Coilover question re: upper hat

[xolent]

Hi there, just scrolling around and I noticed that the "normal" upperhats (the ones that come with a coilover kit like collar, spring seat etc) and the ones with bearings in them (T3, actually I only know of t3!)

Just wondering, what would be the difference in driveability? I wouldn't like the idea of scraping the "normal" upperhats because they cost me mulah!

The t3 site only states what they are! I've read the post made by Stefan (old toymods) questioning the camberplate/upperhat system combo and it has got me thinking.

So would there be anyone out there to help me? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[ed]

i dont understand the question?? :/

[wilbo666]

i dont understand the question?? :/

I think he is wondering what the difference between the upper spring hat with a roller thrust bearing (such as the T3 upper hat) versus the other available hats (which don't have thrust bearings to my knowledge).

I was under the impression that the thrust bearing equipped hats were better, due to the fact that spherical bearings aren't meant to take larger thrust loads....

Cheers
Wilbo

[Stefan]

Readign your post here after your 2nd PM, I misunderstood your oriignal question. I thought you simply wanted to know exactly why upper hats with thrust bearings were better than upper hats with no bearings at all.

If you are questioning the T3design cambertop + upperhat design where the upper hat has a larger inner hole than the strut insert rod, and the upper hat bearings sit against the base of the cambertop so that the bearing deflects and takes the load off the upper bearing... There are some disbelievers, but I believe that it is a better design than having the upperhat bearing take all the thrust design as per other designs.

[Stefan]

To add to that - if using the koni sleeve kit with T3 camber tops, you choose to use the koni non-bearing upper hats, then you will need to fab a spacer and have the cambertop spherical bearing take all the load...

...when you think about it, the total T3 design is much better IMO.

[Rex_Kelway]

He gotta tell yer, Rex is super dubious aboot the T3 upper hat roller bearing 'system'.

If the strut is directly perpendicular to the bearings carrier, then yes they will work.

But what if the strut is on the slightest angle such as when the strut compresses/extends. Or camber is adjusted beyond the design scope. Then the load is focussed onto one side of the roller setup. Like taking a coffee cup from flat upside down and tilting it over slightly, Its left sitting in one tiny bit of the rim.

Rex could understand if the rollers sat on an inverted T shaped surface that went through and swiveled with the bearing centre, but then the loads would still fall 100% on to the spherical bearing and the rollers would be superfluous.

Nope, with a quality proven spherical bearing, He will stay.

Bear in mind that Rex has not a set of these but from the pics his deduction stands

[Youngy]

Hi,

I have a set of the T3 hatsand I must say I have not used them in my recent front end rebuild - basically due to the example that Rexy has mentioned above.

That and the fact that their overall diameter is a bit on the small size and my 2.5" Eibachs just did not want to sit to flush with them.

[Stefan]

For those interested in the original discussion on the old board, refer to these threads:

T3 tophat discussion

Photos of components

[MWP]

He gotta tell yer, Rex is super dubious aboot the T3 upper hat roller bearing 'system'.
If the strut is directly perpendicular to the bearings carrier, then yes they will work.

Yup, this is what i think too.

I looked hard at this when i was building up my front struts that use the noltec coilover kit and T3 camber plates.
I made spacers that put the load from the upper hat onto the spherical bearing in the T3 camber plates.

You can see the bearing here:

[ed]

ive made my thoughts on this clear here:

http://forums.toymods.org.au/index.p...t=0#msg_757001

that link all sounds a bit frickin washy to me...

either the spherical bearing is deigned to take ALL the load, and provide for multiple dgrees of freedom of motion. the spring hat is in direct and consant contact with the bearing, and the two move together freely.

OR

the spring hat should 'locate' into the bottom of the sperical bearing retainer (which then take the axial spring load), with the shaft of the shock passing freely through the hat, the spring hat NEVER touching the spherical bearing, and the two move independantly. this implies that the bearing provides a range of motion to the shock shaft, and the range of angular motion required by the spring is provided by its own flexible properties.

what seems to be the case, though, is a half half sloppy-joe mix...

at near 90deg, the hat is located onto the spherical bearing (its doesnt appear located onto the bearing retainer at all), the two move together, and the spherical bearing takes all the load, then after a few degrees the spring hat will bottom out on the bearing retainer, and will be forced to remain static expecting the spring to take up the slack ??

now it does all depend on how much motion you require, but if youre going to dial in some camber, and put the system right on the edge, id love to see what happen under a big copressive load...

maybe im just seeing the pics wrong, but to my mind thats just isnt quite right