DOES THE HDK SUSPENSION K-MEMBER HANDLE BETTER THAN A T-BAR SUSPENSION?

J-c-c said

I can't imagine anybody using a relatively expensive bespoke CF K with a stock chassis, but I can imagine a properly sorted out CF K member being far superior in a high-performance application than almost every aftermarket K currently offered.
I didn't address a few items you noted earlier, one being I believe elevated heat that can be accommodated with HT epoxies, I don't see chopped CF as ideal reinforcement, and without a TB suspension, metal attachment points are limited in number and see fairly predictable loads, (Rack & SB & 4 large mounting points). Another point that has to be considered is the largest single/ densest mass of the vehicle sits mere inches above the K, and the resultant inertia load paths it induces are rather short and simple. I see all these issues solvable with the needed will, and of course time, money, and testing.

Click to expand...

If someone could make use of that bespoke cf K member, the non stock chassis would probably benefit from altered locating geometry, negating the benefit of a bespoke K member.

I would also posit that if one optimized the chassis and unibody, the stiffness of the k member would have a diminishing effect on chassis stiffness and that a decent motor plate would take care of most of the remaining forces needing resolved up front, which will tend to be mostly lateral.

One of the biggest chunks of mass may not have a huge moment arm to the K member, but plenty of the rest of the car does, including a hefty fuel tank and rear end. The rear end that is also putting all the motive force into the chassis. A chassis which also comprises 1/2-2/3 of the total weight, with its own cg pretty far aft of the front wheels and which has to take all the braking and rolling forces.