Steering Tie Rod Fracture

Post by **Heuer** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:32 pm

Your track rod ends seem to be the same ones (blue circlips) that Dave was having problems with. Try and get hold of a pair of QH QR1178S ends and see how you get on.

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:54 pm

andrewh wrote:this is my set up with the Konis. I am still awaiting a response from SNGB so will report back what they say once they have considered the problem.

I still find it slightly strange that the shock absorbers carry the whole weight of the front suspension rather than some sort of bump stop.

it should be noted in the second photo that the tie rod is necking on the rack and the track rod is not able to be fixed into position. Not good.

Not good indeed, but that suspension looks unnaturally low. Difficult to tell without seeing it in person but that sort of angle looks acute. What is the extended centre-to-centre Koni length? It wouldn't surprise me if your track rod ends are XJ style, but the necking at the rack ends wouldn't be affected and suggests the dampers are too long. They are made to handle full extension but you'd need competition spec with much fatter damper rods or spherical eyes to be enduro style 'bomb-proof' off road or catching lots of air.

Pete

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:57 pm

I have had an initial reply from Koni UK, who said they will look into the proble. The quote the extended length centre to centre at 407 mm which is clearly longer than what we have been told here that the original Girling shock absorber was. Koni said that they sell about 100 pairs a year in the UK for the E Type and have not been made aware of any issues previously, so either it is not a problem in practice or there are a lot of dangerous cars out there. All in all quite a frightening situation. Peter you mention that the suspension on my car looks too extended. I did set it up as per the manual ( yes I did read it!) and put the setting link in place, although I did ask the chap who works for me to make me the link, so I better check he got the measurements correct or that may explain why the suspension is looking so low. I am sure it will be correct though. Could it be that my original torsion bars have lost their tension? Presumably the torsion bars have a limit to their range after which they also work to stop the suspension from over extending?

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:01 am

The issue is nothing to do with whether your setting link is good or bad Andrew - or your ride height or manual reading for that matter :-)

The only criterion of note is the damper extended length on YOUR car, not what anyone says it ought to be. This assumes all other parts such as rack, track rods and steering arms/uprights are correct for the car. It goes without saying that neither end of the track rods should foul or be under high bending load with the suspension fully assembled, no matter which end of full travel is involved. They DO foul at full droop, along with the brake hoses sometimes once the damper is disconnected. That's why I always disconnect the lower ball joint not the top, and hold the upper wishbone and uprights in place whenever the suspension has to be dismantled.

I emphasise that it only looks low to me. Damper length could be OK and the fault lie elsewhere, but there is clearly a dangerous issue here that you need to mix and match parts to fix somehow, by bringing the assembly back in spec wherever it is out of whack.

Pete

Post by **mgcjag** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:12 am

Hi All......I looked into this problem & could never get an answer so now there is quite a bit of interest maybe we can solve it......I have a S2 2+2 fitted with standard boge....& with the suspension on full drop the steering is pulled down(necking)........chased this up with SNG who checked with ther Jag contacts & original spec for shocks were 15.75in+ or- .12in this equates to 400.05mm Boge spec is 403mm + or -3mm so we are already on the limit. Spoke to several guys at CMC who were aware of the necking but had no answers. Also spoke to numerous people at Silverstone 50th & still got nowhere, with the answer always comeing back to its ok when driving..The other point i noticed that can cause the same effect is the steering mounts...after looking througe the parts catalogue on this site i noticed a different part number C26007 for the mounts on a 2+2 as opposed to the C20087 for the OTS & FHC tried in vain to find these to see what the difference is....so now i start to wonder if the C20087are made to the correct spec & possibly raising the rack. Any one have any originals? unfortunatly I chucked mine when refurbishing the front end & only noticed the problem when trying to refit the track rod ends......Steve

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:01 pm

I would not think that the steering mounts are different but I don't have any real knowledge of the 2+2. I suspect that as long as one has the correct track rod ends the car will perform fine in all normal driving situations. Having listened to all the advice and comments on here it would seem that most restored e types are driving around with over long shock absorbers fitted but this should not produce any dangerous component damage unless the cars suspension is constantly hitting the extreme of its travel. I am not quite sure what my MOT tester will say when he jacks the front of the car up to test front wheel bearings and top and bottom king pins but I no doubt will find out in due course. As I mentioned before I will report back once Koni respond to me. In the meanwhile a look at the engineering drawings from Jaguar would be most instructive as they should detail the prescribed length of the front shock absorbers. Jaguar , particularly as they are now ramping up their Classic Parts program should have the information but how one gets access to them is anybody's guess.

Post by **mgcjag** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:51 pm

Hi...The dimensions for the shocks I gave above came from SNG who got them directly from Jaguar.......

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:42 pm

andrewh wrote:Having listened to all the advice and comments on here it would seem that most restored e types are driving around with over long shock absorbers fitted but this should not produce any dangerous component damage unless the cars suspension is constantly hitting the extreme of its travel.

Try telling that to Chris. He had a tie rod snap clean through. Luckily for him he was in his driveway. There are pictures here somewhere.

At least it's 100% certain you will never fail an MOT for kingpin problems.

Pete

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:13 pm

Well, Peter is absolutely correct . Mind you, my dampers were something like 30mm over length and I suspect were for the wrong car altogether. But to alarm you, look at the picture I posted ( page 1 of this thread, third pic of 6.12.2009 ) which shows at the right hand side the witness mark made by the bolt where the rack had been moved up and down. This was in 60 miles of gentle running ! This is a serious hazard and one which , I suspect, is unrecognised by the damper manufacturers ( otherwise, they would be scared sh**less by the possibility of either civil litigation or , possibly, criminal sanctions in the event of a fatality )

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:28 am

Thanks, I had seen the picture right at the beginning of this thread, and it was your initial post that got me worried. I still wonder why your tie rod arm would be in contact with the steering rack ball socket in 60 miles of running though? I also wonder why the other side did not fail, and finally the tie rod looks quite rusty around where it sheared? In fairness, I fully accept that this is a dangerous situation, this is why I am pursuing the thread and talking with Koni, but I am not 100% sure your tie rod failure would have been down to driving 60 miles on the road with this problem, as the tie rod should not have been in contact with the steering rack socket. Of course you do refer to the fact that your Shock Absorbers may well have been completely wrong for the car, which could have allowed and under shocked situation allowing the tie rod to foul.

I will chase Koni again today

MarekH · Post by **MarekH** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:10 am

Of course, you can just cut to the chase and jack the front of the car up so that the wheels are off of the ground and examine the whether the ball joint rod ends rub against the socket housing rims at full extension of the suspension.

(Edit:- You'll need to remove the rubber boot to see)

Just don't let this stop hours and many column inches of speculation.

kind regards
Marek

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:44 am

Andrew : I have given the explanation before, but will do so again. Full extension of the front suspension occurs quite frequently on one side or another because it extends not only when the car pitches up relative to the wheels over e.g. a hillbrow, but also when the car rolls. Thus a combination of a pitch up and a right hand bend may well result in full extension of the RH damper . It only requires about 3 inches of movement from the mid position

On the tie rod condition, these were 44 year old tie rods. I think it is probable that the fatigue crack originated with some rust pitting which is a common source of stress concentrations

Post by **mgcjag** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:47 am

Hi guys..... for anyone who wants to know if they have this problem, as you jack a front corner or front end you can see the steering rack being pulled down & tensioned due to the movement in its mounts so you dont even need to remove the boot....... obviously it can be solved with shortned dampers......but anyone got any ideas re the steering mounts i mentioned a couple of entries above......As per the MOT the testers usually go very easy in my experiance on classics so i would not rely on them to find anything other than an obvious fault....Steve

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:14 pm

I did not know 2+2 mounts were different to any others but if there's a part number difference it could involve a dimensional or rubber compound change I suppose?

But all the talk of extra spacers or stiffening up this or that beyond Jag OEM specs is ripe territory for uninetended consequences whereby stiffer bushes all round, plus longer dampers etc all add up to a failure condition which may take very many cycles to become catastrophic, or may not. 30mm extra length is a huge difference though and would be expected to result in rapid failure of something taking large loads it was never designed to survive.

I think people with 5 mm longer dampers, or maybe even 10mm would possibly be OK, especially if fitted with the Koni-style two-piece damper bushes rather than the less compliant (I think) original Girling eye bushes. But if there are lots of people running round with incorrect XJ track rod ends, which there probably are, PLUS too long dampers AND too little give on their rack mounts etc. you don't have to be Einstein to figure out there will be trouble for a few.

Pete

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:51 pm

I have had a preliminary response from Koni via the UK importer. The bottom line is that they have sold over 10,000 of these worldwide and never had any issues so frankly don't appear to be concerned. Their records suggest the length of the standard fitment shock absorber they used as a pattern was 405mm

Here is their response to me:

"I have had a reply from Koni, and they have different information to you.

The original units they measured when designing these dampers were 405mm, and therefore the Koni at 407mm is almost identical.

They do not know where the length of 385mm comes from,

As I have mentioned before, this has always been a popular unit for Koni with worldwide sales exceeding 10,000 units since
its introduction, they have assured me that they have never heard of this issue before.

If it is a real concern to you for your particular vehicle, my only suggestion would be to contact on of the UK Koni authorised workshops
and ask them to fit a 20mm drop restrictor inside the dampers and therefore limiting the travel to 387mm. I am not sure what this would
cost, but it is the only thing I can think of. Best person to speak to would be Shaun Pickering of SP suspension 07811-123108. has worked
on Koni units for the last 20+ years."

So I followed this up with a call and have asked them to look into this further. We shall see

Andrew

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:53 am

Don't think I ever said 385mm. Not sure who did. 405 sounds rightish. My original are 403 but you never know with bush mountings or squish - you can get a millimetre or two either way. If yours in the photo are 405 centre-to-centre then it's just an optical illusion that they are drooping too far.

Pete

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:10 am

Hi All Gave up on this last year but now want to find an answer.......Assuming as in my case you have shocks of 405m & the correct trackrod ends & still the binding occours then what could be the problem........Would still like to persue the rack mounts as most of us are not using oem........as stated before i looked up the parts list on this site & found differing part Nos C20087 for ots & fhc & c26007 for 2+2 & power steering models can any one confirm if there is a difference in the physical size as this could cause the problem..we all know that after market parts are not alwaws the best fit so are there some bad mounts about......Thanks Steve ........PS the only mounts available that i can find are the c20087 which i have fitted

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:29 pm

There are different steering arms on S2 cars so maybe S2 uprights on an S1 car or vice versa might cause binding? Also, you'd expect the binding to be worst on each side when the steering is fully over to one or other side but on the road you would never get airborne on full lock, unless your name is Sebastien Loeb? I think Chris's failed turning in his driveway? Dunno, haven't checked. Would be interested to know the difference between the two sorts of rack mounts and I bet vendors would too. What rolled out of Browns Lane 50 yrs ago and the cars on the roads today can be very different.

Pete

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:59 pm

Yes, indeed , Peter, the final failure occurred as I was backing round a corner at , in fact, a friend's house. Although in retrospect I had noticed a little twitchiness of the steering as I drove the 30 or so miles there , there really was no definite warning of failure. However, various of the Rolls Royce people I know told me that they had had a good few test failures of track rods, and none had ended in catastrophe ! Rather like a bicycle, the gyroscopic forces tended to keep the wheel in a fairly normal plane , and the car remained steerable , until the speed dropped to perhaps 10 mph when the gyro forces were overpowered and the wheel turned sideways

johnney · Post by **johnney** » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:42 am

PeterCrespin wrote:There are different steering arms on S2 cars so maybe S2 uprights on an S1 car or vice versa might cause binding?
Pete

Series 1 and 2 steering arms are not interchangeable the mounting hole centres are different.

PeterCrespin wrote:Also, you'd expect the binding to be worst on each side when the steering is fully over to one or other side but on the road you would never get airborne on full lock, unless your name is Sebastien Loeb? Pete

Good point and full lock and droop should be the starting point for checking as to whether you have a problem or not. I would start with the shock absorbers, if they are the correct extended length then check the track rod ends and then the steering rack itself. Are there reproduction racks around? if so do the repro rack tie rods have the same tie rod angular free movement as the originals.

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Steering Tie Rod Fracture

#41

#42

#43

#44

#45

#46

#47

#48

#49

#50

#51

#52

#53

#54

#55

#56

#57

#58

#59

#60