Stock height tall spindle

[L & H Kustoms]

This seems like a pretty broad and all encompassing statement without a lot of data to back it up. I don't doubt that there are tall/lowering spindles that don't properly address the geometry issues with the A/F-body front suspension, as you state yours does.



I find it very hard to believe that some of the companies you list would put a product out that did not address the geometry issues.

The statement where you say that dropping the ride height is an improper way to lower a car is a self contradicting statement. How else would lower a vehicle, other than to drop the ride height. I understand that you meant lowering the vehicle via raising the pin height on the spindle is the incorrect way to lower a vehicle, but that is again a blanket statement that doesn't take into account the other changes that occur with the geometry due to the taller spindle and increase caster (due to control arm modifications). If a desirable geometry can be achieved by a tall spindle, that also has a pin height change, keeping in mind the roll center height, migration etc., I don't see why that has to be considered the "wrong way".

Sorry for the semi-rant. I just don't like blanket negative statements from one manufacturer toward other manufacturers. I much prefer that the data be presented for your product and let the consumer (which is in the case of this community, is a fairly educated consumer) make their own decision. I do know that at this specific time the tall spindles from DSE are not being marketed toward F-body (only A-body)for control arm interference reasons. I don't know about the others, but obviously ATS spindles will work are applicable to the F-body.

To the original poster's question, LH Kustoms has the only stock height tall spindle, so if that is required feature, then they may be your choice. You could also consider the Guldstand mod with the stock spindle.

Thanks - B

Brandon the statement was in regards to drop spindles vs. lowering a car with high performance lowering springs. The tall spindle obviously improves the geometry, rch, camber gain but to really get the best handling in addition to the "tall" spindle it is best to lower the car via high performance lowering springs to bring the lower control arm level with the ground and as I stated the 2" drop spindle only provides a static drop. using drop spindles IMO is the improper way to lower your car. "tall" spindle aside drop spindles only lower for looks and do nothing for improving handling/geometry and that is what I was stating not bashing any other mfg

The DSE spindle have the bumpsteer improvement for A bodies built into their spindles which you have to move the steering arm in the opposite direction than the F body to improve the bumpsteer.

[JohnUlaszek]

Yes our "interference" fit is unique in the industry but that is usually how new products brought to market and how you obtain patents not by making the same products everyone else does.

So we can agree your design is unique, and that nobody does it like L&H – I wonder why that is.

Given your product is unconventional, it’s reliance on an interference fit appears unprecedented, and this appears to be L&H’s first suspension product, I would expect overwhelming proof from L&H that this is a good product – thus far I am underwhelmed.

John your statement is correct and was accounted for in our design criteria and FEA and destructive testing.

I did see your pictures where you smashed a part in a press, but as I stated, and Tyler eluded to, unless your test accounts for the degrees of freedom provided by the balljoints, you have artificially constrained the part and your numbers have no relevance to an as-installed condition. As I asked before, what load case do the pictures represent?

I really enjoy when you misconstrue my statements. To correct you it was Greg Fast (Twentyover) that explained to YOU about the differences of fatigue life of aluminum vs. steel as your statements about fatigue were off base and incorrect . .

My statements were “off base and incorrect”? Really? I do recall you stating that I wasn’t an engineer, so maybe your memory deceives you on this issue also. Please quote the statements and explain your point.

Did I misunderstand? Are you saying your part has a fatigue life that meets or exceeds the OEM? Because if it doesn’t, I wouldn’t want to go around talking about how your parts are “ultrastrong”.

I did state that you should perform regular visual inspections of the spindles as well as all of your suspension components and yearly dye penetrant inspections to check for cracks and wear which all of us should do no matter what material the spindle is. Never did I state that you need to remove the spindle pin to do so. and hope you have a really strong press if you do decide to do so. Our proprietary assembly of the spindle is an "interference fit" but no press is used during assembly.

Given fatigue failure is a real possibility, wouldn’t you want to know what is going on in the highly stressed interference fit of the spindle to the upright? Wouldn't you want to be able to "visually" and or dye penetrant inspect this interface?

Yes aluminum does have a fatigue life but our spindle have cyclic fatigue life of over a million cycles which is way more than any of us put on our cars.

Given fatigue failures typically happen without warning, how is someone to know when the spindle is nearing the end of it's life?
Your "yearly" inspection criteria is a a useless interval; consider a guy that puts a set on his daily driver in a region that is heavily salted in the winter -- is his inspection interval the same as the guy who's car sits in the garage all year?

Have you done salt spray testing in conjunction with actual physical fatigue to failure testing, or are these parts not suitable for a car that is driven year round?

Your design is fundamentally different than the Corvette and ATS parts, and as such, their design does nothing to validate yours.