'd be using solid BEAMS of steel rather than girders and I-beams.
You rarely end up with a hollow section having the same dimension as a solid one anyways.
That wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying in the end, I could have 2 toe-links that are dimensionally off by a freakin' 1/8" of an inch and the alignment process is still going to determine how close I can even use the precision.
04-01-04, 11:58 PM
#59
PV = nRT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Zealand (was California)
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
No one doubted the quality ever.
On a side-note, I work near Foster City and met the owner of the red car that you did a lot of work for (RE body kit) and it was a very nice machine. Body kit is quality and the car is solid.
We were sitting there talking and a motorcycle cop nailed him for expired registration. Can you believe the cop let him go on a *fix-it* ticket?
No one doubted the quality ever.
On a side-note, I work near Foster City and met the owner of the red car that you did a lot of work for (RE body kit) and it was a very nice machine. Body kit is quality and the car is solid.
We were sitting there talking and a motorcycle cop nailed him for expired registration. Can you believe the cop let him go on a *fix-it* ticket?
04-02-04, 12:01 AM
#60
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
hehe.. you know what, those rod ends have a breaking point. Every rod end has a designed breaking point. The rods are not supposed to breake but the rod ends do. If you don't believe me, you can talk to one of those rod end companies and ask them.
You are not really hurting anyone's feelings. Even though it sounds rough here, it's on the internet so speak out loud is allowed.
Chuck Huang
You are not really hurting anyone's feelings. Even though it sounds rough here, it's on the internet so speak out loud is allowed.
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by teeter
I completely agree.
however...I do want to make one sarcastic comment if I can
if the bars don't break when they crash into a wall at 70 mph in a race car...then they shouldn't have been on the race car in the first place That says NOTHING about being potentially good for the street or the quality of the bars...but they're too strong...overengineered for their purpose. Anything that goes through that kind of impact situation that is not safety related should be destroyed or it is over engineered for a racing application.
that statement has really nothing to do with street cars but I think its always kind of funny when people think race cars are the toughest things out there and if its tough enough for a race car...then its good for a street car. Its actually kinda the other way around...or SHOULD be.
race cars are really on the edge of reliability. Or at least top competitive ones are. I race rally cars...do I build a tank to go flying through the air...diving through ditches...no. I build a car that is just tough enough to handle it, but when I hit a tree...everything is sheared from the car and twisted into little bits. That's why my car doesn't weigh 4000 lbs. I see a lot of tanks out there...but they "usually" are the ones hitting trees and getting pulled off stumps cause they're so heavy they go sliding off the road.
I'm gonna hold off commenting any more cause this seems to be getting a bit personal and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
the bars chuck produces seem to be of a good quality, and he understands the key to long life of the bars is the use of a quality heim joint and seals...which are included in his kits.
john
I completely agree.
however...I do want to make one sarcastic comment if I can
if the bars don't break when they crash into a wall at 70 mph in a race car...then they shouldn't have been on the race car in the first place
That says NOTHING about being potentially good for the street or the quality of the bars...but they're too strong...overengineered for their purpose. Anything that goes through that kind of impact situation that is not safety related should be destroyed or it is over engineered for a racing application.that statement has really nothing to do with street cars
but I think its always kind of funny when people think race cars are the toughest things out there and if its tough enough for a race car...then its good for a street car. Its actually kinda the other way around...or SHOULD be.race cars are really on the edge of reliability. Or at least top competitive ones are. I race rally cars...do I build a tank to go flying through the air...diving through ditches...no. I build a car that is just tough enough to handle it, but when I hit a tree...everything is sheared from the car and twisted into little bits. That's why my car doesn't weigh 4000 lbs. I see a lot of tanks out there...but they "usually" are the ones hitting trees and getting pulled off stumps cause they're so heavy they go sliding off the road.
I'm gonna hold off commenting any more cause this seems to be getting a bit personal and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
the bars chuck produces seem to be of a good quality, and he understands the key to long life of the bars is the use of a quality heim joint and seals...which are included in his kits.
john
04-02-04, 12:03 AM
#61
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
Hehe, I know who you are now. He mentioned it to me when he came to my place. He is glad that you didn't ask him to pop his hood in front of the police officer.
Chuck Huang
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by clayne
Chuck,
No one doubted the quality ever.
On a side-note, I work near Foster City and met the owner of the red car that you did a lot of work for (RE body kit) and it was a very nice machine. Body kit is quality and the car is solid.
We were sitting there talking and a motorcycle cop nailed him for expired registration. Can you believe the cop let him go on a *fix-it* ticket?
Chuck,
No one doubted the quality ever.
On a side-note, I work near Foster City and met the owner of the red car that you did a lot of work for (RE body kit) and it was a very nice machine. Body kit is quality and the car is solid.
We were sitting there talking and a motorcycle cop nailed him for expired registration. Can you believe the cop let him go on a *fix-it* ticket?
04-02-04, 12:14 AM
#62
ok ok ok guys are we done hijacking my pretty thread :-)
for the love of god, we all know now that you can make ur own toe links or buy chuck's, ..... I like to do things myself and do all the work on my 2 cars myself, but sometimes I dont have time to fab everything myself (like jim labreck does...hehehe) and I am a stickler for quality, so for people like me you can't beat chucks links at that price. ... its a matter of personal value, and I got a lot of value from them based on the quality they hold, the price, and the time it saved me from making my own....pretty simple.
NOW LEAVE MY THREAD ALONE...hahahah :-)
for the love of god, we all know now that you can make ur own toe links or buy chuck's, ..... I like to do things myself and do all the work on my 2 cars myself, but sometimes I dont have time to fab everything myself (like jim labreck does...hehehe) and I am a stickler for quality, so for people like me you can't beat chucks links at that price. ... its a matter of personal value, and I got a lot of value from them based on the quality they hold, the price, and the time it saved me from making my own....pretty simple.
NOW LEAVE MY THREAD ALONE...hahahah :-)
04-02-04, 12:40 AM
#63
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
If you see it as marketing vs engineering, I don't know what to say. You can market something as well as you want but if you don't have any good quality or engineering to back up your product, marketing isn't worth crap. End users are not stupid and they will find out one way or the other, which I think you did.
I take pride in the parts I offer and I don't see anything wrong with that. So you think I am trying to sell more stuff just by saying that and I don't understand anything about engineering and all I know is marketing? I don't know where you get that idea from but that's not what this is all about.
How many people will start to make their own trailing arms and toe links after seeing this thread? Probably less than 10. Will I lose any sales? I doubt it and according to my profit margin, I could careless. I make performance parts because I enjoy making them. My profit comes from bodykits mostly.
Chuck Huang
I take pride in the parts I offer and I don't see anything wrong with that. So you think I am trying to sell more stuff just by saying that and I don't understand anything about engineering and all I know is marketing? I don't know where you get that idea from but that's not what this is all about.
How many people will start to make their own trailing arms and toe links after seeing this thread? Probably less than 10. Will I lose any sales? I doubt it and according to my profit margin, I could careless. I make performance parts because I enjoy making them. My profit comes from bodykits mostly.
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by DamonB
What we have here is marketing vs. engineering. I think all of us are willing to completely agree that the price for the product is not unfair, but don' try to base an engineering argument on pride and marketing. That's folly.
What we have here is marketing vs. engineering. I think all of us are willing to completely agree that the price for the product is not unfair, but don' try to base an engineering argument on pride and marketing. That's folly.
04-02-04, 05:21 AM
#64
Custom User Title**
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Chuck.. i got a marketing strategy for you.. Military Discount. 
... hell, i had to atleast try it.. I'll be ordering a set of toe links and control arms next week if you have them in stock.
... hell, i had to atleast try it.. I'll be ordering a set of toe links and control arms next week if you have them in stock.
04-02-04, 07:49 AM
#65
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
If you see it as marketing vs engineering, I don't know what to say.
If you see it as marketing vs engineering, I don't know what to say.
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
End users are not stupid and they will find out one way or the other, which I think you did.
End users are not stupid and they will find out one way or the other, which I think you did.
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
I take pride in the parts I offer and I don't see anything wrong with that. So you think I am trying to sell more stuff just by saying that and I don't understand anything about engineering and all I know is marketing? I don't know where you get that idea from but that's not what this is all about..
I take pride in the parts I offer and I don't see anything wrong with that. So you think I am trying to sell more stuff just by saying that and I don't understand anything about engineering and all I know is marketing? I don't know where you get that idea from but that's not what this is all about..
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
How many people will start to make their own trailing arms and toe links after seeing this thread? Probably less than 10.
How many people will start to make their own trailing arms and toe links after seeing this thread? Probably less than 10.
)
Originally posted by rotaryextreme
Will I lose any sales? I doubt it and according to my profit margin, I could careless. I make performance parts because I enjoy making them. My profit comes from bodykits mostly.
Will I lose any sales? I doubt it and according to my profit margin, I could careless. I make performance parts because I enjoy making them. My profit comes from bodykits mostly.
A toe link has a very simple job: To locate the hub carrier around the vertical axis. Anyone who understands load distribution can look at the rear hub carrier and figure out that the toe link doesn't need a hell of a lot of strength as the far majority of the load is fed into the pillowballs at the top and bottom of the hub carrier. The toe link merely give us adjustability. If you insist we need to build something so incredibly strong all of us are driving very unsafe cars. Ever notice how thin the front tie rods are? Worse, they're longer! Oh my goodness they are weak! Surely those things are going to snap off any second. I suggest building front tie rods too so that after we smash our car into something we can continue to steer
As for your 70mph crash example earlier are you implying the stock toe link would have failed?Another thing to consider is the mounting of the toe link. If the car were to clobber something so hard as to threaten the toe link what's going to yield in many cases is not the toe link, but the inner mount on the subframe. It's just a couple of thin pieces of steel tacked into place. IMO once the part is stronger than the mount more strength is useless as the mount will still collapse first.
*Disclaimer*
As always posts made by DamonB are in his personal opinion. Sometimes his opinion will disagree with the majority. If this is a problem please disregard all posts from DamonB as he feels that engineering isn't based on feelings or democracy. Again, that's his personal opinion. DamonB supports the right for all individuals to have differing opinions.
04-02-04, 12:46 PM
#68
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
Damon:
Let me sum it for you and hopefully all misunderstanding will go away.
1. Stock toe links might not bent to a point that you see it after you take off the wheel but when you corner hard, will it flex? All the rest of the characteristics have been said by me, you, or others on this thread and it's good we agree to those.
2. I was under the impression that you think all I have to offer is marketing and no quality or engineering to back up the product. Sorry that I misunderstand you on that.
3. Paying pretty much the same amount of money, it's good to know you are getting the best for your dollar, even if the product is over engineered. I rather give you more for your dollar than less.
4. I pointed out that less than 10 people will start to make their own toe links or trailing arms just to indicate that I DO NOT feel what you are doing is trying to hurt my business.
5. You might think pride has nothing to do with engineering but in my point of view, because of pride, I will try to make or engineer some products that are better than the rest. People who have no pride in what they are doing most likely will sell you some cheap quality products that they will never use themselves. You will see on my website, I don't carry a lot of products not because I can't get them. I don't feel they are good enough for my own car so I don't sell them, even if I can make a profit. Pride has a lot to do with my business practice. Sorry if you disagree.
Chuck Huang
Let me sum it for you and hopefully all misunderstanding will go away.
1. Stock toe links might not bent to a point that you see it after you take off the wheel but when you corner hard, will it flex? All the rest of the characteristics have been said by me, you, or others on this thread and it's good we agree to those.
2. I was under the impression that you think all I have to offer is marketing and no quality or engineering to back up the product. Sorry that I misunderstand you on that.
3. Paying pretty much the same amount of money, it's good to know you are getting the best for your dollar, even if the product is over engineered. I rather give you more for your dollar than less.
4. I pointed out that less than 10 people will start to make their own toe links or trailing arms just to indicate that I DO NOT feel what you are doing is trying to hurt my business.
5. You might think pride has nothing to do with engineering but in my point of view, because of pride, I will try to make or engineer some products that are better than the rest. People who have no pride in what they are doing most likely will sell you some cheap quality products that they will never use themselves. You will see on my website, I don't carry a lot of products not because I can't get them. I don't feel they are good enough for my own car so I don't sell them, even if I can make a profit. Pride has a lot to do with my business practice. Sorry if you disagree.
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by DamonB
IMO your responses seemed to be based on wishes and emotion rather than fact. How many stock toe links have you seen bent or fail other than wear or smashing into something? If you had told me right away that yours are pretty, corrosion resistant, more easily replaceable, involve your spent time, crafted by the only gifted machinsts on earth etc I would have openly agreed with you.
Again I never accused you of making a poor product or an overly high priced one. As for the stupidity of end users I will have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps none of them are your customers but I see people on this board daily who are trying to reinvent the wheel and really have no idea what they are talking about because they do not understand the system they are trying to "improve".
Again with the emotional part...You're putting words into my mouth again. I brought up the marketing idea earlier based on your responses. I call it marketing because a toe link does not require such a level of strength or engineering, but anyone who builds aftermarket products has to convince the buyer his products are somehow better. Are yours better than stock? Yes. The real question a buyer should ask is "Do I need it?" Many seem to feel that they do; that's good for your business. I have no problem with your right to make a buck.
Hell if I know. I bet less. What does that have to do with any of the points I have made? (Once again DamonB painted as a person trying to sabotage RE and its products because he has a differeing opinon. All opinions held by others without written consent prior to posting are bad. DamonB is obviously trying to convince potential RE customers that they should do it themselves instead of line RE's pockets )
More emotion yet again. You're arguing about something for which you were never accused. I think it's great that you're around to support a 10 year old car. I'm not trying to cause you to lose any business nor have I said you offer a poor product.
A toe link has a very simple job: To locate the hub carrier around the vertical axis. Anyone who understands load distribution can look at the rear hub carrier and figure out that the toe link doesn't need a hell of a lot of strength as the far majority of the load is fed into the pillowballs at the top and bottom of the hub carrier. The toe link merely give us adjustability. If you insist we need to build something so incredibly strong all of us are driving very unsafe cars. Ever notice how thin the front tie rods are? Worse, they're longer! Oh my goodness they are weak! Surely those things are going to snap off any second. I suggest building front tie rods too so that after we smash our car into something we can continue to steer As for your 70mph crash example earlier are you implying the stock toe link would have failed?
Another thing to consider is the mounting of the toe link. If the car were to clobber something so hard as to threaten the toe link what's going to yield in many cases is not the toe link, but the inner mount on the subframe. It's just a couple of thin pieces of steel tacked into place. IMO once the part is stronger than the mount more strength is useless as the mount will still collapse first.
*Disclaimer*
As always posts made by DamonB are in his personal opinion. Sometimes his opinion will disagree with the majority. If this is a problem please disregard all posts from DamonB as he feels that engineering isn't based on feelings or democracy. Again, that's his personal opinion. DamonB supports the right for all individuals to have differing opinions.
IMO your responses seemed to be based on wishes and emotion rather than fact. How many stock toe links have you seen bent or fail other than wear or smashing into something? If you had told me right away that yours are pretty, corrosion resistant, more easily replaceable, involve your spent time, crafted by the only gifted machinsts on earth etc I would have openly agreed with you.
Again I never accused you of making a poor product or an overly high priced one. As for the stupidity of end users I will have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps none of them are your customers but I see people on this board daily who are trying to reinvent the wheel and really have no idea what they are talking about because they do not understand the system they are trying to "improve".
Again with the emotional part...You're putting words into my mouth again. I brought up the marketing idea earlier based on your responses. I call it marketing because a toe link does not require such a level of strength or engineering, but anyone who builds aftermarket products has to convince the buyer his products are somehow better. Are yours better than stock? Yes. The real question a buyer should ask is "Do I need it?" Many seem to feel that they do; that's good for your business. I have no problem with your right to make a buck.
Hell if I know. I bet less. What does that have to do with any of the points I have made? (Once again DamonB painted as a person trying to sabotage RE and its products because he has a differeing opinon. All opinions held by others without written consent prior to posting are bad. DamonB is obviously trying to convince potential RE customers that they should do it themselves instead of line RE's pockets
)More emotion yet again. You're arguing about something for which you were never accused. I think it's great that you're around to support a 10 year old car. I'm not trying to cause you to lose any business nor have I said you offer a poor product.
A toe link has a very simple job: To locate the hub carrier around the vertical axis. Anyone who understands load distribution can look at the rear hub carrier and figure out that the toe link doesn't need a hell of a lot of strength as the far majority of the load is fed into the pillowballs at the top and bottom of the hub carrier. The toe link merely give us adjustability. If you insist we need to build something so incredibly strong all of us are driving very unsafe cars. Ever notice how thin the front tie rods are? Worse, they're longer! Oh my goodness they are weak! Surely those things are going to snap off any second. I suggest building front tie rods too so that after we smash our car into something we can continue to steer
As for your 70mph crash example earlier are you implying the stock toe link would have failed?Another thing to consider is the mounting of the toe link. If the car were to clobber something so hard as to threaten the toe link what's going to yield in many cases is not the toe link, but the inner mount on the subframe. It's just a couple of thin pieces of steel tacked into place. IMO once the part is stronger than the mount more strength is useless as the mount will still collapse first.
*Disclaimer*
As always posts made by DamonB are in his personal opinion. Sometimes his opinion will disagree with the majority. If this is a problem please disregard all posts from DamonB as he feels that engineering isn't based on feelings or democracy. Again, that's his personal opinion. DamonB supports the right for all individuals to have differing opinions.
04-02-04, 12:50 PM
#69
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (2)
You know the routine. Returning customer always get some discount. Send me an email at rotaryextreme@aol.com and I will give you a quote. I have the trailing arms in stock but the toe links I have are scratched up due to my stupidity of dropping them on the ground by accident. You are looking at 2 weeks on the toe links.
Chuck Huang
Chuck Huang
Originally posted by silver3rdgen
Hey Chuck.. i got a marketing strategy for you.. Military Discount. ... hell, i had to atleast try it.. I'll be ordering a set of toe links and control arms next week if you have them in stock.
Hey Chuck.. i got a marketing strategy for you.. Military Discount.
... hell, i had to atleast try it.. I'll be ordering a set of toe links and control arms next week if you have them in stock.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
