Swing arm failure

    Porosity is not good at all and that one is really bad. With as many SS on the road I'm saying it looks to be a manufacturing defect rather than a design. All sorts of causes for porosity that can creep in. I worry about batches and manufactured dates. Everything from vacuum leaks, humidity, human error and improper functioning equipment can cause this.
    That is one big ass cavity.

    Proud supporter of S.O.G.

    (Slingshot Owners Group)

    :thumbsup:

    Owner/operator: MeanSling LLC :thumbsup:

    Edited once, last by Ruptured Duck ().

    Quote from Ruptured Duck

    Porosity is not good at all and that one is really bad. With as many SS on the road I'm saying it looks to be a manufacturing defect rather than a design. All sorts of causes for porosity that can creep in. I worry about batches and manufactured dates. Everthing from vacuum leakes, humidity, human error and improper functioning equipment can cause this.
    That is one big ass cavity.

    Don't want to steal any of your thunder, RD, but here is some interesting reading:


    Ultrasonic Testing in the Foundry Industry

    Quote from Buzzard

    Don't want to steal any of your thunder, RD, but here is some interesting reading:
    Ultrasonic Testing in the Foundry Industry

    No thunder lost. No expert by any means. Just enough to ask questions. One would think that all castings would be checked. Are they simple spot checking?
    On my new 16.5 SS i have freaking black sharpy marks all over the darn thing. QC I think has been stepped up so one would hope that includes critical components.

    Proud supporter of S.O.G.

    (Slingshot Owners Group)

    :thumbsup:

    Owner/operator: MeanSling LLC :thumbsup:

    Quote from Slunglow

    I'm assuming the owner in the video didn't have a trailer hitch ? But IMHO this incident goes a long way in proving the trailer hitch should be mounted to the frame not the swing arm.

    .


    I am in the camp that it goes a long way in showing that a trailer hitch should not be used at all and many should be more mindful of the total weight they have added to their Slingshot .... the rear suspension is only designed to take so much .... probably not going to be a popular statement but there it is anyway ..... artist-squared


    .

    :REDSS: The ghost of SLingshot past ......

    Quote from Ruptured Duck

    No thunder lost. No expert by any means. Just enough to ask questions. One would think that all castings would be checked. Are they simple spot checking?On my new 16.5 SS i have freaking black sharpy marks all over the darn thing. QC I think has been stepped up so one would hope that includes critical components.

    I really don't see myself as an expert, but I was in and around Aircraft manufacturing for many years and saw many of these issues come up. The QC/QE system is pretty tight. In Aviation, Castings get special attention.

    Poor casting aside, with the forces the SS is designed to endure (think very high speed, donuts, etc.), it is unlikely this was a catastrophic failure at the speeds he was traveling, and must have been building for some time. It seems logical that a crack was already developing before he hit that turnaround, and may have even formed in some earlier event that is undocumented. If that is the case, it would be prudent for all of us to regularly check the swing arm for cracks, particularly in this location, and particularly after any violent shock to the system like a pothole or hitting a curb.

    Quote from Ruptured Duck

    QC I think has been stepped up so one would hope that includes critical components.

    what makes you think QC has been "stepped up? (I presume that you are talking about the SL.) Granted, the first 1000 units were a learning curve for the production folks- after that they were somewhat refining their techniques. My original baby was tight before she went to hell in a hand-basket. While in the shop- I had 2 brand new loaners- horrible quality, IMO. Defective back-up cameras, a LOT of leaking rear seals...... JMHO- the assembly plant has become routine, and when that happens, very often quality becomes lax. In addition, most of their suppliers are JIT- supposedly certified at place of mfg. I would be very surprised if Polaris had a huge Supplier Quality audit team. Again- just not knocking the SL- love the machine, but Polaris seems to be doing more QA/QE analysis after the fact, rather than upfront. Consumer is, and always has been the primary QC department- whether it is Polaris, or any other automotive mfg.

    Quote from NatomasSlingshot1

    what makes you think QC has been "stepped up? (I presume that you are talking about the SL.) Granted, the first 1000 units were a learning curve for the production folks- after that they were somewhat refining their techniques. My original baby was tight before she went to hell in a hand-basket. While in the shop- I had 2 brand new loaners- horrible quality, IMO. Defective back-up cameras, a LOT of leaking rear seals...... JMHO- the assembly plant has become routine, and when that happens, very often quality becomes lax. In addition, most of their suppliers are JIT- supposedly certified at place of mfg. I would be very surprised if Polaris had a huge Supplier Quality audit team. Again- just not knocking the SL- love the machine, but Polaris seems to be doing more QA/QE analysis after the fact, rather than upfront. Consumer is, and always has been the primary QC department- whether it is Polaris, or any other automotive mfg.

    That would be correct. From where I sit, it appears this bunch is doing a pretty damn good job. There are some real thinkers here.