GR Yaris How far have you gone with your chassis mods? How far would you like to go?

Bobby basic question. Why might one use a camber arm on the rear over a camber bolt. One is 30 quid and the other is 300?
 
Okay, so this is my option.
The bolt is smaller in Dia because it is off-set meaning the torque is significantly lower the OEM bolt. Because the torque is lower, the clamping force is lower.
To state the obvious, because the clamping force is lower the joint may move under load.
This is reason I would not use them myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doabackflip
The front bolts seem to be widely used rather than adjustable top mounts? Not seen to many complaints about them falling out of place?
 
StringTheoryGarage said:
we've run comfortable 7:50 BTG laps of the Nurburgring *with* traffic to ....virtual best around 7:40 .....the car definitely has 7:3x laps in it no problem with some more committed driving from me .....much quicker again with a pro behind the wheel
Click to expand...
please share a youtube clip or 2 to share with some fast laps when you are driving the GR Yaris? I really need some more inspiration before going back to the ring
 
Sekred said:
Okay, so this is my option.
The bolt is smaller in Dia because it is off-set meaning the torque is significantly lower the OEM bolt. Because the torque is lower, the clamping force is lower.
To state the obvious, because the clamping force is lower the joint may move under load.
This is reason I would not use them myself.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is nonsense.

A waisted bolt, which adjustable camber bolts are an example of, will actually have better clamping reliability than a conventional bolt for a given torque as the bolt stretch will be greater due to the reduced cross section of the waisted part.

Torque is only a way of applying load to the bolt and needs to overcome the friction of the thread and seating face, and that's it. You apply the recommended torque regardless.

As both of these friction factors are the same in this application whether the bolt is conventional or waisted, the absolute load applied will be the same but the additional elastic stretch of the waisted bolt will mean that it is better able to withstand loss of tension due to vibration, heat cycling etc.

The difference on such a short bolt under low load will be marginal, but it is undeniable.

Source: Worked in industrial bolting for many years :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Knight and GRandemakina
Duke said:
Sorry, this is nonsense.

A waisted bolt, which adjustable camber bolts are an example of, will actually have better clamping reliability than a conventional bolt for a given torque as the bolt stretch will be greater due to the reduced cross section of the waisted part.

Torque is only a way of applying load to the bolt and needs to overcome the friction of the thread and seating face, and that's it. You apply the recommended torque regardless.

As both of these friction factors are the same in this application whether the bolt is conventional or waisted, the absolute load applied will be the same but the additional elastic stretch of the waisted bolt will mean that it is better able to withstand loss of tension due to vibration, heat cycling etc.

The difference on such a short bolt under low load will be marginal, but it is undeniable.

Source: Worked in industrial bolting for many years :)
Click to expand...
Disagree completely actually with your explanation. It's illogical what you're saying.
Fully qualified Mech in xxxx plus xxxx post trade training courses including xxxxx. :)
What you're trying to say is that reducing bolt diameter and torque won't reduce clamping force, that's BS.
 
Last edited:
Sekred said:
Disagree completely actually with your explanation. It's illogical what you're saying.
Fully qualified Mech in 1983 plus many post trade training courses including failure analysis. :)
What you're trying to say is that reducing bolt diameter and torque won't reduce clamping force, that's BS.
Click to expand...
OK. This isn’t something I’ve just invented in my head though ;)
 
Ok.
So going a bit further.
Typically, the torque on these types of chamber bolts for the GRY are about 125lbs/ft verse about 200 for the OEM bolt.
Can you see my reasoning here? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRandemakina
Sekred said:
Ok.
So going a bit further.
Typically, the torque on these types of chamber bolts for the GRY are about 125lbs/ft verse about 200 for the OEM bolt.
Can you see my reasoning here? ;)
Click to expand...
that's interesting.. do the (thinner neck) camber bolts from Toyota have a lower torque setting than the regular/standard OEM??
(from a quick search on the webs, the front struts pinch standard bolts seems to be at 200 lbs.ft - ca. 270 N.m as you pointed out)
 
Sekred said:
Ok.
So going a bit further.
Typically, the torque on these types of chamber bolts for the GRY are about 125lbs/ft verse about 200 for the OEM bolt.
Can you see my reasoning here? ;)
Click to expand...
I ask a question then; what actually matters? The torque applied, or the pre-load left in the fastener?
 
maintaining the thread type, lub and torque: the pre-tension force is exactly the same.
so the question here: is the torque setting the same for the camber-bolts (thinner neck) vs standard?
(without yielding, I agree: the thinner neck is less prone to loose pre-tension)
 
GRandemakina said:
that's interesting.. do the (thinner neck) camber bolts from Toyota have a lower torque setting than the regular/standard OEM??
(from a quick search on the webs, the front struts pinch standard bolts seems to be at 200 lbs.ft - ca. 270 N.m as you pointed out)
Click to expand...
Have not seen a difference in the spec but it's a fair question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRandemakina
Well, I'm not forcing you (see what I did there) to believe anything.
We both know a bit about bolts and probably aren't going to agree here which I don't mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back