SamC

Put a socket or a bolt between the bottom of the ball joint thread and the upright, then unwind the ball joint nut onto it with a spanner. That'll pop the ball joint out with ease.

Hi all, anyone tried either the DS1.11s or DSUnos? Ive been recommended them by several people now (all non Caterham) and was wondering what they are like on our cars...

This is the CSR assy guide page for the bracket. The one in the CAD doesn't look like the final design to me? (Ref where the vertical bolts to the upright sit.)

#190 Your photo in #167 shows the collets on the RHS incorrectly under the nut not the bolt head. #191 Agreed with everything James, let's hope there is a satisfactory resolution.

If that's who did it, yes. Bolt head should face the front on the LHS and the rear on the RHS. Assembly order should be the two conical washers onto the bolt, then fit the bolt through the clevis.

It's pretty normal for that kind of failure. It'll be a relatively high strength ally with low strain to failure. It's just failed with very little elongation along the grain boundaries.

Sam, I had the same issue and it was solved by changing the rack and pinion preload. At the bottom of the column where it joins the rack there is a bung that adds the preload and a large hex locknut around it to lock It. Mark a line on the centre bung through the lock nut and onto the housing with a sharpie. The only lines you're interested in are the centre bung relative to the housing. Slacken the locknut, do a 5 degree turn of the bung then tighten the lock nut. This will likely move the bung too. Check If you still have play by turning the column with your hand. If you haven't, take the car from a drive and check that the wheels can self centre ok. It's an iterative process between backlash and self centring. Took me three or four run outs to be happy. If the play turns out to be the ball joints on the rack then I believe only Titan can sort it.

Not sure to be honest James. With my Multimatic dampers it wouldn't have clamped through the damper top hats properly. It looks like it might do on the Bilsteins (?) in Steve's photo?

Send him our regards!

Oh blimey, yes! Sorry James! Just noticed that! I was looking at the spacer orientation. The one in your photo (#173) is correct - the bolt head should sit inside the ally bracket slightly so the one in #167 is incorrect as you say. Like Pete says the bolt head direction is different left to right owing to it being the same bracket for both sides.

James, I think #167 and the photo in #173 are the same configuration and correct. The small spacer under the bolt head sits inside the split spacer when it's installed. It's that that causes the hoop stress. Sam

Is that a new failure? If so, hope everyone was OK? You can see the lug under the bolt side has been failed a while before the rest let go. Again, a feature of many of the failures.

James, the first survey asked for chassis and reg No so they will have age from that, and the latest one asked for mileage at last service (even if it were a self service), so they should have that info?

Caterham have them in stock? https://caterhamparts.co.uk/zzs/6975-tyre-avon-zzs-195-50r15-17020m-compound.html

Agreed.

Incidentally, it is pretty disingenuous of Caterham to suggest it is the same as a spring breaking and not dangerous. A spring breaking drops the car onto its bump stops. The failure mode of this I much worse in most cases.

Link to the above. https://caterhamcars.com/en/news/calling-all-csr-owners

#7 My thoughts exactly about aero on the road. That must have made one hell of a bang!

#16 ABWTE10 is the racing equivalent with the upgraded liner. Main reason not to lubricate is that dust and dirt sticks to the exposed lubricant and generates more wear. I'd argue that it probably doesn't make much difference in this application as they'll be filthy in five minutes on our cars regardless of additional lubrication. You'll extend the life of the bearings for a bit by popping some oil in, but if it were me I'd be replacing it this winter. It's an easy and cheap job.

It's part of the compounding evidence towards the stress corrosion cracking cause. Whilst the lug area is slightly bigger on the nut end due to the extra material, it's not a massive % difference. There have been quite a few cars - mine included - that have survived a period of time with the bolt head end failed and only the nut end secure. That implies that the lug strength alone is more than sufficient (how would a component now bearing twice the load it was designed to, plus a chunk of bending due to the other side failing, not fail immediately?) By hand calc, both the lug sizes and therefore strength appears more than sufficient. The main difference between the two sides is one has a permanent hoop stress imparted on it, the other doesn't. My lug had very small corrosion indications on it which I appear to have weakened the bracket sufficiently for that side to fail well below it's designed load. Bit of background below for those interested. Main point is that the permanent stress than needs to be applied to a material is often extremely small (sometimes <1/4) compared to it's yield stress. Geekily, it is pretty interesting! http://www.totalmateria.com/Article17.htm

David, the difference in thickness is due to the bottoming bush and the nut locating on that side. All failures I've seen have been on the bolt head side.

I've been contacted by the DVSA and have supplied all my information including microscope images of fracture surfaces etc. Frustratingly I binned the broken clevises after I replaced them. A proper analysis will involve destroying the bracket as you'll need to cut the component up to see if there are sub surface fractures, corrosion pits etc. You can only tell so much from the surface. I shouldn't imagine that's a problem though for anyone that has recently removed them. Definitely worth letting them know how you've managed to get the wishbone stud out though as heat could affect some of the properties they will be looking for such as hardness. I removed mine by heating them to 200deg in an oven, anyone using a gas torch will have been a bit hotter and less controlled.

+ Eckles

Just registered mine with the DVSA.

Yeah, 100% true. Don't misread my post above as me thinking it is anything other than a terrible, compromised, design, just that it's unlikely they will roll over and accept it.