Market Research for Affordable Subframe

[trayb]

What kind of suspension would you like to see? (ie..C4, C5, C6)

What kind of steering? (ie..Mustang 2, modified)

What kind of pricing?

[GetMore]

My uneducated impressions:
C4: Just too old. It was a good design, but the C5 is better. I don't think component pricing is going to be much different, so just go C5.
C5: See above.
C6: Is this out? I haven't paid attention. I thought we were still on C5.
Steering: Why not stay with the C5 pieces? (Size, perhaps?) I think a rack-and-pinion setup is best, so if it can be done it should. It might not be possible (rephrase that to mean "at a reasonable cost") so a recirculating-ball box may have to be used. If so, check to see if there are changes that can be made to improve the geometry.
Pricing: Sell me the tenth one at $100, complete. (I don't want the first ones, since there are usually teething problems with new products.) Since I have no idea of the work or material cost involved I would say that you could make money selling them for $2500 with suspension. Of course this does not take into account the engineering work and other business expenses, so it just goes to show I don't know what I'm talking about. (Case in point, Wayne Due's IRS kit for the Camaro: $700 for a few pieces of metal. When I first looked at the kit I thought it was an outrageous price. For $700 I expect him to install it, too. But then I paid a little more attention: 14 bends, 17 weld joints, 22 holes, as far as I can tell. Even if the parts are machine cut and machine bent and welding jigs are set up there are a few hours of shop time involved. If the big dollar equipment is not being used then this could take a week to cut, machine and weld the parts.)

I would want it set up for coil-overs or air bags for a second-gen Camaro and it should allow 275/40/17 tires. (Make it handle 315s and you will probably have something nobody else does, yet.)

[trayb]

With all the engineering involved. There is no way a complete unit can be sold for $2500 including suspension. Using the C5 components is the way to go for now, since you can fit a 275 tire (possibly a 315). Considering the pricing for other bare subframes,the $2500 - $3000 range is possible. All engineering and design will continue, since the 5th one is done.

[69c4x11]

Tray ,,Got any pictures of the progress ?Look,s like you haven't made a choice on the front suspension ?? What kind of progres have you made ?? I made a gear change to 3:73, tore engine down, it's still down waiting on parts,,, Finally found what was making noise,, Bent Rod #8 cyl.. it was driving Me crazy,,,, Roger J

[trayb]

Roger, Some friends and I are currently on a quest to build an affordable C5 subframe. I am currently working a full c-5 front frame for my car. Any luck on getting a Dana 44 yet? I may have to get with Neil on some of the front points later one. Things are moving slow, but they are moving.......Tray

[Steve Chryssos]

Here's some input from a guy who's done marketing in this industry for almost 20 years:

There are already too damn many clip manufacturers in the marketplace. Sooner or later the pie will get cut up into so many little slices that none of the competition will thrive. And the pie's not that big either. How many people do you guess will drop four digits and/or take apart the foundation of their cars. 1000? 5000? It's not 50,000 customers.

I'm not trying to burst your bubble. Just something to think about. The only way to pull it off is to essentially destroy the market. That means a complete kit for under $2K that also works extraordinarily well (handling, weight, strength, etc.). Design it, test it, build it, package it, inventory it, market it, insure it, and make a profit--all for under $2K. Even if you could pull it off, you'd better be comfortable with the concept of putting your competition out of business when you "destroy the market".

I bought one of the first Art Rasmussen C4 clips back in 2000 for $1500 bare. It did not take long for those guys to figure out that they needed to charge a bunch more just to survive.

[Mean 69]

Well put, Steve. It is just not easy to make good stuff inexpensively. That's not to say that is acceptable to make bad stuff, whether it is cheap or not...
M

[murtah]

There is going to be another clip hitting the market in a few months. I just learned that DSE is developing a aftermarket subframe for 1st Gens. They gave few details other than tubular UCAs/ LCAs, saginaw Rack N Pinion, mounts for popular engine/ trans combos, sway bar, etc. They did stress that the frame and suspension pieces were designed for a 1st Gen specifically, vice adapting Mustang II or C5. Should start seeing some info on it early summer. Given the backgrounds of the owners and quality of work at DSE, I'm betting they are going to take a significant share of the custom subframe market.

[TLWiltman]

That's it... I'm going off on a tangent here. I personally would like to see a Laughlin (or any other NASCAR chassis manufacturer) road-course front stub made into a subframe. That is something I might buy.

Benefits:
-Replacement parts are a phone call away from any one of a number of suppliers (depending on the part, of course)
-Hell-for-stout suspension components (maybe a little on the heavy side...What pothole?)
-bearings and hubs are servicable and modular components (instead of costly regular Vette hub assembly replacments)
-The actual front stub piece is pretty inexpensive. It seems this would save some valuable engineering time by using/modifying available products already on the market
-frame section already designed for wide tires (315's, anyone?)
EDIT: -Oh... and there's nothing quite like that on the market right now (read: unique enough not to mess with the current players on the field right now)

Maybe I'm off in left field somewhere but... figured I'd put that out there

[trayb]

NASCAR chassis are made of chromoly and are not suitable for road use. I prefer the C5 components, it's modern engineering at it's best, sure the hubs are a bit costly but the components are proven and that can not be denied. The object here is not flood the market with $2k subframes, but to offer an affordable alternative to what is out there already. We are not doing this to become rich, but we want to see people complete their projects without breaking the bank doing so. As far as competition goes: A little competition does not hurt, it's called business. We had to sit back and ask our selves what are we in this for many times. We are in it because we love our cars and want the best at the best price rather than settle for what is being offered. Having options to subframes, rear suspensions, and etc.. let's the person choose what works for them. Let's face it, who here has 100k to throw at their project?

[TitoJones]

NASCAR chassis are made of chromoly and are not suitable for road use.

Huh? Why do you think chromoly is not suitable for road use?

There are too many aftermarket subframes for the 1st gen f body in my opinion.
There are already 2 companies doing full C5 front subs, 2 based off of Mustang II suspension, and only a handful of companies doing a frame off custom geometry/components. Not a single frame on the market can be assembled ready to go for under $2500.

Tyler

[trayb]

Tyler, You are correct there are too many aftermarket subframes for 1st gen and $2500 for a complete subframe is damn near impossible. Maybe it is just me, but $3300 or $5500 for a bare subframe sounds like there is not enough competition for C5 based subframes for 1st or 2nd gens.
Also, if I were building a race car, chromoly would be my choice for saving weight and strength. Since roads cars see more abuse, chromoly does not give like carbon steel, it will crack. I have yet see anyone build a road car chassis out of chromoly, except a Saleen S7, but how many times will you put that on the road headed to work in the morning?

[TLWiltman]

After much head-scratching, internet research, and several phone calls... I found out something very interesting. By all accounts, there is very little chrome-moly tubing in a Nextel Cup chassis (just radiator mounts and other minor things). I found out a couple of reasons for this...

-The tubing thicknesses for the chassis/rollcage structure are prescribed by NASCAR, so there are no weight savings to be had. (front and rear clips:2x3x.083 ERW, centersection:2x4x.125 & 4x4x.125 ERW, rollcage:1.75x.095 Cold Drawn Seamless.)

-It is commonly believed that mild steel's failure mode is more "bend but don't break". Chrome-moly is stiffer...tends to break when it fails.

-It is also commonly believed that the engineering/fabrication/welding issues create more problems than the use of chrome-moly would solve.

[Matt@RFR]

Disclaimer: I am NOT an engineer, although I do play one in my head.

It is commonly believed that mild steel's failure mode is more "bend but don't break". Chrome-moly is stiffer...tends to break when it fails.

Let's look at some numbers, shall we? From MatWeb:

1018 cold rolled steel:
Tensile, ultimate 63,800
Tensile, yield 53,700
Elongation at break 15%
Reduction of area 40%
Mod. of elasticity 29,700

4130N
Tensile, ultimate 106,000
Tensile, yield 66,700
Elongation at break 25.1%
Reduction of area 59.6%
Mod. of elasticity 29,700

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this tells me that Chrome Moly is definetely stronger, but contrary to popular belief, it is MORE elastic than mild steel is, meaning it will bend/stretch further before it fails.

It is also commonly believed that the engineering/fabrication/welding issues create more problems than the use of chrome-moly would solve.

I take issue with all of the above.

Engineering: How is engineering a structure in 4130N, 1018, aluminum or Hastelloy any different?

Fabrication: 4130N is basically the same as stainless to form, cut and machine, except for it doesn't work harden. Sounds good to me.

Welding: Yes, it does take different technique and parameters to weld Chrome Moly then mild steel, but it's not difficult.

[6'9"Witha69]

Just my .02. If you want to make a difference, make an affordable subframe which allows pepople to use current 1st gen pieces. This means people can use the DSE, GW, Speedtech, ATS, Wilwood, Baer, etc. peices already offerd and are not limited to C4, C5 or MII components. Make the UCA mounting with both standard and GS holes. If you make something that gives people options and allows them to build their project in stages then you open up the market incredibly (at least you would have me as a first customer since this is what I envision as the ultimate replacement subframe). Make it with Spring pockets big enough to accept an ART bag setup w/o modifications. Allow narrowed sections for wider front wheels. Integrate both Gen 1 and Gen3 engine mounting capabilities. If it is versatile it will span across all markets.