A frame ball joint

[russ1]

Looking into different ball joints and have looking at the X-eng joint:-

http://www.x-eng.co.uk/X-Ball.asp

And the QT rose joint one

http://www.qtservices.co.uk/product.asp?id=2984

What one would you think would be best for travel,

My worrys about the qt one it would the rose joint last in mud etc. is this a factor with rose joints?

Thanks.

[nickm]

not sure about the mud issue but the price would put me off a bit (looks well made tho)

are rose joints as good as johnny joints ?

[simonr]

Without a doubt, the QT one wins on travel - but all rose joints suffer from ingress of dirt. I guess you could improvise some sort of gaiter for it though.

The joint is very well made and seeing first hand the cost of machining stuff in small quantities, It looks not bad value.

Si

[missingsid]

Without a doubt, the QT one wins on travel - but all rose joints suffer from ingress of dirt. I guess you could improvise some sort of gaiter for it though.

The joint is very well made and seeing first hand the cost of machining stuff in small quantities, It looks not bad value.

Si

Hi Si

I'm impressed with your candour you let the facts talk for themselves.

Moderate cost reasonable gain long lasting or higher price lots of travel short life.

Out of interest (without wishing to steal the thread) a LR with X Spring, X Joint and X Flex fitted, which stops first the X Joint travel, the X Flex travel or the X Spring travel?

Cheers,

[TomG]

Both look good solutions but i wonder if the QT one could be specced with a Johnny joint?

I've not had much luck with rose joints - had one on the adjustable panhard rod and it ate rose joints about one a year, once they get a slight amount of wear the grit gets in after a few months and the constant rattling of the metal to metal drove me nuts!

Now got a Rakeway one - much better

[roguevogue]

Both look good solutions but i wonder if the QT one could be specced with a Johnny joint?

Johnny joints have no more travel than the standard A frame ball joint.

This is why if you fit them, for example, on your radius arms the lock nut will come loose. (Assuming your shock absorbers will let the axle move close to the ball joint limit)

[russ1]

So what would get more travel the qt one or 4 linking using johnny joints. think out of easyness i might just go with the qt one and try come up with some sort ov protective cover.

[simonr]

So what would get more travel the qt one or 4 linking using johnny joints. think out of easyness i might just go with the qt one and try come up with some sort ov protective cover.

4-Link built with Johnny joints would probably win - because of course you have a joint at each end which effectively doubles the offset possible.

A simpler option (which Nick Watts gets credit for) is to replace the A frame with a single link to the middle of the A frame cross-member with either johmmy joints or even just a pair of regular A frame joints, one at each end. Then use a Panhard rod to stop the axle moving side to side.

I expect the future holds one or two simpler solutions - but in the mean time one of the above is the best bet.

Si

[russ1]

Nice one si neva really thort of a three link rear set up.

So many ideas just dont know what to go with!

[Chris Abel]

Johnny joints have no more travel than the standard A frame ball joint.

This is why if you fit them, for example, on your radius arms the lock nut will come loose. (Assuming your shock absorbers will let the axle move close to the ball joint limit)

I’ve got a Johnny Joint on my A frame mounted horizontally instead of vertically and I’ve not found any problems with it binding or c-clips popping out etc.

The only problems I’ve had with the joints were on the front 3 link when I did not have enough separation for the portals

.