12SCNDZ

One thing I've learned from this board...There's almost as much opinion as there is fact on here. I've seen people bad mouth products just because the company didn't answer their e-mail quick enough...Not because of any flaw in the product itself.

Frank

Roadie

I pit crew for a race team and have seen some weird stuff break over the years. There's a lot to be said for beefier tubing and better welds, but even the best parts break under the right circumstances. I'd never judge a decision based off a single break. If it's a known problem, then that's a different story.

Jon A

You've got it backward. The only "internet rumor" is that K-Members such as the BMR are anywhere near as durable as stock. This is especially important for those of us who actually use the steering wheel. The first time I saw the design I literally laughed out loud. Then I felt sad for those I knew would be busting them to pieces at the track.

Roadie

A lot of people think the one bar from one side to the other is the weak point. However, it's not.

I agree that it's a bad design. I've never cared for BMR or PA's version because of the upper a-arm mounts. The design of those mounts has little strength for cornering. The AJS road-race reinforced version is MUCH better.

kandied91z

no, i don't have it backwards. your confirming the same kind of rumors....


until you or anyone else can prove one has broken from the use it was built for i won't believe a word of it. i would love to see someone break a bmr, aje or pa/pro-fab unit doing street/strip/light auto-x duty. haven't seen it though and i've searched hard for it.

show me one please...

Jon A

The judgments I make about suspension parts (and in this case made years ago—before anybody had broken them or any “rumors” had started) have absolutely nothing to do with “internet rumors” and everything to do with my education and experience as a Mechanical Engineer who does Stress Analysis on structure for a living and who has studied suspension design extensively for years. And you base your contention that all these parts are OK on ____ ?

The biggest “internet rumors” are that because a part (designed by teams of Engineers and durability tested to many life cycles at GM’s Proving Grounds) are weak simply because they happen to be made from steel stampings. And that anything “tubular” is automatically stronger (if the powdercoating comes in enough colors). And that chromoly is lighter, stiffer, will last longer than mild steel and is a better material for any and all applications. And that any ol’ fabricator is qualified to design complicated structural and suspension parts that are lighter than the team of Engineers could make them and yet still strong enough to be reasonably safe for an application with which he has zero experience (especially ones who fail to get even relatively simple parts right). And that a fabricator having a car that can run down the dragstrip automatically qualifies his parts for roadracing.

Those are the real “internet rumors.” Ones people like you are perpetuating with baseless claims, no experience and even less knowledge.
Please clarify what you’re trying to say here. Are you trying to argue that all these pieces have been advertised and sold as unsuitable for roadracing? Or are you calling those who have had them fail on the track liars? Accusing them of faking the pictures? What?

Your philosophy is most certainly bassackwards. When was the last time you turned a corner hard while traveling 150 MPH less than one foot away from a cement wall? Never? I figured as much. If you actually did that sort of thing you might realize how backward your placement of the burden of proof really is.

For me it was just a few weeks ago. Failure of a K-Member or A-Arms for me at an inopportune time could mean just a bit more than proving you wrong. It could mean death. Not figuratively, but literally--my death may result. Would that be enough proof for you? Or would you "not believe a word of it?"

The onus is not on the people who buy the parts to prove they will break. The onus is on the manufacturer to prove to me the part is sufficient before I’ll put it on my car. How easy it is for you to tell others to go risk their necks with crappy parts in order to “prove you wrong.” Those who have failed them on the track would likely feel like smacking you if they read this. Oh, how easy my job would be if only the FAA thought as you do. “You mean we no longer need to prove the airplane won’t break in half and fall out of the sky before we build it, much less fly it anymore? Sweet! Let’s just slap the thing together and start selling them. We’ll be “proven right”…until they start falling out of the sky….”

If you actually had these parts on your car and used them the way I and some others would, your opinion might be of some value. As it is, your opinion is worse than useless. Much worse. It’s worse because you are telling people parts are OK to use—parts that are not OK for every use. Parts that increase their risk of serious injury or death. A risk you are not taking. You don’t come to this opinion through experience, analysis or qualified judgment. You can’t even say, “If I didn’t think they could handle it, I wouldn’t do that with these parts on my car. But I do.” Because you don’t. Your opinion is entirely baseless and indefensible. Hopefully the people reading this who like to use their steering wheels in anger will realize that.
Here's one:

http://frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=1699&

Good day.

Tom 97ss #25

If it's anyones opionion I trust regarding structural analyis JON has great insight and understanding and knowledge. ... in other word JON knows his ****.

I understand its another opinion, but Jon has provided facts on other issues IMHO that satisfies me.

kandied91z

have no reason for your attitude... you need a hobby to spend that much time.

good day to you, thanks for the heads up on the thread though... interesting.