19 replies to this topic

[NunoTT]

Hello everyone!

 

Like the title say, are adjustable Lower Arms and Tie Rods worth it?

 

I'm starting to rebuild my Mini, so questions about what parts to use are starting to pop up... The Mini will be a daily driver and will do track days.

Also, is it worth going the extra mile and buy them with Rose Joints?

 

Thanks! 

 

[Northernpower]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

[AlexMozza]

I would not have rose joints on a road car.
But if you do, get the most expensive you can as the cheap ones use cheap rose joints.

[nicklouse]

they can  be worth it if you are not running at standard ride height, as you will need to adjust the suspension to get the required angles.

[imack]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

[NunoTT]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

 

Rose joints will be the least of my problems here in Portugal when the car is done

 

I would not have rose joints on a road car.
But if you do, get the most expensive you can as the cheap ones use cheap rose joints.

 

Why not? What's the problem of having them in a road car?

 

they can  be worth it if you are not running at standard ride height, as you will need to adjust the suspension to get the required angles.

 

That was going to be my next post... "STD vs Lowered shocks"

[nicklouse]

it depends on your ride height. but lowered are not really needed in most cases. and adjustable does not mean rose jointed.

[Northernpower]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

The regulation change in 2012 was as follows
"Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint"
It depends on the tester, if they want to apply the letter of the law they'll fail it. Some testers take a view on it combined with the general level of condition of the rest of the car. You've got away with it for 30 years but its only been clarified for five of those and I say good luck to you; I wish my tester was as lenient. If I were to fit rose joints to this car I'd buy the expensive ones and therefore I'd want to protect them with a rubber boot. There's now plenty of suppliers out there.

Edit: I've seen from a later post the OP is in Portugal, therefore it's a moot point.

Edited by Northernpower, 05 August 2017 - 08:29 PM.

[imack]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

The regulation change in 2012 was as follows
"Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint"
It depends on the tester, if they want to apply the letter of the law they'll fail it. Some testers take a view on it combined with the general level of condition of the rest of the car. You've got away with it for 30 years but its only been clarified for five of those and I say good luck to you; I wish my tester was as lenient. If I were to fit rose joints to this car I'd buy the expensive ones and therefore I'd want to protect them with a rubber boot. There's now plenty of suppliers out there.
Edit: I've seen from a later post the OP is in Portugal, therefore it's a moot point.

I thought that regulation only applied to ball joints / trackrod ends / anti roll bar link ball joints that can fall apart due to excess wear/ dirt ingress as they have to keep dirt out and grease in.
Rose joints don't contain grease and the joint won't fall apart like a ball joint due to excess free play.
I am an mot tester and without checking the manual my initial thought is that rose joints don't require a boot, you've put a doubt in my mind now and I'll have to check.
You're right though, a boot over the rose joint must be better than no boot although I do worry that the fully enclose type boot may trap water and cause as many problems as not having a boot.

[Spider]

The adjustable Parts are a good idea, however, given it's a road car with some track use, I'd suggest not going for Rose Jointed types.

 

Aside from my suggestion here, Rose Joints on suspension systems are not road legal here (Aust).

Edited by Moke Spider, 05 August 2017 - 09:03 PM.

[Northernpower]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

The regulation change in 2012 was as follows
"Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint"
It depends on the tester, if they want to apply the letter of the law they'll fail it. Some testers take a view on it combined with the general level of condition of the rest of the car. You've got away with it for 30 years but its only been clarified for five of those and I say good luck to you; I wish my tester was as lenient. If I were to fit rose joints to this car I'd buy the expensive ones and therefore I'd want to protect them with a rubber boot. There's now plenty of suppliers out there.
Edit: I've seen from a later post the OP is in Portugal, therefore it's a moot point.

I thought that regulation only applied to ball joints / trackrod ends / anti roll bar link ball joints that can fall apart due to excess wear/ dirt ingress as they have to keep dirt out and grease in.
Rose joints don't contain grease and the joint won't fall apart like a ball joint due to excess free play.
I am an mot tester and without checking the manual my initial thought is that rose joints don't require a boot, you've put a doubt in my mind now and I'll have to check.
You're right though, a boot over the rose joint must be better than no boot although I do worry that the fully enclose type boot may trap water and cause as many problems as not having a boot.

It'll be interesting to see what you find out, all I know is a previous car I owned failed on exposed rose joints; I fitted some boots and it passed.

[imack]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

The regulation change in 2012 was as follows
"Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint"
It depends on the tester, if they want to apply the letter of the law they'll fail it. Some testers take a view on it combined with the general level of condition of the rest of the car. You've got away with it for 30 years but its only been clarified for five of those and I say good luck to you; I wish my tester was as lenient. If I were to fit rose joints to this car I'd buy the expensive ones and therefore I'd want to protect them with a rubber boot. There's now plenty of suppliers out there.
Edit: I've seen from a later post the OP is in Portugal, therefore it's a moot point.

I thought that regulation only applied to ball joints / trackrod ends / anti roll bar link ball joints that can fall apart due to excess wear/ dirt ingress as they have to keep dirt out and grease in.
Rose joints don't contain grease and the joint won't fall apart like a ball joint due to excess free play.
I am an mot tester and without checking the manual my initial thought is that rose joints don't require a boot, you've put a doubt in my mind now and I'll have to check.
You're right though, a boot over the rose joint must be better than no boot although I do worry that the fully enclose type boot may trap water and cause as many problems as not having a boot.

It'll be interesting to see what you find out, all I know is a previous car I owned failed on exposed rose joints; I fitted some boots and it passed.

Ok, so I've had a quick look at the manual, firstly the missing, damaged, split boot reason for rejection is for steering and suspension ball joints, (I couldn't find the exact extract you posted) a rose joint isn't a ball joint and secondly the boot has to be missing or damaged, a rose joint is designed to be used without a boot therefore the boot cant be missing or damaged.
Even if you had fitted a boot that had become damaged or split I still don't see that you could fail it as it's not protecting a ball joint.

[Northernpower]

You won't get it through an MOT with rose joints unless you put rubber covers over them.

Why won't it pass an mot without rubber boots?
Mine has passed ok for the last 30 years with no boots.
Have recently replaced the rose joints and fitted the little rubber shields that are like a smaller version of the top & bottom ball joint rubber shieds.

The regulation change in 2012 was as follows
"Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint"
It depends on the tester, if they want to apply the letter of the law they'll fail it. Some testers take a view on it combined with the general level of condition of the rest of the car. You've got away with it for 30 years but its only been clarified for five of those and I say good luck to you; I wish my tester was as lenient. If I were to fit rose joints to this car I'd buy the expensive ones and therefore I'd want to protect them with a rubber boot. There's now plenty of suppliers out there.
Edit: I've seen from a later post the OP is in Portugal, therefore it's a moot point.

I thought that regulation only applied to ball joints / trackrod ends / anti roll bar link ball joints that can fall apart due to excess wear/ dirt ingress as they have to keep dirt out and grease in.
Rose joints don't contain grease and the joint won't fall apart like a ball joint due to excess free play.
I am an mot tester and without checking the manual my initial thought is that rose joints don't require a boot, you've put a doubt in my mind now and I'll have to check.
You're right though, a boot over the rose joint must be better than no boot although I do worry that the fully enclose type boot may trap water and cause as many problems as not having a boot.

It'll be interesting to see what you find out, all I know is a previous car I owned failed on exposed rose joints; I fitted some boots and it passed.

Ok, so I've had a quick look at the manual, firstly the missing, damaged, split boot reason for rejection is for steering and suspension ball joints, (I couldn't find the exact extract you posted) a rose joint isn't a ball joint and secondly the boot has to be missing or damaged, a rose joint is designed to be used without a boot therefore the boot cant be missing or damaged.
Even if you had fitted a boot that had become damaged or split I still don't see that you could fail it as it's not protecting a ball joint.

Very interesting, thanks, I know who I'm going to talk to on Monday.

[AlexMozza]

Why not use them on a road car?


Because the joint has no give and on the crap British roads it does not take long for the joints to develop play. The cheap joints are even worse!

Edited by AlexMozza, 06 August 2017 - 08:46 AM.

[skoughi]

Going back to the OP, as you seem to be building a modified car then it probably would be worth having "adjustable" suspension components, but not rose jointed!. That way you'll know that the final settings will suit the wheel/tyre combo, ride height, driving style and if you're driving on public roads or on a track. Plus you'll have more bragging points!

Edited by skoughi, 06 August 2017 - 10:05 AM.