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

[DionR]

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.

Glad you are still present.

 

[DionR]

I've seen a challenger with their "Monte Carlo" bar. It bolts to the sheet metal of the inner fender....strange.

The article Blu posted makes it appear that there is a “J” bar welded to the inner fender in about the same area. And looks like there is a fair amount of plating that was added to shock mount area, too?

Now that doesn’t mean the car you saw didn’t just have the Monte Carlo bar kit added and the rest of it ignored. But the initial XV design appears to be more than just bolted to the inner fenders.

I still kind of wonder if a tie bar of some type between the shock towers on your car would make a difference. No idea how you could tell though.

 

[J-c-c]

Yes, Dk does in fact apply to you

Your certainty is remarkable and noted.
You are in good company it appears.
BTW, have you ever read anything about DK Effect, I'm curious?

 

[J-c-c]

The article Blu posted makes it appear that there is a “J” bar welded to the inner fender in about the same area. And looks like there is a fair amount of plating that was added to shock mount area, too?

Now that doesn’t mean the car you saw didn’t just have the Monte Carlo bar kit added and the rest of it ignored. But the initial XV design appears to be more than just bolted to the inner fenders.

I still kind of wonder if a tie bar of some type between the shock towers on your car would make a difference. No idea how you could tell though.

Have you pondered the various origins and the paths forces take from the tire patch all the way into the chassis, and almost anything to shorten or stabilize that path makes for a more efficient and likely stiffer design.
Meaning, attaching to the top of the fenders, no matter what plating/bracing is added, is a bit off the mark IMO.

 

[racerjoe]

The article Blu posted makes it appear that there is a “J” bar welded to the inner fender in about the same area. And looks like there is a fair amount of plating that was added to shock mount area, too?

Now that doesn’t mean the car you saw didn’t just have the Monte Carlo bar kit added and the rest of it ignored. But the initial XV design appears to be more than just bolted to the inner fenders.

I still kind of wonder if a tie bar of some type between the shock towers on your car would make a difference. No idea how you could tell though.

I intend to make something once the G3 is in there. No point in making making something now that may interfere with the intake on the G3. I also need to consider how much less space will be available due to the width of the G3. I have some preliminary ideas that will tie both shock towers and firewall together.

 

[racerjoe]

Glad you are still present.

I'm not here to get into non-data driven speculative arguments. I'm not even reading comments from some participants.

Unfortunately, I'm going to miss the autocross session this weekend. I am going to try a small alignment change (reducing negative camber) prior to the March event and I plan to procure a tire pyrometer before then. More data will be incoming after that.

 

[DionR]

I intend to make something once the G3 is in there. No point in making making something now that may interfere with the intake on the G3. I also need to consider how much less space will be available due to the width of the G3.

That makes complete sense.

The suspension is working for you right now so if it was me, not sure it would be high on my list. I’d probably try it at some point just to see but certainly not before the G3 swap.

 

[J-c-c]

I'm not here to get into non-data driven speculative arguments.

Let quote the OP's original post:

" can the HDK handle better than a T-bar setup? "

 

[racerjoe]

Let quote the OP's original post:

" can the HDK handle better than a T-bar setup? "

I am the OP, keep up.

I suppose you've never read a magazine or new article, or book with a title that draws you in only to learn something from the contents of such article. It's pretty much English 101.

BTW, you still haven't shown everyone your car. With your expertise of everything the sun touches, it has to be the finest engineered masterpiece that Mother Mopar wishes she would have made.

 

[Kern Dog]

BTW, you still haven't shown everyone your car. With your expertise of everything the sun touches, it has to be the finest engineered masterpiece that Mother Mopar wishes she would have made.

I found it.

 

[J-c-c]

I am the OP, keep up.

I suppose you've never read a magazine or new article, or book with a title that draws you in only to learn something from the contents of such article. It's pretty much English 101.

BTW, you still haven't shown everyone your car. With your expertise of everything the sun touches, it has to be the finest engineered masterpiece that Mother Mopar wishes she would have made.

Flattery will get you no where I am told.
Self control can overcome click bait
is my thinking.

 

[Kern Dog]

I'll admit, JCC isn't stupid but he does like to push boundaries and question things that seem to be common and popular.
I don't think he is trying to anger anyone, I think he simply has a curious mind and the heart of a litigator.
My joke/memes regarding him are meant in jest and at least he sees them and just shrugs them off as jokes.

 

[HemiDenny]

I believe it is very basic. And a restriction beyond one degree of freedom at this location, given the "real estate" available, and that the likely loads that would soon lead to failure likely due to fatigue with more joint restrictions. while proving that there is loading here and its significant. But you can't include a solution that you know will fail, so you don't tackle the problem until you can. Yes the spherical joint connection is only an improvement, but certainly not a cure all.
I've seen many Monte Carlo bars with spherical ends strangely.

The reason spherical rod ends are (strangely) used on Monte Carlo bars you have seen is likely the same reason a spherical rod end is used on the HDK crossbar.

care to guess why?

 

[HemiDenny]

For anyone that might care, while Joe didn't have an issue with this, it is a valid question for some of the other kits out there. My brother is doing a Demon with a ControlFreaks kit and it cost him like $1000 each for custom wheels so he could fit a skinny 235 tire under the fender. Not saying he couldn't have found an off the shelf wheel that worked, but it wasn't a common size and the track width of the kit he bought was an issue.

Not pertinent to the HDK kit, but maybe someone will find the info useful.

Good call out ....track width is often overlooked until its too late. The ability to use off the shelf rims and custom offset rims (sometimes what the customer already owns) is a major reason HDK exclusively maintains adjustable upper and lower control arms. Believe me, non adjustable control arms are way cheaper all the way around.

 

[J-c-c]

The reason spherical rod ends are (strangely) used on Monte Carlo bars you have seen is likely the same reason a spherical rod end is used on the HDK crossbar.

care to guess why?

I already have guessed with reasoning, but I see no similarity in the issues at hand, in that monte Carlo bars usually have lots of "real estate" to make a restricted connection, the lower suspension brace does not.
So enlighten me.

 

[HemiDenny]

I already have guessed with reasoning, but I see no similarity in the issues at hand, in that monte Carlo bars usually have lots of "real estate" to make a restricted connection, the lower suspension brace does not.
So enlighten me.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your guess or reasoning.

The similarity is easy to spot, rod ends are often used to have large and finite adjustments for placement of the ball end to a fixed position that might not always be in the exact same position, car to car....K to K. Welding causes distortion, sometimes it may only be a few thousands, but having that finite adjustment is the difference whether something slides in / on smoothly or has to be beat in / on.

No engineering studies or degrees required for the above evaluation....only need to work with it. Try it sometime.

 

[J-c-c]

I have no idea what you are talking about in your guess or reasoning.

The similarity is easy to spot, rod ends are often used to have large and finite adjustments for placement of the ball end to a fixed position that might not always be in the exact same position, car to car....K to K. Welding causes distortion, sometimes it may only be a few thousands, but having that finite adjustment is the difference whether something slides in / on smoothly or has to be beat in / on.

No engineering studies or degrees required for the above evaluation....only need to work with it. Try it sometime.

I, many replies ago, addressed what seemed to be the reason for rod ends as a lower LCA cross brace connection.. Mainly there is no "real estate" available in the existing area to weld (which would be a horrible very unfriendly user solution) or bolt a multi axis robust restraint bracket to terminate this crossmember. Adjustability is solvable other ways. A swivel joint is indeed easy way to connect but only allows restraint in one direction, but still an improvement over no connection/brace.
Monte Carlo braces are greatly handicapped with swivel connections in effectiveness, especially when braces are not straight.
This help?

 

[HemiDenny]

I, many replies ago, addressed what seemed to be the reason for rod ends as a lower LCA cross brace connection.. Mainly there is no "real estate" available in the existing area to weld (which would be a horrible very unfriendly user solution) or bolt a multi axis robust restraint bracket to terminate this crossmember. Adjustability is solvable other ways. A swivel joint is indeed easy way to connect but only allows restraint in one direction, but still an improvement over no connection/brace.
Monte Carlo braces are greatly handicapped with swivel connections in effectiveness, especially when braces are not straight.
This help?

Not really....I re-read your guess and reasoning and it sounds to me like someone attempting to do a book report on a book they never read.

The only thing that makes sense to me is you apparently have no idea the function of the HDK rear brace and makes me question whether or not you have any real world experience of actually building (yet alone installing)......anything.

 

[J-c-c]

Not really....I re-read your guess and reasoning and it sounds to me like someone attempting to do a book report on a book they never read.

The only thing that makes sense to me is you apparently have no idea the function of the HDK rear brace and makes me question whether or not you have any real world experience of actually building (yet alone installing)......anything.

I'm game, now please be specific in what is not clear that you read or I shared.
Your major in college was? I was given an "A" in technical writing my sophomore year, but I might have lost a bit off my speedball in the decades since.
So where were we, you are going to point out where I lose you in my "book report" so we can have some mutual understanding on the downsides of using swivel connections on bracing on a car chassis.

 

[J-c-c]

I, many replies ago, #288 addressed what seemed to be the reason for rod ends as a lower LCA cross brace connection..

Mainly there is no "real estate" available in the existing area to weld (which would be a horrible very unfriendly user solution)

or bolt

a multi axis robust restraint bracket to terminate this crossmember.

Adjustability is solvable other ways.

A swivel joint is indeed easy way to connect but only allows restraint in one direction, but still an improvement over no connection/brace.

Monte Carlo braces are greatly handicapped with swivel connections in effectiveness, especially when braces are not straight.

This help? Guess not

Let's get it down to a more, word of the day, granular level to help sort out the confusion or whatever above..

 

[HemiDenny]

My thinking is since you have no idea what the rear bar is there for, you make a lot of useless (technical) assumptions.

Let's start with this, please explain, using your best technical writing skills what you perceive is the intended purpose of the rear bar?

 

[J-c-c]

My thinking is since you have no idea what the rear bar is there for, you make a lot of useless (technical) assumptions.

Let's start with this, please explain, using your best technical writing skills what you perceive is the intended purpose of the rear bar?

I can, but why play games here, you designed it, share it with us, and we can move on?
I disagree with your premise that I have no idea what it should be for, and that is your useless assumption.
So spill the beans.

 

[DionR]

Good of time as any to add the latest
version HDK UCAs with the ball joint boot modification. This mod has been a standard item for around a year now. The HDK UCA ball joint receivers allow the dust / grease boot to captured on the bottom of the ball joint (like OEM) Aluminum or steel sleeves based on extension of the stud then hold the boot in place.

works great.

View attachment 1716200391

Hey Denny, any idea if the below is a 1" extended ball joint, or a 2" one? Clipped it from the QA1 instructions.

Just curious.

 

[72bluNblu]

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.

BMW lists it for $1,019.94, but you can get it on sale for $936.88
31112284630 - 2015-2021 BMW Cross-Member (31-11-2-284-630) | Parts.BMWofSouthAtlanta.com

Which would actually be about the same ballpark as the bare XV K if you subtract out the cost of the rest of the components in their kit.

Regardless, it's clearly a "welded structural Alum suspension piece" that's made by the hundreds of thousands (at least) so definitely not something "you very seldom see if ever" . More like, something that appears commonly in modern cars.

So, structural aluminum welded K members are literally made by the millions (not just one model, not just BMW's). Refuting your entire claim, because you didn't just claim the XV aluminum K wasn't up to the task, you said ALL welded aluminum suspension pieces. A bold and utterly ridiculous claim.

I have made my case, we agree

No, you made a claim. For you to have made a case, you'd need to back up your claim with evidence. Which you haven't done in a single post you've made so far.

I've seen a challenger with their "Monte Carlo" bar. It bolts to the sheet metal of the inner fender....strange.

Yeah that's not how I would tie those areas together. Maybe useful for the intended task fulfilled by the fender to cowl braces on the 73+ A's, but for improving handling I don't think they'd do much if anything.

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.

Ok, good to know. And I didn’t intend imply that the 2" ball joint is unsafe especially for the application. I'm mostly just curious, the OE stuff is overkill by design.

Any rim clearance issues?

Good call out ....track width is often overlooked until its too late. The ability to use off the shelf rims and custom offset rims (sometimes what the customer already owns) is a major reason HDK exclusively maintains adjustable upper and lower control arms. Believe me, non adjustable control arms are way cheaper all the way around.

I think you’ve answered this before, but how much can the track width be changed? The widest track is pretty close to the later 73+ disk track right? Is the narrow track similar to the SBP drum track?

 

[HemiDenny]

I can, but why play games here, you designed it, share it with us, and we can move on?
I disagree with your premise that I have no idea what it should be for, and that is your useless assumption.
So spill the beans.

lol....yeah, right.