|08-13-2011 06:28 PM|
CFM's tubular control arms!
|08-12-2011 08:33 PM|
|Andrew||Make them for the 05s and up yet?|
|07-17-2011 01:33 PM|
|Blue5ive||Interested to see how these hold up in the long term and with some aggressive hard driving. Keep us updated.|
|07-15-2011 10:21 PM|
|felixthecat||I've had my on since 7-10, no problem at all. I used a couple of jam nut's to replace the lock-nut, to make it easier to remove if I have to, & I start out w/ 4.5 turn's out, & that made my camber -1.7 degree's. Lighter weight, more forward bite, adjustable camber= win, win ,win !|
|07-01-2011 11:19 AM|
|PSUrivie||oh yeah, whatever happened to the rear control arms you guys were making?|
|07-01-2011 06:56 AM|
|benkap||Mine come in today. I couldn't be more excited.|
|07-01-2011 06:02 AM|
I have these installed on my 09. Sorry the car is so dirty, these were taken right after winter. These are worth every cent. The have held up very well and cornering is sik!!!
I read through this thread and honestly, some of you guys need to lay off the crack rock.
|06-30-2011 04:31 PM|
Any one got any pics
Hey just wanted to know if anyone who has been talking about getting these installed on there car have any pictures on what it looks like. Also does it lower the car any I have a Eibach set up and I was just wondering if there was any lowering or tucking that it would do to the tires if installed. I ask because my front 15" tires stick out a little after I got it aligned by a guy at the dealership. He was a little confused on how to adjust camber until I showed him how to adjust under the hood. Sorry its a long statement but I figured since I found this if there was a way to fix this or if it is just something I have to live with. If you guys need pix I can take them and post on the forum of I need to be redirected somewhere else for an answer.
Thanks A lot
|08-17-2010 03:59 PM|
I'd also note that contrary to claims made on the thread:
ASTM A108 1018 is not brittle (actually it's really ductile and easy to successfully weld vs ASTM A513 1020 or 1026).
Both MIG and TIG can have excellent penetration. The issue is careful control of the weld parameters (that's what I employ my welding engineer to determine). The carbon equivalent of the steel is much more of a concern. High carbon equivalents make the tolerance for out of parameter welds smaller. At a carbon equivalent of over 0.5% you are basically assured that your welds will fail.
|08-17-2010 03:39 PM|
Hmm, I realize this is probably not the forum to go too deep into the engineering of structures to resist fatigue, but some good points have been raised already. As someone who designs structural parts and machinery I'm concerned regarding the explanation given so far by CFM.
The control arms that failed appeared to do so after less than 4 months of use. That sounds consistent with a low cycle fatigue failure.
The discussion in the other FC thread was that the tube material was out of specification (high carbon instead of whatever grade they used since they are not saying, My guess is the planned to use ASTM A513 1020 or 1026). This would be a plausable reason since trying to use the same weld procedure with a high carbon content steel would cetainly give you very brittle welds prone to cracking and fatigue failure. (This is contrary to the statement made above that it was a "weak spot" in the metal.)
My question is:
If the issue is simply poor quality control at the manufacturer due to incorrectly identifying tubing material, why are CFM requiring gussets be added ? These won't help if the same material identification failure happens again.
So that leaves the question of whether there is some other issue ? Has any FEA and fatigue analysis been done ? Has the weld procedure been reviewed ?
Personally I'd like to see the proposed solution address the original cause of the faulure. Everything else is just fluff.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|