Are these RTA legal?

[stidnam]

Are aftermarket tie rod ends such as below permitted by the RTA and will pass engineering? I know that these type of joints need to be teflon lined if you want to use them for trailing arms etc but I don't know if the RTA will let you use them for steering components.

[petergoudie]

Three weeks ago I just finished working with the RTA after 30 years. I've written many of the policies and standards including the pink slip rules back in about 1994. For 12 years I was on the committee which wrote the ADRs. I plan to become an engineering signatory.

The item you have here is commonly known as a Rose Joint.

I doubt if there is anyone left in the RTA who could give you an informed answer but it would be something along the lines of:

(1) No
(2) What's sealing the the rose joint wearing surface to keep the dirt & water out. (However, there is no standard for this. The rules only require it to be in working condition. If the joint wore out every 10 minutes and you had to change it every 10 minutes the RTA could not do anything provided it was OK during that 10 minutes although they would want to argue with you on this point but you should win but you might have to go to Court.)
(3) What would the vehicle manufacturer say about the joint - how about, No. The RTA would use this in its defence.
(4) How do you know it is suitable? I would not go to Court using a statement from an unqualified person behind the counter who says they've sold thousands and no one has ever returned one.
(5) Ask the manufacturer of the rose joint to provide evidence of suitability including dynamic fatigue testing to a known Standard and a comparison with the original component. (They will most likely not be able to supply this). A simple breaking or tension test would not be good enough.
(6) Note that the rose joint does not have a full taper but a short fat tapered ring on the bottom. There is a strength issue here and it might deform the face of the original tapered hole.

This is the sort of thing that would create a lot of discussion in a Coronial Inquiry which is one of the areas I'm going to work in.

The issue is that everyone is going to say they are great and never fail but ask them to give you some hard copy proof. If you're driving at 100k/hr and one breaks, think about what your going to do have to do to correct the car in a microsecond with one wheel already on full lock.

Remember car maufacturers do a great amount of on-road testing and test rig dynamic testing yet they still have recalls. What has the maker of your rose joint done?

[stidnam]

Excellent response. I was sort of thinking that but wasn't sure. I only am after the adjustability that these would give to suit a rack and pinion conversion. I've done a bit of a search and found that RA40 stuff is basically what will suit my purposes.

what would be the RTA's position on shortening the adjustment tubes if I had to do that?



Or if I needed these to be longer could I make new adjustment tubes from scratch from steel bar and drill and tap the ends on a lathe such as below. Surely these would be a hell of a lot stronger than the factory ones.

[takai]

Three weeks ago I just finished working with the RTA after 30 years. I've written many of the policies and standards including the pink slip rules back in about 1994. For 12 years I was on the committee which wrote the ADRs. I plan to become an engineering signatory.

The item you have here is commonly known as a Rose Joint.

I doubt if there is anyone left in the RTA who could give you an informed answer but it would be something along the lines of:

(1) No
(2) What's sealing the the rose joint wearing surface to keep the dirt & water out. (However, there is no standard for this. The rules only require it to be in working condition. If the joint wore out every 10 minutes and you had to change it every 10 minutes the RTA could not do anything provided it was OK during that 10 minutes although they would want to argue with you on this point but you should win but you might have to go to Court.)
(3) What would the vehicle manufacturer say about the joint - how about, No. The RTA would use this in its defence.
(4) How do you know it is suitable? I would not go to Court using a statement from an unqualified person behind the counter who says they've sold thousands and no one has ever returned one.
(5) Ask the manufacturer of the rose joint to provide evidence of suitability including dynamic fatigue testing to a known Standard and a comparison with the original component. (They will most likely not be able to supply this). A simple breaking or tension test would not be good enough.
(6) Note that the rose joint does not have a full taper but a short fat tapered ring on the bottom. There is a strength issue here and it might deform the face of the original tapered hole.

This is the sort of thing that would create a lot of discussion in a Coronial Inquiry which is one of the areas I'm going to work in.

The issue is that everyone is going to say they are great and never fail but ask them to give you some hard copy proof. If you're driving at 100k/hr and one breaks, think about what your going to do have to do to correct the car in a microsecond with one wheel already on full lock.

Remember car maufacturers do a great amount of on-road testing and test rig dynamic testing yet they still have recalls. What has the maker of your rose joint done?

FWIW, and im not going to elaborate on this due to being at work and not having the time. But i would be just as cautious with certain brands of aftermarket (OE replacement) balljoints and what happens when they fail. Ive had one fail in a pretty serious way leaving the entire strut disconnected from the LCA.
I cant see a rose joint (if its used properly, and tested properly) being any more dangerous than a balljoint, especially under failure conditions. It doesnt increase the consequences if it fails, they both fail in the same method.

[oldcorollas]

not all aftermarket (OE) parts are worth spitting on either

[LeeRoy]

I only am after the adjustability that these would give to suit a rack and pinion conversion.

Could you please elaborate.

[stidnam]

K.

What I mean by this is that I was going to use AE71 tie rod ends. You might have seen in the TA22 R&P thread I measured them all up and worked out offsets etc. The problem with these is that the actual tie rod end does not screw out of the adjusting tube like the RA40 ones. I haven't mocked up the rack on the crossy yet as I am still waiting on mods to be finalized to it.

My concern is that the tie rod tubes on the AE71 might be too long to use for the shortened rack which is why I want to have the adjuster tube as a separate piece so that if they are too long I can cut them down or if not long enough then I could make new ones out of steel bar.

Basically I don't know if this will actually be a problem yet but am redesigning the setup so that this will not be an issue if it does arise.

["Z" UTE]

stidnam, I see where you are coming from, the steering link adjusting turnbuckle is a very average piece of engineering kit from word one.

I would think that in the inventory of Toyota parts there should be a couple from various models that are shorter that the one you have pictured. Another trip to pickes with a tape measure may be required.

cheers Chuck.

[parrot]

Fantastic response PG.

My two cents, I have had an aftermarket tie rod end fail upon hitting standing water on a freeway at 100kms/hr.

Result, girlfriend received fractured cheekbone and had jaw wired for 6 weeks, oh and the car was wrecked.

[JustenGT8]

Three weeks ago I just finished working with the RTA after 30 years. I've written many of the policies and standards including the pink slip rules back in about 1994. For 12 years I was on the committee which wrote the ADRs. I plan to become an engineering signatory.

You my friend are going to be an invaluable resource to the forum, welcome aboard

Of course you will have to work hard to make up for past sins

[30psi 4agte]

I totally agree here with justen....... you will definatley be a invaluable resource !

welcome mate!

[The Real Roadrunner]

If you're driving at 100k/hr and one breaks, think about what your going to do have to do to correct the car in a microsecond with one wheel already on full lock.

due to having positve castor built into 90% of cars these days this situation should never occur as the contact patch of the tire is going to be on the trailing side of the strut provided you are going in the forward direction (never seen a car do 100kph in reverse).

in having said that if it was a lower control arm balljoint i could definately see your point.

but 1 could argue that a $9 chinese balljoint is never going to have the same strength as a $45 rod end?

suppose it comes down to what your application is and how much you value your life?

welcome to the forums, im sure you will be both loved and hated by many

cheers
linden

[petergoudie]

Having gone to Court on several occasions as Expert Witness with some of those appearances for fatal accidents, let me say that it is so easy for the prosecution to pin you down. Once you start modifying vehicles without having some proof that whatever you are using meets some type of standard or the manufacturer provides you with a specification that you adhered to, you are dead meat. Lawyers ask very simple questions that the magistrate or judge can understand? These might be 'How did you know it was OK' or "If you did not have a standard to follow, why did you do it"?

Let me tell you what the supplier of the rose joint is likely say in Court if it failed. Answers would be (1) Mr Stidnam never told me he was going to use it on a vehicle (what a surprise answer!) (2) We only sell these for off-road use (another unsurprising answer) (3) Mr Stidnam must have put it on incorrectly (4) We have no control over their use.

I'm not saying a rose joint might not be OK but I am trying to explain what you might be opening yourself up to.

In regard to shortening the tube, no one would ever know and it should not be worse but I would have the slot milled so that it looked professional and as original. NOTE: if you do shorten the tube, make sure you cut the end with the right hand thread as it's not so easy to find left handed taps.

Similarly, the turned up tube should be OK provided the material is OK and not an offcut you picked up off the road. However, shortening the original tube would be easier.

For those of you who said the cheap ball joints fell apart, it's atrocious. I hope you complained to Fair Trading or someone because we could all be a victim. We could just simply be walking on the footpath and be hit by a car with no steering. The ball joint stories are typical examples of people importing cheap parts without having any understanding of how they should be made. Some of these manufacturers must have the belief that if it looks the same as the real thing it must be the real thing. However, it's a case of buyer beware.

[af300e]

Surely if he has an engineer's cert for the said part then the engineer takes the rap if it is unsuitable?

[Mos]

However, it's a case of buyer beware.

In terms of liability - when purchasing "OE replacements" - surely the onus of responsibility would rest with the supplier and not the buyer?