No sanding yesterday. BUT I do post on some other forums and it was brought to my attention that I am now loading the ball joint opposite of what the factory did.
It was torsion bars, tired to the UCA. Now I have air bags, pushing down on the LCA. So now I am pushing down on the LCA and "pulling the LBJ apart, vs the torsion bars pushing down wiht the LCA and pushing the LBJ together. Should I be worried?
In reply to java230 :
Yes. Try to find some history on such a conversion. Use some one else for the guinea pig
In reply to TurnerX19 :
Sadly there are not exactly a lot of Travelalls that have had anything like this done to them.... The 1010 was not a large production of the travelall on top of it being a rare ish car to start with. Perhaps a similar suspension design though.
That ball joint looks very Similar to a early mustang. Or the amc i built for that matter. Or mustang 2 streetrod stuff.
I think youll be fine. The weight is still on the tire, which is still on the ground, so its all acting the same was wether bag or t bar is the spring.
My concers at this point would be bag mount and control arm strength, not the ball joints.
In reply to Dusterbd13-michael (Forum Supporter) :
Cool thanks. Bag mount is meh, but I think it will be ok. LCA yeah.... We will see.
In reply to java230 :
post pic, napkin sketch, etc, of old and new including direction of ball joints and i'll have a look.
I'd just hit the roof and door jambs with a red scotchbrite to make sure there's some tooth for the paint to grab. With the roof being floppy I think the DA would just make things worse.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
OK here goes....
Original configureation with T bars going into UCAs
Current situation, bag mount on LCA and frame.
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:I'd just hit the roof and door jambs with a red scotchbrite to make sure there's some tooth for the paint to grab. With the roof being floppy I think the DA would just make things worse.
Its a lot of texture to sand out.... I dont think the scotch brite would do it. The filler primer stuff sprayed dry, and almost like light drywall texture 
Your idea of re-filling the space between the inner roof brace and the roof was a good one. Nothing too solid or it might ghost through over time. Seam sealer or putty
In reply to java230 :
In theory they are correct, but in practice it is just like a zillion vehicles made since the invention of the ball joint. The OE vertical force path was:
tire-wheel-hub-bearing-spindle-UBJ-UCA-torsion bar-frame.
and the bagged vertical force path is:
tire-wheel-hub-bearing-spindle-LBJ-LCA-bag-frame.
I wouldn't be surprised if your OE UBJ was larger than your OE LBJ. Likewise, I'd expect that the top of the knuckle was beefier than the bottom.
So maybe it is something to worry about. But probably not. I'm betting the ball joints are sufficiently overdesigned that they won't care. But it's worth looking into the MOOG catalog to see how they compare.
In reply to NOHOME :
I will go squirt something in there now!
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Thank you! I was thinking it wasn't a huge deal, but always good to hear. They seemed in very heathy shape.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Also, depending on how the LBJ is held into the LCA, the weight of the vehicle may now be hanging by a snap ring or a few bolts.
I agree, the changed load path is a possible concern. Check if the lower ball joint cross references to an application with the spring on the lower arm.
The organisation I work with here in Sweden, for road worthiness inspections of amateur build vehicles, have investigated this. It is a recurring thing on some kit cars where the ball joints for a McPherson front suspension is used in the same way as here, with a spring acting on the lower arm.
We have performed a series of destructive tests to see when some popular ball joints are pulled apart. As an example, we tested the popular Austin Maxi balljoint, and the Saab 99/900. Both are loaded in the "wrong" direction used like this. The Maxi ball joint pulled apart at around 2000-4000 kg, the Saab 3000-4300 kg.
As a reference, we pulled some A-arm joints that are loaded in the correct direction. Volvo 140 resisted 8500 kg without breaking (the yoke used to pull fractured), Mazda MX5 Miata had the ball joint threads let go at 6000 kg and a Mercedes W124 took 11 500 kg.
So you can see in these examples there is at least a factor of 2 in how much load they take, usually more.
We have also tested Volvo 240 joints, OEM and cheap aftermarket. OEM took 7200-7350 kg, the cheap aftermarket 800-1500 kg! Cutting these apart the difference in how the ball joint seat is forged was appaling. The OEM joint has the top of the seat forged in at least 5 mm over the ball, with a 3 mm thickness. The cheap aftermarket one had around 1-2 mm covering the top of the ball and 2 mm thickness. Used in a McPherson application this is not fatal but when loaded in the wrong direction...
A big difference exists in how these joints are made. Usually there is a large forged seat on one side of the ball, and the other side is forged over or has a clip or staking that holds a seat area agains the ball. Usually the large forged area is where the load is supposed to go. A joint for a lower arm with a spring resting on it, usually has the big seat above the ball (the ball is inserted from below so the seat under the ball is staked afterwards, since it doesn't carry any real weight in that direction).
So, a lot of text but I think it's something worth investigating.
Gustaf
In reply to therealpinto :
Great information. I will investigate how they are attacked to the LCA. I want to say they were just pressed in.
Interesting the difference in strength from the different loadings. Makes sense in my head though. However if these are similar to the ones you tested, I feel they are probably plenty strong.
In reply to therealpinto :
Wow, that's a LOT of great info! Thanks for sharing. Is there an accessable database of those tests?
In reply to java230 :
I've been lurking in this thread for a while. Love the build. Carry on!
I think I'd be more worried about that upper bag mount deforming and breaking than the balljoints.
This project is so cool.
Here is the bottom of the LBJ in the LCA.
Didn't have much time yesterday, so I decided to figure out the compressor issue.
Gonna guess that is the issue.... Note, this thing is as old as I am and has painted numerous cars in its life. A little maintenance isn't bad at all.
I had a roll of 8 gauge stranded. Used crimp on ends everywhere. Much more better.
Then I used some polyurethane caulk to re-glue the roof ribs.
In reply to iansane :
Yeah I am slightly concerend about it as well. That is the PO's work. It is pretty thick plate, 1/4" IIRC, but the wings dont ahve a ton of angle to add stiffness.
In reply to therealpinto :
Gustaf, thank you for that post!
ShawnG said:In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Also, depending on how the LBJ is held into the LCA, the weight of the vehicle may now be hanging by a snap ring or a few bolts.
That is an excellent point. I just noticed that the LBJ is bolted in, so those wee little bolts are in tension supporting the weight of the front end, not just clamping the joint together. I don't like that too much.with spring on LCA, the LBJ normally presses into the LCA from below, and the UBJ would be the bolt-in.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Agreed, I saw that as well, but looking at the bottom picture, its not so clear what/how those bolts hold it in.
DA worked great on the roof. It's not flat, but it should be smooth! Just one more groove to sand. Only about 1.5hours to do the roof with the DA. but man it makes a huge mess compared to hand sanding!
That is a ridiculous amount of surface to work on. You sir are brave.
You'll need to log in to post.
