yeah its not stupid low. i still have 115mm of clearance under the front bar. and can drive through shopping center car parks without scrapping.
Rod ended tension rods make exactly what difference? As the rods work in an arc there is always going to be front/rear movement although there will be more if soft bushes are used instead of metal ones. So the camber arms would have been designed with that in mind one would think.
This from the Black Beast build thread. Quote: Originally Posted by Tektrader Hmmm, been thinking about this. The radius rods sole job is to locate the front axel fore an aft depending on compression of the springs. But since it works on a "radius" it implies the axel actually moves forward under compression and unloading. This must put a bit of a load on the upper control arm cause it doesnt move forward and back only up and down. Gives me a new appreciation for the R34 suspension design with two inboard attatchment points without radius rods. It must not move forward at all under suspension compression yet doesnt have a nose squat issue. I would maybe suggest that in an ideal world any antidive from the radius rod geometry should be trimmed out and the spring rate should determine antidive. John, explain how moving the axel forward under compression creates antidive? I know the twisting of the front upper arms contributes. But we have removed that now with your twisting arms. ----------------------- Then my comment. This all seems relevant to the current upper link discussion here http://www.aus300zx.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309678 There is something with the Z32 front suspension design that is not right once the car is lowered. I suspect that the upright is tilted for anti dive purposes and this tilt increases upon lowering exaggerating anti dive still more, which increases suspension component stress because anti dive is induced by suspension angles and so is inherantly stress inducing. This may not be it, could be talking out my bum, but there is something and I suspect it is connected with anti dive which incidentially no real performance car should have.
Oh crikey mate, you're in 4x4 spec in this case! :rofl: Either way, there is clearly a fault with the product. It's been mentioned, and there have also been other exact faulty experiences from other buyers. I'm hoping UAS will be offering a re-call arrangement for you regarding this when they get the problem rectified. ...i would have expected a mass email/pm notification from UAS to ALL of the buyers of these camber arms pointing out the design fault though. If they didn't, then this would be dissapointing as it seems to be a common issue regarding this product. btw Bonzey, last time i measured i'm sitting on 7.5cm clearance, so i'm quite certain i'd no doubt have issues with these UAS camber arms if i had bought them. Lucky my cheap $200 Ebay ones have given me no troubles over the last 2 years! :bash:
I should really measure my ground clearance now. Gotta love ebay, but my factory ones aren't broken yet after 21 years, though there is some play now, it might be time to upgrade the bushes.
It's the iclinAtion of the king pin that does the anti squat. But it is what gives the wish bone it's twisting motion as the spring compresses. The stock arms handle this by using rubber bushes. The uas arms as opposed to other arms is that the accomdate this.
Inclination he means, either way the problem is not nissans, its the poor build standard of after market arms.
I disagree with this. The "build standard" is NOT in question IMHO, rather it is the much broader "unknown/unforeseen" areas that subsequently come to light during usage(a veritable minefield of potential scenarios that range from 'likely' to 'highly improbable', depending upon an enormous range of variables). It is much more likely that a OEM item will be relatively trouble-free, compared to an aftermarket substitute(there are many reasons for this, the most simplistic being that a "non-adjustable U/C Arm" has a narrow, definable operating band, whereas an adjustable arm has infinitely greater range of potential/unknown possible areas for failure). Every time you alter the adjustment/settings of an U/C Arm, you effectively "re-design" and alter those design parameters(and step into a hitherto unknown area of potential problems). The problems which occur more often, give a better indication of "cause", and can be more readily addressed by the manufacturer/designer(however, the moment that any of the settings/parameters are altered, the resultant outcome is again an "unknown", and must be re-assessed). This simply doesn't happen with a standard, non-adjustable OEM item. IMHO, if we want to enter the area of "modifying" our cars, we have to accept these possibilities AND be prepared to work with those aftermarket suppliers, in an attempt to improve the end product. This has a much better chance of a satisfactory outcome, than does "finger-pointing"(and you give the manufacturer a far better chance to supply a superior product). It's a Win/Win situation, IMHO.
thats a load of crap and agree with chili I physically assembled half these arms myself ..they are excellent quality and design ..and the twisting actually works well (should have taken a vid) What we need to do is determine why some people are destroying all types of camber arms (not just UAS ones ). I personally have destroyed! the stock type bushes and the midori style..havent driven mine enough to see results yet on the UAS. nissan didnt get everything right in the 90's.. I had to correct the the rear anti squat by changing pivot points . Nissan did this later in the skylines . Lets try and work out the real problem instead of pointing fingers !
anger?? :rofl: no anger just problem solving to be honest none of your posts make any sense or have any value
Faulty is faulty !!!!!! I've been following this thread in bewilderment. People seem to be going out of their way to try and excuse the fact that a LOT of adjustable control arms are just not up to scratch Forgiving the fact they break "because they have to withstand a wider range of possibilities than the oem arms" is just grasping at straws. They are "supposedly" designed to accomodate these variables, and marketted as such (and in the case of UAS, priced accordingly). So to turn around and forgive their failings because they have to do more than the oem arms is ludicrous. The oem arms have done what they were designed to do for many years, without breaking. The majority of aftermarket arms have, in one way or another, failed to survive any length of time at all. When some of these aftermarket arms are marketted as "the ultimate FUCA's", the addition of some "bells and whistles" can NOT excuse the fact that they are still failing
Enough already People are jumping to conclusions without any real knowledge to base their assumptions on. Fact: SOME of these arms have failed and some haven't Fact: SOME after market arms fail on some cars and some don't fail on other cars Fact: OEM upper arms are actually of no use on seriously lowered cars as the camber becomes to great and goes way out of spec. Fact: There are assumptions made so far to guess at the actual cause of failure but NO HARD PROOF OR IN DEPTH RESEARCH TO BACK THIS UP. Fact: UAS released these arms with the aim of resolving a lot of issues these top arms have, as above SOME have failed but as yet NO HARD PROOF AS TO WHY EXACTLY (at least not on here) How would the thread go if for example we found out the shocks were faulty on some of the cars, or the arms were adjusted beyond design specs due to unforeseen damage to the chassis of the car? Still UASs fault? hmmm no I don't think so, stock arms fail also (they wear the bushes out). Opinions are great - except they don't fix problems. Research and development fixes problems, lets get that done before we form opinions and start burning witches aye.
Nobody is saying "forgive the failure"(certainly not me). I've now had 7 different sets of UCA's(if you count the OEM originals)from various manufacturers. The ONLY manufacturer that has "stepped up to the plate" so far, is JP/UAS(and that IS worthy of mention, and should not be disregarded). As stated earlier, not all of the new UAS arms are failing(only some of the ones that are extended to the extremity of adjustment)and this unforeseen issue is being addressed at the moment.
Edit: Public roads are not the place to perform R&D. Like the OEM tune, OEM suspension is designed to work in a variety of circumstances. Adjusting the tune to extract a few more HP is a reasonable thing to do IMHO, the worst that can likely happen is that you destroy an engine. This is a personal risk that each and every member can assess for them selves. Suspension is a little different, negative results are far more likely to have long term impact on yourself and others. What happens with a high speed front tyre blow out, will that be enough to test the part ?, is anyone conducting such tests ?, or are we waiting for some real world test results ? The law says you don't have the right, I believe morally you don't have the right, but people continue to take the risk for themselves and others, and by what right ? Being fully hectik ? Being a factory test pilot ? Trying to extract a few tenths between work and home ? Making a few dollars ? AT WHAT COST ? Some seem to think they can improve upon Nissan's work, despite Nissan having multimillion dollar budgets, dozens of the best engineers in the world, super computers, dedicated variable environment test facilities, an enormous base of knowledge and development data as to what does and doesn't work and what lasts in a real world environment for 100,000's kilometers, how to over engineer to compensate for the unforeseen, experience in balancing a design to meet reliability, safety, performance and manufacturing cost. Do people really think they are in the same league ? :rofl: SNAP OUT OF IT ! Now read the above quoted post again but imagine this is the President of major vehicle manufacturer speaking to you. Would you not expect a total recall ? Or just accept that only SOME are in danger ? Opinions are great - they do fix problems. EDIT: The proviso is that the opinion has to reflect some base of logic and be applicable whether you are or are not the beneficiary of said opinion.
Im of a similar opinion. I could make an adjustable control arm that i think would stand up to street use since it would be based on the OEM design, but how could i ever sell them without proper testing? If one fails and causes an accident , Legally you can say they were for off road use only, but i couldnt live with myself.
