Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Maximum Motorsports S197 K-Member
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tob" data-source="post: 14469698" data-attributes="member: 83412"><p>I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I'm pretty confident in Maximum's ability to identify a specific issue and either eliminate or design around it so that it is no longer a concern. The fact that they've been testing it in a racing environment for some time now as well as MM always being staffed with some pretty sharp minds puts me entirely at ease. Maximum knows exactly how much stronger this piece is when compared to the stock one and I'm quite sure they are on top of any geometric changes made in terms of the net result(s). I'm not big on faith but I am when it comes to Maximum and a new part.</p><p></p><p>With respect to the floorpan deforming, this is a tough one. I've spent much of the weekend searching for any available data, photos, etc, on the issue. Kelly brought something to my attention (a photo) and it took me a few hours to nail down the source. What struck me in the above photos I took of the tails of the S197 factory K-member was the reasoning for using two thin layers of sheetmetal, stitch welded, to make them. Why wouldn't Ford use a single, thicker stamping? Surely it would be less money. The only rationalization I could come up with was crash testing. So when I saw the explanation in the following photo from 908SSP, it started to make a little more sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]606575[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>Bridging the rocker at the pinch weld over to the inner frame rail and then pulling the deformed sheetmetal back (while positively locating the K-member tail) would absolutely provide for a more rigid structure, which should transfer to more accurate alignment settings under varying dynamic load conditions. The part about the weak floorpan being engineered to facilitate certain crash constraints - I wanted to see that for myself. So I spent a few more hours watching every frame of a large number of S197 crash test videos. And guess what? The K-member does indeed "rip-out" of the floor on the S197 chassis. Every frontal impact video I could find was consistent and rather ugly. A quick GIF I put together...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]606576[/ATTACH]</p><p>Taken from <a href="http://youtu.be/3cXQ3xc8dAk?t=6m20s" target="_blank">here.</a> Here's <a href="http://youtu.be/zZfm28hIwW0?t=55s" target="_blank">another one.</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It does appear as though the design was such that tearing the floor downward was the goal. In many of these videos you see the strut towers being bend back towards the rear of the car and any side view footage shows the floor tearing/buckling down towards the road surface. Interesting that the sheetmetal was designed to yield as opposed to a more rigid (read: thicker, etc) floor but with a fastener that was likely to shear under these conditions. What is even more interesting is how GM didn't follow Ford's playbook here on the Camaro. Note that they chose to mount the rear of their K-member right to the face of the inner framerail, a much stronger anchor point than what the S197 uses. Their K-member ends up folding over itself. Another quick GIF, this time a late model Camaro...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]606577[/ATTACH]</p><p>From <a href="http://youtu.be/OrwBC93RuJs?t=2m29s" target="_blank">this video.</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For me, reinforcing would be rather easy were I so inclined. But after seeing numerous crash tests it would certainly be a tough call from a liability perspective (how I loathe that term). I'm definitely interested in seeing how many more have had this area deform without ever having jacked from that spot.</p><p></p><p>With respect to where I am now, I adjusted the spacer stack on the MM bumpsteer kit to lower the rod end as per Maximum's recommendations when used with this K-member. I'm using a number of Chuck's suggestions regarding simplifying a home alignment. I'm using two pieces of conduit now with equidistant stringline centers for faster, more consistent setup and measuring. I verified that my toe isn't in or out at the rear axle and am refining my camber and toe settings up front. Repeating the process over and over, you can't help but get better at it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]606578[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tob, post: 14469698, member: 83412"] I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I'm pretty confident in Maximum's ability to identify a specific issue and either eliminate or design around it so that it is no longer a concern. The fact that they've been testing it in a racing environment for some time now as well as MM always being staffed with some pretty sharp minds puts me entirely at ease. Maximum knows exactly how much stronger this piece is when compared to the stock one and I'm quite sure they are on top of any geometric changes made in terms of the net result(s). I'm not big on faith but I am when it comes to Maximum and a new part. With respect to the floorpan deforming, this is a tough one. I've spent much of the weekend searching for any available data, photos, etc, on the issue. Kelly brought something to my attention (a photo) and it took me a few hours to nail down the source. What struck me in the above photos I took of the tails of the S197 factory K-member was the reasoning for using two thin layers of sheetmetal, stitch welded, to make them. Why wouldn't Ford use a single, thicker stamping? Surely it would be less money. The only rationalization I could come up with was crash testing. So when I saw the explanation in the following photo from 908SSP, it started to make a little more sense. [ATTACH=full]606575[/ATTACH] Bridging the rocker at the pinch weld over to the inner frame rail and then pulling the deformed sheetmetal back (while positively locating the K-member tail) would absolutely provide for a more rigid structure, which should transfer to more accurate alignment settings under varying dynamic load conditions. The part about the weak floorpan being engineered to facilitate certain crash constraints - I wanted to see that for myself. So I spent a few more hours watching every frame of a large number of S197 crash test videos. And guess what? The K-member does indeed "rip-out" of the floor on the S197 chassis. Every frontal impact video I could find was consistent and rather ugly. A quick GIF I put together... [ATTACH=full]606576[/ATTACH] Taken from [URL="http://youtu.be/3cXQ3xc8dAk?t=6m20s"]here.[/URL] Here's [URL="http://youtu.be/zZfm28hIwW0?t=55s"]another one.[/URL] It does appear as though the design was such that tearing the floor downward was the goal. In many of these videos you see the strut towers being bend back towards the rear of the car and any side view footage shows the floor tearing/buckling down towards the road surface. Interesting that the sheetmetal was designed to yield as opposed to a more rigid (read: thicker, etc) floor but with a fastener that was likely to shear under these conditions. What is even more interesting is how GM didn't follow Ford's playbook here on the Camaro. Note that they chose to mount the rear of their K-member right to the face of the inner framerail, a much stronger anchor point than what the S197 uses. Their K-member ends up folding over itself. Another quick GIF, this time a late model Camaro... [ATTACH=full]606577[/ATTACH] From [URL="http://youtu.be/OrwBC93RuJs?t=2m29s"]this video.[/URL] For me, reinforcing would be rather easy were I so inclined. But after seeing numerous crash tests it would certainly be a tough call from a liability perspective (how I loathe that term). I'm definitely interested in seeing how many more have had this area deform without ever having jacked from that spot. With respect to where I am now, I adjusted the spacer stack on the MM bumpsteer kit to lower the rod end as per Maximum's recommendations when used with this K-member. I'm using a number of Chuck's suggestions regarding simplifying a home alignment. I'm using two pieces of conduit now with equidistant stringline centers for faster, more consistent setup and measuring. I verified that my toe isn't in or out at the rear axle and am refining my camber and toe settings up front. Repeating the process over and over, you can't help but get better at it. [ATTACH=full]606578[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Maximum Motorsports S197 K-Member
Top