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

-
That’s pretty cool how they welded that aluminum lower radiator support to the steel frame rails and sheet metal. You can actually see the welds in the pictures of the Cuda build.

:rofl:
Please share with us the quote of whoever made that claim
 
LOL!

Well there are exactly 2 K-members for these cars that have had FEA, and they would be the factory K and the XV. Your claim is unsupported, and I suspect incorrect. Vomit all you like, but if you don't like that aluminum K it's only your own ignorance fueling your opinion, not anything based in engineering principles. On another high horses are we? Hell the swing arm on my '07 Triumph Speed Triple is welded cast aluminum, it's almost like it isn't a problem. Does the qualifier "to be heavily reverse loaded at high cyclic rates." mean anything to you? Please educate me, exactly how many welded cast alum pieces made up the XV IFS system? The reason you don't see more welded aluminum is only because it requires a higher level of design, engineering, and skill of construction than the aftermarket companies that make suspension for these cars want to put into their products. Really? Which is why the XV stuff was so expensive, which is part of why they went out business (that and poor customer service, but, that's not a design problem Did I ever claim otherwise?).

As for your overly dramatic "nailing to the cross", well, yeah, you're wrong Don't make me cry . XV was alive and kicking in 2010, and still sending out publications. Check the copyright date on their XV magazine attached below.

You're the one that made up the facts to support your opinion Your horse is getting higher, I just happen to have the evidence Really, all I have read here are unsupported empty claims.



Aluminum!? How dare you! :rofl:


Hey if you've got the engineering analysis to back up not having a gusset, have at it I have no idea what your reference to a "gusset" refers to here.

LOL!
 
Last edited:
Please share with us the quote of whoever made that claim

See below.

The front lower radiator support was if I remember correctly a welded alum member.

And then in post #233 you snidely responded to Blu’s comment that it was steel tubing with “if you say so”, as if it wasn’t steel.

Technically, you didn’t say it was welded to the frame, but seeing as how easy it was to see in the article I must have assumed you did your homework and actually read it before responding rather than just assuming you knew what you were talking about. If you had, maybe we could have avoid some of the back and forth since it is painfully obviously it isn’t aluminum and isn’t bolted to anything because it was welded on.

‘Nough said. You don’t like XV. This thread isn’t even about their stuff nor are they even around anymore. And I didn’t bring it up so we could rehash a dead product line. Let’s move on.
 
Hey if you've got the engineering analysis to back up not having a gusset, have at it

never knew there was engineering analysis to add a gusset to a ball joint stud. (pssst....my gusset comment was sarcasm)
 
See below.



And then in post #233 you snidely I was trying to be gentle responded to Blu’s comment that it was steel tubing with “if you say so”, as if it wasn’t steel. It was not a point worth debating, I was trying to move on.

Technically, you didn’t say it was welded to the frame, Technically you are correct but seeing as how easy it was to see in the article I must have assumed you did your homework I clearly stated "if I remember correctly" from an event that took place 14+ years ago online and what you seem to be focused on is one article, there is development history with XV products that predated the later article you hold so dear and logic would support that maybe a quickly fabricated beefier Alum rad crossmember to fortify a discovered insufficient OEM steel crossmember was fabricated to test its improvements is a normal design path, I believe a pic of that protype in alum is what I remember seeing, that obviously never made it into production in alum and was later built out of steel shown in your beloved article.. I suspect this possible timeline does not fit your bent on building a case to inaccurately belittle me, and that is fine, the source of the disrespect has already gained a well-earned reputation from my viewpoint and actually read it before responding rather than just assuming I assumed nothing you knew what you were talking about and you have not proved me wrong, yet. If you had, maybe we could have avoid some of the back and forth since it is painfully obviously it isn’t aluminum and isn’t bolted to anything because it was welded on. Give it a rest, I never said, nor implied alum was welded to steel, ever

‘Nough said. You don’t like XV. I never said that, technically This thread isn’t even about their stuff nor are they even around anymore. And I didn’t bring it up so we could rehash a dead product line. Let’s move on. Now you want to move on? :lol: Your reply here does not indicate that.
 
yes....it is a file photo. No pics of the two inch yet. I'm not sure I want to post any of the 2"....someone will want a gusset on it. :)

I just wonder as I have looked over several QA1 pictures and instructions over last month or so and wasn’t sure which balljoint they were using. At some point I will look again and verify, but best guess is they are using a 1” extended length balljoint.

Thanks.
 
I just wonder as I have looked over several QA1 pictures and instructions over last month or so and wasn’t sure which balljoint they were using. At some point I will look again and verify, but best guess is they are using a 1” extended length balljoint.

Thanks.

who is the "they" you are referring to?
 
who is the "they" you are referring to?

QA1. I haven’t been actively investigating, but have wondered while glancing at stuff if QA1 is supplying the longer balljoint as well. Or if maybe QA1 had done some homework and were supplying the 2” extended balljoint. It all just a visual comparison, which I haven’t done yet.
 
Or if maybe QA1 had done some homework and were supplying the 2” extended balljoint. It all just a visual comparison, which I haven’t done yet.
QA1 do homework? No, thy just buy the other kid's (who stole it from another kid) class project and market it. Especially when it comes to Mopar I don't think they really know what their doing. The only thing they have that is organic to them, concerning Mopar, is that leaf spring thing and I don't see that on their site anymore. I'm no fan of theirs or Gerst anything.
 
QA1 do homework? No, thy just buy the other kid's (who stole it from another kid) class project and market it. Especially when it comes to Mopar I don't think they really know what their doing. The only thing they have that is organic to them, concerning Mopar, is that leaf spring thing and I don't see that on their site anymore. I'm no fan of theirs or Gerst anything.

In someways, they are kind of the big dog in the market with enough company funds to do some actual testing. No argument that they probably haven’t, just don’t want to assume.
 
In someways, they are kind of the big dog in the market with enough company funds to do some actual testing. No argument that they probably haven’t, just don’t want to assume.
So that tubular LCA solution they offer is what then, just more light weight something shiny throw it at the wall marketing hype for the gullible? Note, I am using a tad of reverse? sarcasm here.

Same applies to the new rear "upgrades" for Mopar's that basically is 4 link triangulated rear suspension, lifted from an 86 Mustang (and that their owners despise), among others, that is prone to roll binding leading to "snap oversteer" unless enough "slop" is designed into the bushings or "twist" into the control arms, that ultimately offers little.
 
Your claim is unsupported, and I suspect incorrect.

Ok, so, you think the factory didn't do finite element analysis? Of course they did. I mean, they did it long hand and with no where near the granularity that is done now, but how do you think they figured out to put spot welds say every ~2" instead of every 4"? Or what gauge of metal to use for frame rails vs K frames vs floor panels? Yes, the factory did the math.

And XV claimed they used a "million dollar program" to run the FEA on their K frame and suspension parts. Maybe that's not entirely accurate, but, they said they did FEA. None of the other suspension manufacturers for these cars have even made the claim, and I imagine if they'd done anything even marginally close to FEA they'd use it as a marking point. No reason not to.

So no, my claim isn't unsupported. XV's claim of FEA is in the article and ad, and the factory did it, because they engineered the whole damn car.

Does the qualifier "to be heavily reverse loaded at high cyclic rates." mean anything to you? Please educate me, exactly how many welded cast alum pieces made up the XV IFS system?

No, because welded aluminum is in fact used in modern subframes by the MILLIONS. And the XV K-frame was extruded tubing welding together, not cast, but if anything extruded aluminum makes for better welds than cast.

BMW's use welded aluminum K-frames. Here's a 2015-2020 M4 K frame, links included in case you want to look at even bigger pictures â 15-20 OEM BMW F80 F82 M2 M3 M4 Front Axle Support Suspension Subframe K-Frame | eBay
Screenshot 2024-02-01 at 1.07.43 PM.png


Screenshot 2024-02-01 at 1.08.20 PM.png


Here's a rear subframe for a 2010-2012 750 10-12 BMW 750 F02 REAR SUBFRAME SUB FRAME CROSSMEMBER CRADLE OEM GENUINE | eBay
Screenshot 2024-02-01 at 1.08.42 PM.png


Needless to say, welded aluminum isn't a problem for K frames or suspension pieces as long as it's properly engineered.

I clearly stated "if I remember correctly" from an event that took place 14+ years ago online and what you seem to be focused on is one article, there is development history with XV products that predated the later article you hold so dear and logic would support that maybe a quickly fabricated beefier Alum rad crossmember to fortify a discovered insufficient OEM steel crossmember was fabricated to test its improvements is a normal design path, I believe a pic of that protype in alum is what I remember seeing, that obviously never made it into production in alum and was later built out of steel shown in your beloved article.. I suspect this possible timeline does not fit your bent on building a case to inaccurately belittle me, and that is fine, the source of the disrespect has already gained a well-earned reputation from my viewpoint a

Seems like everything you said here is unsupported. Your memory has already been shown to be fairly inaccurate, so, let's see this prototype aluminum lower radiator support.
 
Last edited:
This thread isn’t even about their stuff nor are they even around anymore. And I didn’t bring it up so we could rehash a dead product line. Let’s move on.

Actually, XV is still around. It was brought back by one of the employees as "XV Engineering" and although changes have been made to some of their products, they are still around.

XV Racing Products LLC
never knew there was engineering analysis to add a gusset to a ball joint stud. (pssst....my gusset comment was sarcasm)

Yeah I was referring to your K frame. But congratulations, you caught me. Although maybe someone should look into the strength of a taller spindle vs a 2" extended ball joint stud.

QA1 do homework? No, thy just buy the other kid's (who stole it from another kid) class project and market it. Especially when it comes to Mopar I don't think they really know what they're doing. The only thing they have that is organic to them, concerning Mopar, is that leaf spring thing and I don't see that on their site anymore. I'm no fan of theirs or Gerst anything.

I know we've had this discussion before, but QA1 buying up products that have already been designed and then refining them is a pretty good business model. Gerst was basically just a rip off of RMS, but their welded uprights were a disaster. QA1 had to spend the time to fix that stuff, the same way that they had to redesign most of the products they took over when they bought CAP (K frames, LCA's, UCA's). The QA1 UCA's are not in any way like the CAP ones, they were a whole new product.

Saying that QA1, which is one of the largest aftermarket suspension suppliers for a LOT of different makes/models, "don't know what they're doing" seems unfounded. Maybe they're not Mopar people at heart, but, clearly they know what they're doing.

So that tubular LCA solution they offer is what then, just more light weight something shiny throw it at the wall marketing hype for the gullible? Note, I am using a tad of reverse? sarcasm here.

Well, they do save about 8 lbs, although that's not really meaningful for most applications.

Their lower height profile does allow for more suspension travel, which by itself is a HUGE win for anyone driving a lowered car that wants to maintain suspension travel. The redesigned version that has a bump stop boss welded in requires a little modification now to do that, but the old version was a bolt on gain of nearly 1" of suspension travel.

That feature alone is why I bought them, because they allow me to run my car 2" lower than factory but maintain the same suspension travel (with more work to the bump stops to make up the rest of the difference).
 
Last edited:
Ok, so, you think the factory didn't do finite element analysis? Yes Of course they did. I mean, they did it long hand and with no where near the granularity that is done now, You think? but how do you think they figured out to put spot welds say every ~2" instead of every 4"? Testing Or what gauge of metal to use for frame rails vs K frames vs floor panels? Yes, the factory did the math. Math is not proof of FEA. FEA never came of age until computers became the norm, and in the early uses in the 60's FEA was dedicated to most difficult engineering tasks, a K frame that was already in producion/use before 1960 and its design remained nearly unchanged for over a decade with no known shortcomings was not a pressing engineering problem that needed further analysis.

And XV claimed they used a "million dollar program" to run the FEA on their K frame and suspension parts. Maybe that's not entirely accurate, Who cares what the program cost, no where is it stated they bought the program they used but, they said they did FEA .they made a lot of unverified claims. None of the other suspension manufacturers for these cars have even made the claim, and I imagine if they'd done anything even marginally close to FEA they'd use it as a marking point. No reason not to.

So no, my claim isn't unsupported. Yet its only supported by more unsupported claims XV's claim of FEA is in the article and ad, and the factory did it, because they engineered the whole damn car. Right.



No, because welded aluminum is in fact used in modern subframes by the MILLIONS. And the XV K-frame was billet What parts were billet besides the sway bar mounts, not cast, but if anything billet aluminum makes for better welds than cast. Not sure I agree on the "better" claim exactly HAZ and all with different materials, but cast has a special advantage here in the shapes in casting can be optimized much more cost effectively than billet shapes can be mass produced, ala the c7 and later vete's alum chassis coonecters and the Bimmer frames below and the huge technology progress in hydroforming and fabricating alum chassis in the last 17? years that XV was left out of

BMW's use welded aluminum K-frames. Here's a 2015-2020 M4 K frame, links included in case you want to look at even bigger pictures â 15-20 OEM BMW F80 F82 M2 M3 M4 Front Axle Support Suspension Subframe K-Frame | eBay Sorry, this below is apple to oranges comparison in terms of current technology, era, material, engineering, FEA, cost, etc, right up there with mentioning a motorcycle rear Alum swing arm.
View attachment 1716200684

View attachment 1716200685

Here's a rear subframe for a 2010-2012 750 10-12 BMW 750 F02 REAR SUBFRAME SUB FRAME CROSSMEMBER CRADLE OEM GENUINE | eBay
View attachment 1716200686

Needless to say, welded aluminum isn't a problem for K frames or suspension pieces as long as it's properly engineered. And you also want to claim the sky is blue?



Seems like everything you said here is unsupported. Your memory you really try hard to forget I clearly mentioned upfront "If I remember correctly" has already been shown to be fairly inaccurate Relative to yours? LOL, so, let's see this prototype aluminum lower radiator support. My online records only back to 2007 on this topic, If I had that info, I would have already posted it. Trust me, If I had saved or had access to what I thought gave me the impression the rad support was initially alum, you would have been trying to dismiss it long ago as only a prototype I suspect. Why it's such a big deal for you of what my impression initially was over 17 years ago of what the rad crossmember was made out of, confounds me.
 
Math is not proof of FEA. FEA never came of age until computers became the norm, and in the early uses in the 60's FEA was dedicated to most difficult engineering tasks, a K frame that was already in producion/use before 1960 and its design remained nearly unchanged for over a decade with no known shortcomings was not a pressing engineering problem that needed further analysis.

Actually no. FEA was around in the '40's. The math behind it was around even before then. It wasn't widely used until computers could be used to carry out the modeling, because it's a long and tedious process to carry out all the calculations, especially as the mesh gets smaller. Check out the "history" section here...

Finite element method - Wikipedia

And you know what? Maybe the factory didn't specifically use FEA in the narrow sense you want to define it. Fine- maybe I was too broad with my statement, that was my mistake. But the factory did absolutely engineer the K frame, calculating loads etc. They didn't just carry out physical testing. Regardless, besides XV, no one has carried out that level of engineering. And that was my point.

Who cares what the program cost, no where is it stated they bought the program they used - they made a lot of unverified claims - Yet its only supported by more unsupported claims

I don't care what the program cost, I was just quoting what XV said. Hence the quotations in my post. If you'd like to offer proof of XV's unverified claims, feel free. I doubt they'll be more egregious than any other aftermarket suspension manufacturers claims.

What parts were billet besides the sway bar mounts

My mistake, I said "billet" when I meant extruded. I fixed my post to reflect the extruding tubing construction. Not sure it really matters, because you just said "welded aluminum", which covers pretty much everything.

not sure I agree on the "better" claim exactly HAZ and all with different materials, but cast has a special advantage here in the shapes in casting can be optimized much more cost effectively than billet shapes can be mass produced, ala the c7 and later vete's alum chassis coonecters and the Bimmer frames below and the huge technology progress in hydroforming and fabricating alum chassis in the last 17? years that XV was left out of Sorry, this below is apple to oranges comparison in terms of current technology, era, material, engineering, FEA, cost, etc, right up there with mentioning a motorcycle rear Alum swing arm.

I have the feeling you've never welded cast aluminum, based on that comment. I have, and welding extruded tubing is definitely easier. And since you'll go bezerk, of course the metallurgy of the specific alloy also has an effect there. But with the widely used alloys that I've encountered, that's held true.

But you're trying to move the goalposts here. You didn't say anything about "current technology" or materials engineering, or any of that. You said-
I'm sorry, there are huge issues with welded structural Alum suspension pieces... you very seldom see if ever welded alum suspension items. It a common misconception.

And that, as I said before, and have shown since, is absolute horse puckey. Your claim was very generic, and any suspension components made in decent numbers that are made from welded aluminum disproves it.

You don't like XV's welded aluminum K, even though you have absolutely no evidence to show it's less up to the task than any of the other aftermarket K's. I'd say prove your claim, but none of the other aftermarket K's have published the engineering, if they've even done it. So it's just your unfounded opinion.

you really try hard to forget I clearly mentioned upfront "If I remember correctly

When did "if I remember correctly" become a catch all to bury us in bullshit? You go nuts when someone else makes what you consider to be an "unsupported claim" but want free rein to say whatever comes into your head as long as you say "if I recall correctly".

Well, newsflash, you don't remember correctly.

The only lower radiator support that XV ever sold was steel tubing that welded to the bottom of the frame rails in place of the factory lower support. Even if there was an aluminum prototype (to be attached how?), that's not what any of us were talking about. It's not what's in the article. Or the magazine. Or anything relevant to this thread.
 
1706843956929.png


Over confident and under constrained statements of an engineering nature come from children, undergrad students, people who wear helmets in public and charlatans.

Pretty sure at least two apply to our new friend. Maybe he lost his password in a horrible bansaw accident or his Bridgeport fell through the trailer floor and killed his old laptop...
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1716200820

Over confident and under constrained statements of an engineering nature come from children, undergrad students, people who wear helmets in public and charlatans.

Pretty sure at least two apply to our new friend. Maybe he lost his password in a horrible bansaw accident or his Bridgeport fell through the trailer floor and killed his old laptop...
Are you certain?

I wondering if Dunning-Krugger Effect might apply here, with all the over confidence and certainty I read in the many claims, but I am not certain.
 
Actually no. FEA was around in the '40's. The math behind it was around even before then. It wasn't widely used until computers could be used to carry out the modeling, because it's a long and tedious process to carry out all the calculations, especially as the mesh gets smaller. Check out the "history" section here...

Finite element method - Wikipedia Dude you are only stating the obvious and expanding on what I already shared

And you know what? Maybe the factory didn't specifically use FEA in the narrow sense you want to define it. Fine- maybe I was too broad with my statement, that was my mistake. We agree But the factory did absolutely engineer the K frame, calculating loads etc. I never said they didn't They didn't just carry out physical testing. Regardless, besides XV, no one has carried out that level of engineering. And that was my point. Which remains again, an unsupported claim



I don't care what the program cost, You cared enough to quote it I was just quoting what XV said. Why, I and others can read it ourselves Hence the quotations in my post. If you'd like to offer proof of XV's unverified claims, I admit, its hard to prove something that is not there LOL feel free. I doubt they'll be more egregious than any other aftermarket suspension manufacturers claims. Whatever



My mistake, I said "billet" when I meant extruded. I fixed my post to reflect the extruding tubing construction. Not sure it really matters, because you just said "welded aluminum", which was pictured, which is not everything which covers pretty much everything.



I have the feeling you've never welded cast aluminum, based on that comment. Your feelings would be incorrect I have, and welding extruded tubing is definitely easier. We were not discussing the ease of welding, we were discussing the ease at which a suitable welded connection can be made depending on the final welded properties of the materials to be joined And since you'll go bezerk,:drama: of course the metallurgy of the specific alloy also has an effect there. But with the widely used alloys that I've encountered, that's held true.

But you're trying to move the goalposts here. You didn't say anything about "current technology" or materials engineering, or any of that. You said- We were discussing a product designed and produced over 17 years with all its shortcomings, today different rules may apply for a number of reasons, and using the goalposts analogy, they have actually been moved literally, things change, thanks for noting that


And that, as I said before, and have shown since, is absolute horse puckey. How immaure Your claim was very generic, intentionally and any suspension components made in decent numbers which then excludes XV that are made from welded aluminum disproves it. Regarding the Bimmer front IFS alum cradle prior posted, I'd be curious what BMW sells that for, likely that one piece costs more than the entire IFS upgrade they were offering, comparing apples to oranges.

You don't like XV's welded aluminum K, We agree even though you have absolutely no evidence to show it's less up to the task than any of the other aftermarket K's. I'd say prove your claim, but none of the other aftermarket K's have published the engineering, if they've even done it. So it's just your unfounded opinion. I have made my case, we agree



When did "if I remember correctly" become a catch all to bury us in bullshit? When you will not admit it is a legit qualifier to in advance warn others not to assign undue importance to the dates being shared or other precise details, what you call "bullsjhit", if I remember correctly You go nuts :drama:when someone else makes what you consider to be an "unsupported claim" but want free rein to say whatever comes into your head as long as you say "if I recall correctly". Didn't know I needed anyone's permission to say whatever comes into my mind.

Well, newsflash, you don't remember correctly. Sorry, I'm human, and I know it. Question then becomes, do you have anything to remember real time from this saga 17+? years ago, and is your memory more accurate than mine?

The only lower radiator support that XV ever sold was steel tubing that welded to the bottom of the frame rails in place of the factory lower support. I believe I have not disputed that revelation Even if there was an aluminum prototype (to be attached how?) bolted?, that's not what any of us were talking about. Why then the constant obsession here? Get over it.
prototype, It's not what's in the article. Or the magazine. Or anything relevant to this thread. That is your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Although maybe someone should look into the strength of a taller spindle vs a 2" extended ball joint stud.


The diameter of the stud on the 2" is considerably larger than the 1". The 2" is just under 1" diameter. I didn't measure the 1". Allstar Performance makes many parts for the dirt track and roundy round world. While I doubt they are tested to meet OEM production car use, I'm willing to take the risk and use them. I'd imagine the life of a ball joint in a circle track car is tougher than my street car that may only see 3000 miles a year.
 
I've seen a challenger with their "Monte Carlo" bar. It bolts to the sheet metal of the inner fender....strange.
It appears mostly cosmetic, it's better than nothing, there is market demand, and it is a tough nut to crack for anyone.
Designing in bends in slender braces that are loaded in tension or compression is usually ill advised if stiffness is a goal.
I have in the works a bespoke CF solution I am happy with, but it's unlikely to transfer to other cars well or at all, no pics yet, it's still in wax prototype stage.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top