wisp wrote:
The QA1 rod ends I have look nothing like the picture of the Aurora one you have linked to. They have far more metal to them for one thing. What's more the local company that I purchased them from is a supplier to motor sport, in particular Speedway. In NZ Speedway is raced on rough oval dirt tracks, not smooth seal. The rod ends need to be able to take a hammering. My have done 1000's of kilometers now and show little sign of wear.
Mine (the incorrect Aurora part shown in the picture) was fine for 7000 miles, before it dropped the frame on the ground. If it had been in the front instead of the rear, it could well have been fatal.
Aurora AM Rod ends have 9544Lbs Radial Static Load Capacity. QA1 XM Rod Ends also have 9544Lbs Radial Static Load Capacity.
This was something I noticed when I looked at over a half dozen different manufacturers of rod ends. Either loads of people are using the exact same computer models, or there's some copying of datasheets going on.
The weakest point on male rod ends is generally the area near the head where the threads stop. Strength variations there (aside from changes from varying the size) are likely from differences in the metals used. That's probably also why parts from different manufacturers often have the same rating. But if the bearing race loosens up, that will cause rapid repetitive radial shocks, leading to an increased chance of failure.
You can read about the QA1 XM
here
Yup, that's very similar to the QA1 page I linked to in my reply. I'd still be worried about the "Loaded Slot Injection Mold" construction.
I've never seen one of these parts in person, so they may well be perfectly fine. I'm just telling you what happened with a part with similar construction from Aurora.