Lower balljoint play - Anyone else?

Anyone replace or service their lower balljoints? Is it normal to have any play in the "COM-12" bearing in the control arm? The passenger side one will move up/down a tiny amount and was able to be installed by hand just popping it in. The driver's side required me heating the control arm and freezing the bearing and it has zero play. I got all new bearings and balljoint studs from Coleman. I guess my control arm bearing race (the socket the bearing pops into) could be worn out? The thing is it doesn't really have lateral play. It's mostly vertical... if I could get some kind of shim to go between the bearing an the c-clip it'd take care of it.

From the top side
http://youtu.be/bD0dZj6ya_Q

From the bottom
http://youtu.be/joNifxdDzw0

Is there no way to embed videos on this forum? Either way... click the links for the video clips.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian,

I am unfamiliar with the type of joint you are using. I have used similar ones for the upper control arms, not the lowers. My Panoz (GTRA) has the standard screw-in style most circle-track guys use. However, IMHO, any play is too much play. I would be concerned that the pieces would be hammering each other once you get it out on the track. Is the hole in the a-arm tapered? If so; they make a tapered reem that might solve the problem.
I have encountered suspension problems in the past and found the tech guys at Coleman are very helpful.

PS, the chassis looks utterly fantastic. I may try to mirror what you're doing after a couple of seasons on the track.

Brian,

I am unfamiliar with the type of joint you are using. I have used similar ones for the upper control arms, not the lowers. My Panoz (GTRA) has the standard screw-in style most circle-track guys use. However, IMHO, any play is too much play. I would be concerned that the pieces would be hammering each other once you get it out on the track. Is the hole in the a-arm tapered? If so; they make a tapered reem that might solve the problem.
I have encountered suspension problems in the past and found the tech guys at Coleman are very helpful.

PS, the chassis looks utterly fantastic. I may try to mirror what you're doing after a couple of seasons on the track.

Thanks... I'm in touch with the guys at Coleman currently. They say the vertical play is a non-issue as the spring pressure will keep the bearing in the top of the housing in the control arm.

Lateral play is bad, but I have almost none of that... the vertical is what concerned me and the varying fittment of the bearings in one side's control arm vs. the other.

What lower balljoint do you have? I got my updated part numbers from Panoz and ordered from coleman. The upper comes as an assembly, but the lowers come in 3 pieces... the bearing that inserts into the control arm socket, the balljoint shaft, and the spacers to adjust bumper steer etc.

The balljoint housing in the control arm is not tapered, it's square... as is the bearing sleeve too. I cleaned them up with 1000 grit prior to taping off for paint. When the one side wouldn't fit very well I took a wire brush to it with my drill to clearance it some.

Thanks for the compliments... I'm go a bit overboard, but I'd rather do it once and do it right. The car has been sloppy (appearance wise) for a long time.

Just got a response from Coleman:

1. Vertical play doesn't matter as the spring pressure will keep the bearing fully seated in the control arm housing.

2. They install the bearings by heating up the control arm housing with a torch and dropping the bearings in. There should be a .001" interference fit.

3. Any lateral play is bad, but you can attempt salvaging the control arm by welding a tiny bead to the inner diameter of the control arm housing to tighten up the bore.

Basically we're ok here. I think the driver's side control arm housing is slightly out of round which is why it was difficult to get in place even using heat. That said the only thing that matters is that they're securely in place.

The tension of the spring taking up your slack makes sense, I guess, but I would question it like you did.

I am really starting to question WHAT I have. I think there are a lot of non-Panoz pieces on the car. My car has what I would call a standard, ordinary circle track control arm that uses the press-in GM Ball-joint, like this one: http://pitstopusa.com/i-5069107-afco-lower-control-arm-round-tube-w-o-hardware-5-8-18-long-press-in-ball-joint.html
Maybe because my car is originally a GTRA, not a GTS? I don't know. What I do know is the previous owner lacked common sense and attention to detail. The wiring was an utter disaster, the fuel plumbing was bizarre, etc. The carb itself was so "off" that I started from scratch and totally rebuilt it. -35 center squirters? Jet extensions in the rear?? Well, its right now and purrs like a kitten. I do know that my upper control arms were from two different maufacturers (Since remedied)

And Brian, I go by something my dad always told me. "Anything worth doing is worth doing right." You are doing it RIGHT! Call it a compliment or a fact, but your restoration/rebuilding of your car is a top-notch, pro job. I'm taking notes.

Our car started life as a GTRA as well... and yes it lacked attention to detail everywhere... the wiring was horrid. It got a "fancy" Penske paint job because it was pulled to be used with the fancy Penske cars (the ones with the LS1/T-56s etc) for a promotional event. They didn't have enough cars so they pulled 2 regular school cars and gave them the red/white paint jobs (Kel from New Zealand purchased the other one).

It appears Coleman makes a LCA like the one you have as well...

http://www.colemanracing.com/Lower-Control-Arm-Strut-Style-P4394.aspx

http://www.colemanracing.com/Assets/ProductImages/834-500.jpg

Or maybe this one?

http://www.colemanracing.com/Lower-Control-Arm-Lightweight-with-Integral-Ball-Joint-P6200.aspx

http://www.colemanracing.com/Assets/ProductImages/27649-color.jpg

Vs. this one that our car uses.

http://www.colemanracing.com/Lower-Control-Arm-Strut-Style-Mono-Ball-Style-P4397.aspx

http://www.colemanracing.com/Assets/ProductImages/834-110.jpg

Unless I'm not seeing things clearly in the picture, it appears as if you are able to adjust the axis point of those lowers, effectively raising or lowering the spindle in relation to the control arm? It seems to me as if this particular part of the geometry should be a constant, designed into the original fabrication. I have used and believe in using the mono-ball style ball joints on the uppers so that the swing arm length can be adjusted (swing arm length= the intersection of imaginary lines where the plane of the upper and lowers cross; normally 130-150") I used to change this setting based on corner banking and/or the grip of the track. I am trying to conceptualize why you would want to adjust the lower? The more I learn the more I realize what I do not know. For my own edification, if these lowers are adjustable as I think, can somebody delve into why/when you want to?

Unless I'm not seeing things clearly in the picture, it appears as if you are able to adjust the axis point of those lowers, effectively raising or lowering the spindle in relation to the control arm? It seems to me as if this particular part of the geometry should be a constant, designed into the original fabrication. I have used and believe in using the mono-ball style ball joints on the uppers so that the swing arm length can be adjusted (swing arm length= the intersection of imaginary lines where the plane of the upper and lowers cross; normally 130-150") I used to change this setting based on corner banking and/or the grip of the track. I am trying to conceptualize why you would want to adjust the lower? The more I learn the more I realize what I do not know. For my own edification, if these lowers are adjustable as I think, can somebody delve into why/when you want to?
Correct... the lowers are adjustable just like the uppers depending on the orientation of the spacers that come with them.

The Panoz GTS assembly manual I have refers to the same uppers and lowers that I have and tells you where to put the spacers to get the spindle orientation correct. You can adjust them, but I'm not educated enough to do it at this time so I put them back together exactly how the GTS manual says to. Interestingly the lower balljoints that came off the car were set up backwards from what the Panoz manual states; I confirmed that with the folks at Panoz.

I need to dig out my copy of "How To Make Your Car Handle" and re-read the section about roll-centers and see what I can learn.

http://www.soloperformance.com/assets/images/ProductImages/books/bk-handle.jpg

On another note I "fixed" the side with the slightly loose balljoint bearing. It had a tiny amount of lateral play. I smeared a thin film of red loc-tite around the bearing (not in any place that would affect the articulation), installed it, and supported it until the loc-tite set. It was just enough to take up the tiny amount of play.

On another note I "fixed" the side with the slightly loose balljoint bearing. It had a tiny amount of lateral play. I smeared a thin film of red loc-tite around the bearing (not in any place that would affect the articulation), installed it, and supported it until the loc-tite set. It was just enough to take up the tiny amount of play.

Smart. really.

I have that book as well, Old, but good. I also have "Racecar Engineering" by Paul Van Valkenburg (Sp?) Gets deep into geometry. Swing arm length, scrub radius, anti-dive, etc. From this book, I deduced that the spindle height (what your ball joints adjust??) was a "set-it and forget it" adjustment. Clearly, if they make them adjustable, there is a benefit to it. I just don't know why and am not a good enough driver to feel the difference? I guess I'll read more about when I get home. My initial thoughts are that is a base-line set-up for the shop, but you still make "track day" adjustments with the uppers. I dunno.

I don't think they're meant to be adjusted other than the initial design/setup of the car. We're dealing with a custom chassis with custom components so the adjustable balljoints allow the designers the ability to fine-tune the geometry after building the rest with basic/robust stuff.

For instance, my C5 Corvette had engineers specifically design the control arms and spindles for the car... geometry was accounted for in those components. In the Panoz we're using off-the-shelf Coleman components that can be adjusted to suit any chassis.

I don't think they're meant to be adjusted other than the initial design/setup of the car. We're dealing with a custom chassis with custom components so the adjustable balljoints allow the designers the ability to fine-tune the geometry after building the rest with basic/robust stuff.

For instance, my C5 Corvette had engineers specifically design the control arms and spindles for the car... geometry was accounted for in those components. In the Panoz we're using off-the-shelf Coleman components that can be adjusted to suit any chassis.

My thoughts as well. And truthfully, The GM ball joints are stronger. albeit a bit heavier. I'll probably just keep them while wondering why/when they were changed. Maybe the mechanics at the school did it? May never know.
I inputed all my suspension points into a set-up program and it came back with enviable results. Panoz did a nice job on the design. The bump steer is minimal, and the camber gain is nearly perfect. It may need a bit more anti-dive in the front, but that can be done with shims. Then again, anti-dive may be fine because I didnt have the 4-corner weights to input. Anyway...good thread. Thanks.