U-Joint Stress Test

Jaydog · Dec 20, 2007

I found a u-joint stress test done by the University of Washington on Spicer, Longfield, Yukon and CTM U-joints. It has some really good info on them. I thought I had originally found it on this here, but I can't find it now, so sorry if it's a repost.

http://www.longfieldsuperaxles.com/images/StressTest.pdf

TreeClimber · Dec 20, 2007

It's not a repost. The original thread got lost. Thanks.

Brian H · Dec 20, 2007

TreeClimber said:
It's not a repost. The original thread got lost. Thanks.

Thanks for putting it back up Jason.

megatoy66 · Dec 20, 2007

Very good information, thanks. :awesomework:

GRNTACO · Dec 20, 2007

WOW! I would have thought the Yukon's would have performed a little better then that.

Jaydog · Dec 20, 2007

GRNTACO said:
WOW! I would have thought the Yukon's would have performed a little better then that.

I was surprised that there would be that big of difference between the four. Pretty crazy.

CrustyJeep · Dec 20, 2007

I saw that test and promply bought Longs

crash2 · Dec 20, 2007

Are you running bobby's joints glen?

I ran them back in my 44 and they worked well.

Not Jobless · Dec 20, 2007

So is the load, as they apply it (straight through the cross section), representative of the load induced while in use? It seems to me that the rotational loading would be different than the sheer load they are applying.

Not questioning the test or results I'm just not a Physics major.

crash2 · Dec 20, 2007

Jobless said:
So is the load, as they apply it (straight through the cross section), representative of the load induced while in use? It seems to me that the rotational loading would be different than the sheer load they are applying.

Not questioning the test or results I'm just not a Physics major.

It just goes to show there is lab tests and real life tests.

I think the lab tests give a decent comparesen(sp)

CHOP SHOP · Dec 20, 2007

Jobless said:
So is the load, as they apply it (straight through the cross section), representative of the load induced while in use? It seems to me that the rotational loading would be different than the sheer load they are applying.

Not questioning the test or results I'm just not a Physics major.

this test appears to be for comparison value only. not real world rotational testing. I dont think it is practical to find someone with equipment to twist all four joints off. as long as all 4 are tested the same it still provides consistant data.

I think Bob is the only companny I have seen test his and others products to destruction (in public) and publish the results.

I have whitnessed many broken parts on his machine, if it was possible to break those joints in his machine he would do it,(bob loves to break things) only I think it would damage the machine. thats the reason for the test you seen on the link. just my opinion and thoughts.

keep sending out good parts, Bob.:awesomework:

Damnyankee · Dec 20, 2007

I think for the type of stress induced in wheeling, the test that was done was about the best you could do. the only other think would be to be able to induce oposing force (press on bottom of 1 and upper on the other) but that would be nearly impossible.. you could use the "axle" machine, but i don't think that will break them

TreeClimber · Dec 20, 2007

Jobless said:
So is the load, as they apply it (straight through the cross section), representative of the load induced while in use? It seems to me that the rotational loading would be different than the sheer load they are applying.

Not questioning the test or results I'm just not a Physics major.

If you look at the broken pieces of the test, you'll see that they broke in a manner similar to real world damage. I'd say it was certainly close enough to a real world example as could be easily tested.

CrustyJeep · Dec 20, 2007

crash said:
Are you running bobby's joints glen?

I ran them back in my 44 and they worked well.

On one side, other side soon. I will never weld a u-joint in again

Digger 5 · Dec 20, 2007

By looking at the test I'd have to offer that it's pretty damn close to 100% valid. The only difference is that in an actual application, the ends are loaded opposite from one another, not the same, as was done in the tests. I have to assume that equal machining is done between bearing surfaces which would mean that the stressed areas have equal weaknesses/strengths.

Great test and good info.