Extremely High Misalignment Bearing

[Rick Iverson]

Gents;

I am in search of a high misalignment bearing equivalent to the NMB ART7ECR. These are stock dimensions:

Ball center to end of thread: (A) = 2.125"
Ball bore diameter: (B) = 7/16"
Thread length: (C) = 1.281"
Head diameter: (D) = 1.150"
Body width: (T) = 0.452"
Ball width: (W) = 0.562"


I need T quite thinner. Any help?

[Lotus7]

how much thinner can "T" get before the ball wont stay in?
how about a wider clevis with std bearing and some reducers/spacers instead?

[J Leonard]

FK makes a JMX-T that is .437. Their HJMX is .355 but the ball is wide, maybe machine the sides off the ball.

[tlracer]

Normally high misalignment bearings are achieved using an oversize shank and necked ball, eg. 7/16 bore will have a 1/2 thread, eg:

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...p?Product=3064

[Lotus7]

never seen this concept before, looks like a stepped(?) body

https://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-P...oaAvQ7EALw_wcB

[S Lathrop]

This one might work; https://www.aurorabearing.com/pdf/Au...19_Catalog.pdf

[CGOffroad]

If you are searching for High Misalign, you need to search areas where this is commonplace.... offroad. Below is an online offroad parts supplier.

https://www.pacificcustoms.com/mm5/m...w=&range_high=

[jrh3]

Replacement or re-engineering? Might be a simpler way?

[Rick Iverson]

never seen this concept before, looks like a stepped(?) body

https://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-P...oaAvQ7EALw_wcB

Ian, this may very well be the ticket.

To all that contributed, my most profound thx.

[ExKartracer]

May also want to check out Rod End Supply

[S Lathrop]

Take a look at this rod end. MeMaster-Carr sells this product:
https://www.mcmaster.com/products/be...nt-rod-ends-9/

[Rick Iverson]

Gents;

With your help, I found one with “T” at 0.225”. Going to require some milling on the ball extensions, but I will be able to at least bump steer 3” north and south.

BTW, what is the anticipated basic vertical movement from center of an RF-95?

Gents;

I am in search of a high misalignment bearing equivalent to the NMB ART7ECR. These are stock dimensions:

Ball center to end of thread: (A) = 2.125"
Ball bore diameter: (B) = 7/16"
Thread length: (C) = 1.281"
Head diameter: (D) = 1.150"
Body width: (T) = 0.452"
Ball width: (W) = 0.562"


I need T quite thinner. Any help?

[Lastminuteracin]

Narrowing “t” quite a bit. My worry would be about the loss of load bearing capability. Hard to calculate but something to consider.

[tlracer]

Gents;

With your help, I found one with “T” at 0.225”. Going to require some milling on the ball extensions, but I will be able to at least bump steer 3” north and south.

BTW, what is the anticipated basic vertical movement from center of an RF-95?

Why would you need to change from the original bearing, which would have been spec'd to accommodate the movement?

[Lotus7]

Gents;

, but I will be able to at least bump steer 3” north and south.

+/- 3" ??

what front ride height requires you to worry about 3" of compression?
also occurs to me that a wheel in 3" of droop will likely have so little load on it that steering delta wont matter;

wonder if this bearing search is necessary? as previous poster asked, why are you not using it as-designed?

[Rick Iverson]

Fellas;

Photos and an explanation from my feeble understanding tomorrow. Bare with me.

[S Lathrop]

Recently I was working on a new front upright for a Citation where I needed to have a horizontal bolt for the top of the upright. I found the following inserts for spherical bearings that gave 60 degrees of misalignment. these were the perfect part and were what I needed.

https://www.mcmaster.com/products/rod-end-inserts/

[Phil Creighton]

Maybe in my old age I get to ask - why do you need this angularity anywhere on an RF95.
Phil

[Rick Iverson]

Ian;

My understanding for the typical bump steer was +/- 3". Correct me, Sir. What is typical for an FC, please?

+/- 3" ??

what front ride height requires you to worry about 3" of compression?
also occurs to me that a wheel in 3" of droop will likely have so little load on it that steering delta wont matter;

wonder if this bearing search is necessary? as previous poster asked, why are you not using it as-designed?

[Rick Iverson]

Phil;

A picture is worth a thousand words. But I was violently ill last night, and my surmise was food poisoning. Still recovering, but when I am semi good-to-go, I will post exactly my conundrum and solicit your thoughts.

Maybe in my old age I get to ask - why do you need this angularity anywhere on an RF95.
Phil

[Rick Iverson]

Gents;

I inserted the original rod end bearing into my camber adjuster link, and noticed the full bearing up sweep from neutral is about 0.045", and the full bearing down sweep from neutral is approximately 0.045".

Additionally, the total movement from the of the beginning of the threads is approximately 0.75", however the face of the locking nut that makes contact with the A-frame is about 0.75" from the end (everyone knows I suck at math).

From Primus:
Front ride ht: 28mm
Rear ride ht: 38mm

From 10/Tenths
Front 29-35mm (mid ~ 1.25")
Rear 39-45mm (mid ~ 1.65")
Rake 10-12mm



Thoughts?

[Mike B]

Rick,
I can tell you from about 10 years of experience on my own cars and even more on customer cars, there is no need for anything other than the rod end that I suggested. The range of motion and clearance to the camber link is no different than every Van Diemen built since 1997. I guarantee you will not have problems.

[Rick Iverson]

Mike, then I will continue as you suggested. Steady as she goes, Sir.

Rick,
I can tell you from about 10 years of experience on my own cars and even more on customer cars, there is no need for anything other than the rod end that I suggested. The range of motion and clearance to the camber link is no different than every Van Diemen built since 1997. I guarantee you will not have problems.