Hmmmm.
For the sake or argument, I'm thinking, "What kind of excessive loads are being applied to this particular coupler, over any other application?" I mean, this is the INPUT end of a power steering system, the only twisting effort is what is applied by the driver to rotate the "valve". All the real "loading" is going on at the steering box and linkages. But maybe I missed the original question.
Bill
OK- you have a point there, and maybe I didn't think my example all the way through and a bump does load the linkages and box but not so much the rag joint, BUT - I don't think that you can argue that this means that it is impossible to load the rag joint way beyond normal operational load.
I don't think that one can justify using a cheaper, lower quality part not explicitly designed for an application because it can fail where a stock, correctly engineered part would have held, especially in a steering system.
What if you have a power steering failure and have to manually steer the car? I manually steered the 72 up the driveway as I pulled it about 40 feet and had to gently turn the car. That loaded the rag joint and loaded me trying to turn the dead wheel. I had to do it because my girlfriend was not strong enough to even turn the wheel at all, and she's not that small.
My philosophy and argument is this: I will never be an automotive engineer. I can not outdo what the fine folks at Chrysler, well known for superior engineering, have aready done for me.
Therefore, I will try to go out of my way to stick to things that are engineered explicitly for my car and application, avoiding inferior parts and inferior designs whenever possible, even if I have to pay more money than some other alternatives can offer.
If you get away with 9 out of 10 shade-tree money-saving tricks, that's still one in 10 failures that you're going to have to deal with. My life is too short to be dealing with that stuff now that I have no "legitimate" excuses.
I tried to skate earlier in life when I had no money and thus a "justification" for workarounds. What do you really save if you have to redo things or risk failure/injury in the process? It just costs less to do it right the first time. Seen that one anywhere else in life?
I know that the question above was pecking at my example and not explicitly trying to justify using substitute parts, but I'm missing something on the whole "cheaper and convenient is OK even if it's not exactly right" argument.
-Kenyon
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network