Gauging Interest, ISC Front Control Arm

[mike156]

Well, in an effort to try not to shit on your thread, I'll simply leave my arguement as follows:

If you are basing ANY of your design off the work you have shown here...

[ISC Suspension]

Have a good evening folks, we will keep you posted into the future thanks for the support and input

[D K]

When will these b done and available?

[brianhj]

Oh, how I long for aftermarket parts that are just black. I hate the bright colors and I hate the huge company logos on them (not on yours specifically, in general)

[major quicknap]

Originally Posted by brianhj

Oh, how I long for aftermarket parts that are just black. I hate the bright colors and I hate the huge company logos on them (not on yours specifically, in general)

I have no idea how much anodising would add to the final cost but I'm suggesting it wouldn't be feasible price wise. While I agree that black would look the best unsullied alloy looks the part too imo.

[SubieNate]

Originally Posted by major quicknap

I have no idea how much anodising would add to the final cost but I'm suggesting it wouldn't be feasible price wise. While I agree that black would look the best unsullied alloy looks the part too imo.

A basic anodized is cheap. The gold you see on the other isc parts is anodizing.

[ISC Suspension]

Any other input folks, we're still working away on our end!

[ISC Suspension]

We're still looking for more valid input! Please let us know if you have any!

[Crazy Drew]

Originally Posted by ISC Suspension

We're still looking for more valid input! Please let us know if you have any!

Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to address some of the concerns I had posted as well as other members of the forum. The FEA you performed is in a direction the FLCA will NEVER see. There is no bending load in the vertical plane since the spring/damper don't attach to the arm. The photos you posted of it are essentially useless. Forces along the X and Z axis (in your drawings) are the major concerns since the arm will pivot around the forces you depicted.

In addition to this there is a major stress riser I mentioned on the chamfer you added on the interior of the part. When designing parts you should be seriously concerned when you see stress concentrations on the internal profiles of your parts, especially with aluminum's fatigue life.

IMO, this seems like a "cool looking" part rather than having some basic engineering principles behind it. How did you determine your factor of safety when designing this part? Once again, not to come off the wrong way but you're much better off NOT posting photos if all you're going to do is show something wrong. Safety should be your utmost priority when designing these parts. You are putting someone's life at risk if these parts aren't up for the task and honestly, I've lost interest in your products just because of these arms.

[ISC Suspension]

Originally Posted by Crazy Drew

Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to address some of the concerns I had posted as well as other members of the forum. The FEA you performed is in a direction the FLCA will NEVER see. There is no bending load in the vertical plane since the spring/damper don't attach to the arm. The photos you posted of it are essentially useless. Forces along the X and Z axis (in your drawings) are the major concerns since the arm will pivot around the forces you depicted.

In addition to this there is a major stress riser I mentioned on the chamfer you added on the interior of the part. When designing parts you should be seriously concerned when you see stress concentrations on the internal profiles of your parts, especially with aluminum's fatigue life.

IMO, this seems like a "cool looking" part rather than having some basic engineering principles behind it. How did you determine your factor of safety when designing this part? Once again, not to come off the wrong way but you're much better off NOT posting photos if all you're going to do is show something wrong. Safety should be your utmost priority when designing these parts. You are putting someone's life at risk if these parts aren't up for the task and honestly, I've lost interest in your products just because of these arms.

The point of this thread and of these drawings was NOT to show our drawings and our anaylysis of the arm as we have said SEVERAL times. The sole purpose of this thread was to see if people were interested in a front control arm that would have more strength than other arms out there.

People wanted it lighter, so on our back end we worked on making it lighter, people wanted more adjust ability so we did just that, on our back end.

The images are being removed... we understand that the arm never sees that flex and that force. We get that, which is why our tests are not done in that way with our data. We didn't post them because we're working on them.

The ONLY reason that the test you speak of was posted was because people wanted to know just how much stronger over stock was.

As we have stated before, if anyone else has input please let us know.

[Acree]

Just curious, do you guys have any degree'd engineers on staff?

[ISC Suspension]

Originally Posted by Acree

Just curious, do you guys have any degree'd engineers on staff?

2 on staff, thank you.

[Acree]

Originally Posted by ISC Suspension

2 on staff, thank you.

Awesome! Then these should turn out to be a nice offering.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by ISC Suspension

The ONLY reason that the test you speak of was posted was because people wanted to know just how much stronger over stock was.

this reminds me of those infomercials where they would use a knife to cut up a shoe to show you how sharp it is... while not even remotely hinting at the knife's ability to hold that edge.

my biggest question now is how is it that you provided stress diagrams for the unesessary movements while being "unable" to do so for what's actually of intest?