Art & Inspiration Why You Should Do Your Own Work

Self Gratification!

 

NASA did not miss a thing, and neither did I.

I duplicated the study with my team when I worked at GM. We showed the exact same results.

This is settled science.

Neither type of the washers you mentioned can get a "bite", as you call it, unless the fastener has already begun to loosen.

When that happens, the torque value has been lost, and the friction value of the washer almost instantly declines to zero.

Both have no more "locking" function, and in some applications less, than a plain washer or no washer at-all.

This is a persistent myth. It sounds plausible, but simply is not true.

 

Bingo! "Lock washers" don't.

 

I understand what you are saying, however if that is the case then why do the factories use lock washers of so many different types in their autos? That is added cost and we all know that anytime they can eliminate excess, they will.

 

I would rather work on my cars, than trust someone to work on them. I don't get much done on them anymore and that's O.K. I spend a lot of time and a little money searching and buying parts online. I would like to find someone to help me a few hours a week. Good info in this thread and I can't help to think of a day in 1986, when I was assigned to a M60-A1 tank, in the Army. The Seargent handed me a 3/4 breaker bar with a socket and told me to check and tighten the wedge bolts on the tracks. I asked him how tight? He told me to tighten them as tight as I could. After I snapped the heads off of 3 of the bolts he came over and took the bar and socket and handed me a push broom. I have learned since then and own 2 torch wrenches now.

 

Who?

I have not seen a split lock washer in a design in a very long time.

 

if you duplicated NASA’s study you should have gotten the same result. But since you used their parameters to get the results you Wanted to see, how objective was your search to see if they missed something. Bolts are a fastener just like rivets are fasteners. Both are held tight by friction. Huge difference in holding the skin on an airframe and holding two halves of a connecting rod together. This is why rod bolts have stretch to generate enough friction to hold them in place. The materials are vastly different from an aluminum sheet being held by bucked rivets. So please tell me what materials were used for which components in your study.

Lock washers were not intended to hold connecting rods together. And most lock washers today are made of very soft metal and might hold an aluminum bolt in place on a piece of plastic. That doesn’t mean the plastic won’t move. It means the fastener won’t separate as easily.
Lock washers are from an era where things were routinely taken apart and repaired. Repairing things is about the furthest consideration on an engineer’s mind when designing things today.

Torque seal is a friction modifier when used properly. As any engineer should know, the tolerance for a bolt using torque seal is not as close as a bolt designed to not use a friction enhancing mechanism.

 

ISO/DIN have withdrawn a half dozen or so of their lockwasher standards.
They make the distinction between loosening by un-screwing, or the head embedding in the part, thus losing stretch and preload.

https://www.wuerth-industrie.com/we...ensicherung/schraubensicherungenunwirksam.php

Bolts in Thoughtfully designed , well detailed bolted assemblies simply don't loosen if tightened correctly.
Correct torque ( preload really) is the first and best defense against loosening.

A lock washer that tears up the faying surfaces is inviting embedding in service, and subsequent loss of preload, and that is certain death for a hard working metal-to-metal bolted joint.

Joints with squxhy gaskets etc are another story.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree that they leave something to be desired but since we here are a pre 65 forum I was referring to most any American auto made in that era and they were loaded with lock washers of all types.

 

Thank you for the reference. The site says these types of devices (lock washers) "have no locking effect on high-strength screws are not suitable as anti-settling locks!" What they don't say is that locking washers should never be used in any circumstance on anything. This is exactly what I was getting at. They were not intended for these types of fasteners. They work on surfaces that can, in other words, be sacrificed to prevent the fasteners from twisting themselves off and where the screws/bolts are not sensitive to a small amount of stretch and surface degradation. Paint on a valve cover can be sufficient thickness to prevent some lock washers from allowing the nut to turn. Valve cover bolts are not high-strength screws or bolts. Torque seal is probably easier to use and definitely removes the risk of dropping a washer in the engine, but they work when used there. As I said, Rod bolts are high-strength fasteners and lock washers were never intended to be used there.

 

You're really proving Gimpy's point here.

Do you really think that NASA (and other) engineers failed to account for the hardness of the fastener components? There are literally people that spend their entire careers studying fastened joints.

If a joint is fully tightened that washer will be perfectly flat. Something that is flat has no "bite". If you're relying on "bite" to keep the nut from backing off then your joint has already started to loosen.

https://www.boltscience.com/pages/vibloose.htm

https://www.boltscience.com/pages/Why_nuts_and_bolts_can_self-loosen.pdf

Pay special attention to the curves and caption below them in that 2nd link.

They don't anymore after learning that such washers don't really serve a purpose.

I work for a large equipment manufacturer who's products see conditions of greater stress and vibration than any passenger or commercial vehicle. We do not specify the use of lock washers anywhere, and I will actively call out they not be installed if they're supplied with a purchased component.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

The Laws of Physics are not negotiable.

 

Let me address your points in order. I don't think NASA failed to consider anything that was perinate to the study they were conducting. Nor do I think NASA would waste time and money studying anything that was of no value to them. They weren't using mild steel anything, so why would they study it? Gimpy said he duplicated their study, should it surprise anyone that they came up with the same result? Apparently his company had funds to spend and recreated a previously conducted study. Maybe they thought NASA failed to consider something so they wanted to see for themselves. But, duplicating the study wouldn't be the way to do that, now would it? And you stated your company that makes high stress components doesn't use them anymore. Do you use anything less than a grade 8 fastener? The ISO link posted shows they are not effective at grade 8 and above. Do you think they would waste time and possibly open themselves to legal action if the truth was they don't work at all? They used the facts to specifically point out where they don’t work, unlike those that take some facts and want to apply them to every situation. Physics doesn’t work like that. Every variable can and usually does affects the outcome.

While I agree with this post. It holds true for you as well. You have yet to post the info on your study or NASA’s study that shows what materials were evaluated. Dan’s post on the ISO/DIN specifying where they don’t work confirms what I said before. If you post facts showing they don’t work on grade 5 bolts or aluminum then you might have a leg to stand on. But if the tests conducted did not specifically test them you can’t say they don’t work in every case. Refer back to your last post if you don’t understand why.

 

Maybe GM wanted a wider dataset than what NASA published - different joint types, wider range of sizes, etc - or needed data in a specific format for future virtual analysis. Maybe it determined it needed to have it's own data for legal reasons. Maybe it trusted NASA, but simply wanted to verify. But for whatever reason, whether the base material and fastener are titanium or carbon steel doesn't change the geometry of the joint or the processes involved that cause joints to become loose.

An ISO/DIN Class 8.8 fastener is a SAE Grade 5 equivalent. Anything below that really shouldn't be used, especially in a joint where you're concerned about it coming loose.

Do we use fasteners that are less than Grade 8? Yeah, but it's going to be in locations where components are retained by screws or aren't going to be a safety hazard if it comes loose. And unless good electrical conductivity is necessary or it would be tough to source, the fastener will be zinc-flake coated - so adjust your torque values accordingly!

Not to mention, the split lock washers just look bad and tear up your paint.

 

It might come as a shock you to learn this, but I am friends with, and in regular contact with scientists and engineers at the NASA Ames Research Laboratory, in Mountain View, CA.

They are part of my business consulting group, and are fellow automotive enthusiasts.

You are engaged in an embarrassing line of defense of an indefensible position. You would know this if you read and understood the entire study.

The summary is 114-pages long. The actual test documentation is over 7,000-pages long, and generated over 100TB of data for analysis.

I have seen all of that data, both from NASA, and what we generated, and it includes all established fastener grades, and all materials.

You have not seen anything but the summary. You clearly do not understand the scientific method, and R&D best-practices. You are just flat out guessing.

It took $12,000,000 to run this study at the $50,000,000,000 company where I was working. What exactly do you realistically think we missed?

The Laws of Physics are uniform everywhere in The Universe, with the exception of at, and past the event-horizon of a black hole, where they are unknown.

Duplicating the extensive study was done to confirm the veracity of the conclusions about the function, or lack thereof, of the tested fastening systems proven for space flight, for use in, get this: automobiles.

Sure enough, the Laws of Physics are exactly the same here on the ground.

And yes, that company uses fasteners from 4.8, on up.

This IS my lane, and I am a defensive driver.

 

As of November of 2023, exactly 676 people have flown in space.

As of March 2024, a total of 16 have been killed.

That same number of people are killed every 208-minutes just on US roads.

 

is that metric time??

 

Yes.

I corrected it to Freedom Units for clarity.

 

Think at this point the only lock that matters is the one that might go on this thread.

 

Learning a lot though, like reading into each side here.

 

agreed!!

 

So I thought what benefit [in the old days] were Pal nuts?

 

so far nobody has touched on jam nuts-now you've done it!

 

I blocked the clown.

 

Those work well, as do Nord-Lock washers.

I have had good luck scoring surplus Nord-Lock washers on that auction site.

 

Says the legend in his own mind. Because he wants to tell his lies and get public attention rather than have the conversation about what is wrong with his posts in private. In Iowa they have a saying about conversations with his type. “it’s like wrestling with a pig in slop. Sooner or later you have to realize the Pig enjoys wallowing in crap!” He can’t even quote wiki correctly so I’m done with him as well. And because the truth will set us free, here is the real number he was trying for. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis... the flights had,fatality rate at 2.8 percent.

 

My 61 Olds project was the first time in my 20+ years of screwing with cars that I've paid shops to do work for me. Frankly it's the first time I've had the financial means to comfortably outsource real work for non-essential automobiles I own. Specifically, Spencer's Speed Shop in Belleville, NJ recurved my distributor, and tuned/modified my brand new Edelbrock AVS2 carbs that didn't run for shit. Then Jesse Barratt of Blue Sky Restoration and Performance in Andover, NJ did the final body work and paint.

My experience in contracting out this work that was beyond my skill level was very different from the OP's here. While neither job was inexpensive, both shops I dealt with moved expeditiously through the work and remained on budget. I brought Spencer's a car that ran but needed tuning to be right, and what I got back was an excellent running car that has performed flawlessly since without so much as my turning a screw on the engine. I brought Jesse a car that was partially painted and partially in bare metal, and got back a car that has won awards in every major show it has been in.

On the other hand, my father-in-law only deals with "his people" or a "friend" who is going to take care of whatever job it is that he has, and with rare exception, the people/shops take way too long, charge way too much, and deliver substandard work for the money charged that he's unhappy with.

Talk to people. Check references. Do a Google search for reviews, etc. Stop by the shop and check the place out, even on a few occasions. Are you seeing the same cars in the same condition a few months apart? Is there staff that is working? Do they have any credentials like an ASE or I-CAR certification? Speak to people that have or do work there? Is it is a legitimate business that has a corporate structure (ie an LLC, S Corp) with health and workers' compensation insurance? Of course these are not dispositive issues pertaining to folk's ability to do work, but it has been my experience that legitimate businesses with real overhead tend to do better work because they are better run and don't tolerate bullshit from their employees because they have to make money. It is seriously someone's livelihood, and their customers are their lifeblood. A "shop" that is a glorified hobby shop with some guy by himself in the garage behind his house has no such pressure.

 

All good but the disparaging connotation about the quality of work that can come from a " backyard" shop . I've seen quite a bit of excellent work & no more substandard work than " pro" shops over the years .

 

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who do very good work from their home shops. But I'd venture to say there are also a whole lot who offer services at rates meant to undercut pro shops because they don't have the overhead that comes with having a legitimate business, and folks who are looking for a bargain take their chances with lowest bidder. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

Aha, so you admit that there may be a place where lock washers work!