i like this design, but without the rose joints. maybe replace the rose joints with a traditional rubber or nolathane bush would be better.
Anti, I'm confused by the picture too.............I remember that a couple of years ago mungyz had a thread about the Z1 upper control arms - thread here - and in post #16, ezzupturbo was commenting he was looking at modifying those type of camber arms. So maybe he could shed some light on the design. EDIT: They are listed on www.nagisa-auto.com as being for the Z32, about 1/3 of the way down. Pictured below are the ones they list for the Z32, under that for the R32 GTR for comparison. Z32: R32: Also, there was a comment on the last page of this thread (300ZX Club, need to register/login) about finding poorly designed and bent fucas on a 300ZX, as pictured below - is that the concern you have with the GKTech design, or am I off track?
I think the rosejoints will give a little bit of movement at the outside of the arm depending on how they assemble. Don't know if they will allow enough movement (assuming they do) though, I'd really like someone else to buy them and find out lol
How do the UAS units deal with rotation, is it just a bushing in sleeve? Also, no-ones mentioned powertrix are they no good? They look complicated enough that they might do something. https://www.powertrix.com/z32/z32-suspension/z32-adjustable/z32adjcam
Now that nobody has pointed out something I'd missed (I have faith in Nagisa Auto) I'm satisfied in saying their arms were not designed with a need to pivot in mind. Any rose joints bolted together side by side cannot twist. Any perceived twist will be putting forces through the arm that it is not designed to take. Any attempt for either joint to turn would require the other to dislodge... i.e previously mentioned clock analogy. It'd hazard a strong guess that the reason the rose joints are fitted is for longevity. I was once informed by someone in the know that bearings submitted to only small ranges of movement repetitively wear out prematurely and that rose joints suffer from this issue less. At a guess, looking at the way a rose joint would distribute the force around one large "bearing" this stands to reason. My front caster rods are out of the car at the moment. If you're unconvinced, come bolt them together parallel and see how much you can get them to turn relative to each other The UAS arms have a bearing in the middle of the main arm and remain the best on the market to date. Powertrix arms are no different to all the other adjustable arms on the market that do not allow for pivoting through travel.
In one direction the rose joints of the nagisa arms would unscrew from the arm wouldn't they? Probably not great for longevity using the thread as a bearing surface.
Rose joints will suffer from the same wear issue as a bearing because they are only loaded mainly in one direction and have very limited range of movement in a suspension. This is fine on a race car as they will be checked and replaced regularly. For a street car they will wear quickly and are notorious for becoming rattely and eventualy becoming dangerous with eccessive wear. Not sure about here but in NZ they are illegal for this reason.
The problem of the upper arms as we know are caused by the twisting force of suspension travel . UAS V2 are the only solid unit design (as far as I know )that address the specific problem . Yes they are expensive in comparison but I wouldn't cheap out on something that's inferior in design . .
That's fine, from a design perspective, the issue might have been addressed... But has it been prooven to be reliable in practice?
Only the non teflon style have now been deemed unsuitable to pass a low volume cert, as far as I know it is not illegal to have the other style in the car - it just wont pass a low volume cert if you send it in for the inspection.
The issue was addressed when Nissan designed an arm that could handle the twisting forces involved. The issue was also addressed when aftermarket manufacturers used bushes that had compliance rather than rigid/hard bushes combined with arms structure that could not handle the twisting. Where it all went wrong was when people ran cars too low, used arms that could not flex & used bushes with no give in them, other factors like not rust inhibiting arms that clearly needed a little help in that department, not greasing bushes correctly, etc etc etc etc, blah blah blah - no one listens anyway lol!! carry on.
Addressing the issue by handling the twisting forces and actually fixing the issue of being able to twist are 2 different things .
Not really, Nissan designed the arm to twist but not fail over time, UAS designed the arm to twist but (in theory) not fail over time - exact same goal with two different approaches. The Nissan arm does actually twist along with all the other components around it, the caster arm bush has compliance designed in to it, the lower control arm bush does as well. It's not an issue until the design is screwed around with by people who don't fully understand how it all works.
Upper control arms As far as I know adjustable upper arms are not legal..I bought a second Z lately which had Stillen adjustable uppers, had to get them removed for roadworthy. I own my other Z TT for over 10 years now and just recently had new adjustable bushes put in the uppers, Beats me how one can bend the uppers.
It depends, without an engineers cert they are not legal for road use in WA. However with an engineers cert they can be.
Black Beast and I for a start off of the top of my head, but plenty more. When I worked there I nabbed one of the last pairs; the first batch was sold out. I'll be the first to admit I haven't driven my car with them fitted, but to my knowledge no bad news has come from them.
