Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 10:11 AM |
|
|
Wishbones safety issue
I saw a car yesterday that had a front lower wishbone fail in normal use. The items were provided by MK 3-4 years ago.
I don't know if the design has been revised since then. But, I have also seen discussion on the racers area regarding the same thing. ie failure
of the MK style wishbones under non-impact conditions.
I know MK would and will address this situation.
But, I urge EVERY owner of a car with these wishbones to check the front lowers before every use, and every time you get out of the car. Check under
the tubes at the joint with the plate, for signs of movement and bending. eg. Cracked paint.
The driver of the car I saw was extremely fortunate not to have been hurt, or worse, in what ended up as a monumental shunt into a hedge.
I'm not trying to cause trouble here, or slag MK. But, someone will end up in a mortuary if these aren't seen to.
Regards,
Syd.
[Edited on 17/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
Edited the subject and moved to 'Locost Related' - ChrisW
[Edited on 18/10/04 by ChrisW]
|
|
|
|
|
phil_far
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
My wishbones are from MK and are 3 years old. They are the 'lightweight' round design. Where these the same type?
Regards
Philip
|
|
|
dozracing
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
Syd,
Be careful what you say. How can you be sure that if they had a monumental shunt into a hedge that it wasn't that that caused the wishbone to
break and not the other way round?
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
Give me some credit for having at least half a brain ,Darren.
The right hand w'bone didn't go anywhere near the hedge, and is bent like a banana.
Also, read the tech stuff on the Locost racing. There has been some concern over non-impact failures of these items for some time.
Cheers,
Syd.
I hope yours aren't similar, or are they?
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
I read somewhere
They did up the spec to 3mm wall seamless from their original material not long after starting Indy production. All credit to Syds half a brain but
the car must be at least 4 years old. Is it still with its original owner Syd and has it had any prehious history. I had a Maxi balljoint fail in my
home made wishbone and the car still steered with only 3 wheels on the road.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 01:10 PM |
|
|
[Quote
Also, read the tech stuff on the Locost racing. There has been some concern over non-impact failures of these items for some time.
What part of the above quote are you lot not understanding?? This has been a known problem for some time. AND STILL IS!! According to the racers,
anyway.
It would be prudent for anyone with this style of wishbone, whether MK or other, to check the area at the stress concentration where the plate and the
wishbone meet, on a regular basis.
Better that this is brought into the open here, than in the papers as quotes from a coroners report.
Cheers,
Syd.
The builder concerned is the first, and only, user of the car and wishbones.
[Edited on 17/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
rizla
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
do you have a link to the locost racing tech stuff your on about syd
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
Can't he post about it?
and has he consulted MK? It would be better to hear from the horses mouth so to speak Syd not from a friend of a friend of a bloke who knows him. Who,
where and when . Has it been used for shopping and church visits only or has it been kerbed a few times previous to failure? We need to know more.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
wrote a Mk chassis off last year beacause the wishbones where too strong, had they given way they would'nt have pulled and twisted the chassis
like they did, as disscused early this year we have actually built in a weak point this time, weak point as in will break before the chassis is
twisted.
1st iv'e heard of this problem.
|
|
|
rizla
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 04:03 PM |
|
|
does anyone have the link to the racing bit syd was on about
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
I heard this prob with bottom wishbones some time back,maybe 2/3 years ago.
1st i've heard of it being an MK thing though,more a book error as some of the failiures have been home builds.
Maybe a search for bottom wishbone fail would throw something up
[Edited on 17/10/04 by bob]
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
I read about this on one racers site in some newsletter... Personally I'm not convinced although I do like to check the wishbones and brackets
before and after driving. I think failure in a racing scenario is heightened by kerb impacts and other forces.
I've given my car some fair abuse since March on the track and off and on close visual inspection the wishbones are holding up well. I know this
isn't a particularly sound from an engineering viewpoint but short of destructive or x-ray testing how can you tell?
Cheers
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 06:03 PM |
|
|
Peteff,
No, he can't post re the wishbones, as future events may show. And if you read what I wrote....I was stood, and kneeled beside the thing, and
saw it with my own eyes not 2' away. Not words 'from a friend of a friend'. My words, my eyes.
Below is an extract of the Locost Technical Committee, as taken from the desandal site, of the minutes from a meeting at Pembrey of June this year.
Notice that Luego are mentioned as well.
This is not a problem from 3-4 years ago, but appears to be current.
Locost Technical Committee
Technical Concerns. Concerns were raised about: • MK style lower wishbones which fracture in use • Lugeo style lower wishbones which bend in use •
Cars which don’t have Side Impact Bars • Side impact bars which mount onto the chassis in line with the driver’s pelvis.
I'm not trying to slander, malign, or otherwise bring MK engineering,(or Luego) into disrepute.
This matter MUST be brought out into the public arena, so that anyone with similar wishbones can ensure that they are operating SAFELY. If you
don't hurt yourself, you may end up seriously hurting some bystander.
Put your heads in the sand if you must, but first, please, check that your wishbones are not bending. Please.
We do not need to have this brought out by the tabloids, misquoting a coroners report, at some time in the future.
Regards,
Syd.
And now that I've made it public, responsibility for what ensues passes to those primarily concerned.
[Edited on 17/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
john_p_b
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 06:49 PM |
|
|
surely it's all a bit loose in the fact it says 'mk style' and 'luego style' wishbones......is there 100% proof they are
actually manufactured by the mentioned companies?
without getting ott, and i fully repsect that you have brought this up as a safety issue and i'm sure many ppl with their cars on the road will
now be taking greater notice of these parts but bringing the quality of the companies into question without hard proof is maybe a little harsh?
just my 2p worth anyway
|
|
|
dozracing
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 08:15 PM |
|
|
Syd,
You are the biggest mouth on this site.
If you had half a brain cell you would realise that the wishbones sold by MK that the racers use are nothing like the wishbones on an Indy.
I've seen similar failures on Ford Escorts, and they will have spent a lot more on development than any Kit car company can, so back off
them.
Also you have no idea what other impacts and stresses that bone went through before it failed. Had it had wacks with kerbs or something before hand.
You don't know its history. You can't build something totally idiot proof and with the sort of industry we have with kit cars you have to
be more understanding.
Its not only MK that have the problems either, but Luego, Stuart Taylor and no doubt Westfield, who have a terrific reputation and who all of us have
copied to make the Locost and its various derivatives.
Get the problem in some sort of proportion MK make an awful lot of kits, 8 per month according to my calculations, and we read very few problems with
the parts on here.
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
tiffshaw
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 09:12 PM |
|
|
Usual rubbish
Gentlemen
It seems clear from this thread the the original post was not and has not been used to malign or question the quality of the companies in question.
I find it quite funny that every time somebody even coughs in the direction of MK the usual collection of friends associated and other people with
their heads too far up a certain passage jump on the band wagon and start getting quite aggressive about the virtues of MK.
This is supposed to be an open forum and a harmless posting relating to the safety of drivers in kit cars seems perfectly reasonable to me. It seems
however some people wish to turn this into the usual MK's friends against the world arguement.
As others have said major manufacturers have had these sort of design problems, anyone who has even the slightest clue about engineering should
understand that mistakes are made and corrected. This is how items evolve and improve. Indeed Mr Ison remarks the new items for the GT1 were too
strong. Mistakes or possible faults should not be covered up and indeed need to be brought to light to allow the people with those component to
perform adequate checks.
It is obviously far from certain that this problem is a design flaw rather than a one off component failure but in an industry such as kit cars where
safety is fairly critical that even the hint of potentially life threatening issues be raised without the usual "you're full of
s***" attitude normally encountered.
Rant over!!! Feel much better now thanks.
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
Nice first post... don't be too shy!
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tiffshaw
I find it quite funny that every time somebody even coughs in the direction of MK the usual collection of friends associated and other people with
their heads too far up a certain passage jump on the band wagon and start getting quite aggressive about the virtues of MK.
Some of these cars are quite hard used, can you say FOR CERTAIN that the wishbones that failed haven't been impact damaged in the past?
No, i didn't think so.
You know what?
I find it quite funny that every so often someone comes on here with unsubstantiated malicious gossip about MK, perhaps it's coming from their
rivals?
It certainly seems to be orchestrated in some way.
Maybe that's why people get aggresive in their defence of the folks at MK - they don't come on here shouting the odds, they just get on
with the job.
Maybe it's because they're nice people that people defend them so stoutly.
And well said Darren
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
swood
|
 posted on 17/10/04 at 09:49 PM |
|
|
mk wishbones
have to agree with tiffshaw, safety is of the upmost importance, from what I have seem of my MK chassis craftmanship / welding is of a very good
standard, however flaws in raw material / de lamination of steel plate/ the odd 'cold' weld does happen and without expensive x ray flaw
detection no one can be 100% sure about the soundness of any welded joint so as paul said best have a look - better safe than sorry.
|
|
|
swood
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
mk wishbones
correction sorry guys syd not paul - to many red wines - time for bed - goodnight.
|
|
|
dozracing
|
| posted on 17/10/04 at 10:25 PM |
|
|
You can't accuse me of being a friend of MK as i'm a rival manufacturer, and yet i'm sticking up for them as a matter of principle,
you don't know the history of the car, and you have made an error in your comment Syd. That and the fact you make these annoying inflamatory
comments as a matter of course, leads me to defend MK most strongly on this point.
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 18/10/04 at 05:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Give me some credit for having at least half a brain...
Why? You haven't given us any reason to. This is another of your wild, damaging, unsubstantiated posts. Even your quote from the Locost
Technical Committee is wholly ambiguous!
And no, tiffshaw, I am not a MK customer or supporter (not that I have anything against them either).
I think you'd find, tiffshaw, if you'd been here for a while, is that most people who appear to be defending MK in this thread are
actually just reacting to Syd's malicious post.
Of course safety is a concern to all, but apart from the Ford Escort troubles that dozracing mentioned, dozens of manufacturers have had failures and
reliability woes.
Nobody's turning a blind eye to the concern either, but it appears there is no direct evidence that genuine MK or Luego parts have failed.
There are so many Locosts around and many of them have wishbones and all sorts of bits copied from the manufacturers' designs that even if I saw
a photo of a bent "MK" or "Luego" wishbone, I would still treat it with scepticism.
quote:
Originally posted by dozracing
You can't build something totally idiot proof and with the sort of industry we have...
Should that not read Syd proof? 
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 18/10/04 at 08:13 AM |
|
|
When someone is seriously hurt, or worse, by one of these failures 'in normal use', then this thread, and my initial comments will become
very relevant.
I pointed out that I'm not anti anyone, but this is a vital safety issue, and needs to be publicised.
All i'm asking, again, is that people check these items regularly. And particularly if you drive regularly on rough B type roads.
Regards,
Syd.
I'm not a Locost style car manufacturer, nor do I wish to be. So ChrisG's comment is irrelevant. The owner of the vehicle concerned is
well enough qualified to know failure mode and its analysis, so as to know what happened. Just check your cars, and be safe.
[Edited on 18/10/04 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 18/10/04 at 08:44 AM |
|
|
Maybe this whole thread would be less inflammatory to some, if it were in 'Locost Related'.
Could you do that, Chris?
Regards,
Syd.
|
|
|
tiffshaw
|
| posted on 18/10/04 at 08:58 AM |
|
|
missed meaning
If people read the original post none of this was meant to be a slander or dig at any manufacturer. It was mearly a comment that wishbone suspension
should be checked regularly.
It seems many people posting here have missed the intend and decided syd is trying to make it sound like MK's have design or component flaws.
This is not the case he has only bought to light a one off incident that has obviously concerned him and from the sounds of it several others.
I have never doubted the quality of MK's chassis and wishbones, if i had i wouldn't be building one. But these are the sorts of
components we should all be checking occassionally as a fatalities due to suspension failures are things none of us in the Kit industry need.
|
|
|
