New- GMR AFX Upright Packages

[TDC]

I'm certain I could get the CPP engineer in a room and ask him questions about his design that he doesn't know the answer to as to why it was done. It was done to theirs because we did it to ours, and it flat out works great, so they added that to their own knock off.

And of course it looks like a quality piece, it was BASED OFF ONE.

Out of curiosity, what kind of questions would you ask this engineer?

And how do you know if it was based off of one when the engineer nor CPP did not even have either your or a competitor's parts in their possession? How do you know that the engineer(s) at CPP did not spend multiple months designing these spindles? How do you know that these parts haven't been test fitted with all brand name tubular control arms on the market as well as stock/replica control arms to determine fitment? What makes it look like these haven't been strength tested? The price tag? Those are some bold assumptions you're making there

[TitoJones]

Out of curiosity, what kind of questions would you ask this engineer?

And how do you know if it was based off of one when the engineer nor CPP did not even have either your or a competitor's parts in their possession? How do you know that the engineer(s) at CPP did not spend multiple months designing these spindles? How do you know that these parts haven't been test fitted with all brand name tubular control arms on the market as well as stock/replica control arms to determine fitment? What makes it look like these haven't been strength tested? The price tag? Those are some bold assumptions you're making there

Get a CPP engineer in here and let's watch it all unfold. I'm using my knowledge of the company and their business practices, product development cycles, and customer service to base my opinion off of. Go on, do a quick google search of CPP and their less than stellar reputation and ability to provide technical info on performance.

Until then, I'll keep my questions ready for someone from the actual company.

Tyler

[The GMR]

Tyler,

I understand you have a natural instinct to be bitter / argue but can you please extend a slight amount of professional courtesy and use the various other threads to comment. I only ask because I would prefer that this thread not get closed like your other threads. I will not sit here and argue with you, we are simply too busy for that.

Thank you.
Jason

[TDC]

Get a CPP engineer in here and let's watch it all unfold. I'm using my knowledge of the company and their business practices, product development cycles, and customer service to base my opinion off of. Go on, do a quick google search of CPP and their less than stellar reputation and ability to provide technical info on performance.

Until then, I'll keep my questions ready for someone from the actual company.

Tyler

I can't speak for the customer service department, but you asked for an engineer, didn't you? The one who designed these spindles is already here... (hello!)

By the way, there were prototypes designed last year and shown at SEMA 2011 (October 2011). Surely if these were ripped off of yours, they would have hit the market much faster than a whole year. And I've already mentioned that I have never even held your product in my hand. Did you happen to stop by our booth and look at our pre-production samples?

[Simmo]

Hi TDC, great to see you're on the board!

I have a few queries on the aforementioned uprights. There seems to be some mis-information around so I'm sure you're the guy who can clear things up.

As I understand:-

- They're stock ride height.
- They're taller (by how much if that's not classified info!) - any camber plots available?
- Any plan's for a bump steer correcting A body steering arm/bumpsteer plots with stock arm?
- Are your hubs off the shelf SKF stuff? Not a major as GMR has stepped up to the mark, but good to know nonetheless!

Thanks in advance.

[TDC]

Hi TDC, great to see you're on the board!

I have a few queries on the aforementioned uprights. There seems to be some mis-information around so I'm sure you're the guy who can clear things up.

As I understand:-

- They're stock ride height.
- They're taller (by how much if that's not classified info!) - any camber plots available?
- Any plan's for a bump steer correcting A body steering arm/bumpsteer plots with stock arm?
- Are your hubs off the shelf SKF stuff? Not a major as GMR has stepped up to the mark, but good to know nonetheless!

Thanks in advance.

I actually had a very lengthy reply typed up until my computer crashed...so I apologize if I go over things a bit too quickly. I no longer work for CPP, since I could not pass up an opportunity to work on private projects for NASA and the military. I don't frequent this board...I only found this thread when I was recently searching the web to see how the old company I worked at was doing. I took it personally when ATS claimed that I copied their design...when I have never seen or held an ATS part in my hand. I understand that CPP does not have the best reputation for customer service, and there isn't anything I can do about that. As a car enthusiast myself with a degree in engineering, I was personally offended when these dubious claims came from people who have never installed or drove on the spindles/uprights. It looks like it's been out for less than a month, yet there are pages and pages of internet slander. The only reason I'm taking time out to sign up for a forum I don't frequent and type a lengthy response is because I designed these by myself without stealing anybody’s design.

-Yes, the ones that are currently in production look like the ones that are stock ride height. There were actually a few major challenges in accomplishing this. We made sure that the spindles fitted the most common brand name aftermarket control arms, as well as stock/replica sheet metal control arms. For the cheap ones found on eBay...good luck. The tolerances and geometry on those arms are everywhere. We cannot guarantee our part to work with one that is wrong, and inconsistent. I actually made a lot more spindles than the ones that have reached production, but due to issues with strength and suspension geometry directly conflicting with each other, these did not reach the market. Those spindles were for different cars, and the issues may be worked out in the future.

-I hope by answering this question, I'm not angering anyone from my old job. I figured that anyone can easily buy these spindles and compare them. At the same time, I made these over one year ago. If I remember correctly, the "tall" versions of the spindles were raised exactly 1" from stock. The reason 1" was chosen instead of 2", was because we wanted to offer a bolt in spindle that was did not give alignment issues, and that worked on OEM control arms. Upper and lower control arms as well as the spindle create a multi-link mechanism that moves in three axes, and anyone who simply adds 2" to the upper ball joint location and calls it a day is not doing enough. More dynamic camber is not always better. Sometimes braking is lost and suspension geometry is affected. And while we're on that topic, our dimensions were measured in many different ways on OEM NOS parts with multiple tools, as well as 3D laser scanning directly into CAD, and processed in Solidworks. This way we know for sure that we don't introduce new problems, such as bump steer or inability to even align the car into the equation.

-I can't speak for what CPP will do in the future, but I will say that by making sure we get the suspension geometry right the first time, we have no need to release a new steering arm that "corrects" bump steer. During my time at CPP, I've seen other companies release up to five different revisions of steering arms claiming to revise bump steer. If the spindle was designed correctly the first time, revised steering arms would never have to be released. Just because one setup costs more than another does not mean it has a better design. These costs may come from optimized manufacturing processes, such as extra machining time and cost for a feature that does not need machining, when it can be designed into the mold from the start. This of course cannot be decided in as easy as yes or no...and as an engineer that's where we make the judgment calls; based on the forces that section of the part sees, weight/strength of material considerations, and as well as unnecessary manufacturing steps that can be simplified for cost without sacrifices in strength. All that said, bump steer is always an important part in spindle/upright design. Believe me….as an engineer, the last thing I want to do is be baking in the Southern California sun after tens of thousands of dollars have been invested into making production parts with a bump steer gauge seeing where I went wrong. We design our parts from OEM parts, and pay attention to all aspects of spindle design from the very start. Attention was paid to keeping wheel offset, EXACT ball joint and steering arm locations and as well as metric machining tolerances for the new bearing and standard dimensions for the parts that attach to your car. CPP offers a shop tour every March...there's absolutely no secret how our lengthy design process works. The only part that is reversed engineered are the original OEM parts. We need to know what GM intended to do before we go about making a spindle to replace their application with ours. People are encouraged to ask the engineers questions about anything. Believe me...I'm not going to pull dimensions of a competitor’s part when we don't even know if they're correct or not in the first place. If they're repeatedly releasing new steering arms to "correct bump steer" (and making money at the same time), it's obvious that the bump steer wasn't dealt with from the beginning. The videos are on YouTube if you cannot make it to Anaheim for the tour.

-I don't know what hub is being distributed with the kit since I was only involved in the design phase of these spindles. However, there is something interesting to consider about these bearings. A simple Google search will show that many C5 Corvette owners suffer from premature bearing failures...as early as 20,000 miles. Due to the compact design of the bearing, the forces experienced by the internals of the bearing are much stronger than those experienced on a long axle pin, where the inner and outer bearings can be spaced far apart. Remember we are talking about OEM GM parts here. We waited a very long time to release these spindles because of these issues. If I remember correctly, it was Timken who solved the sealed bearing failures with a new design (don't quote me on this). After GM adopted this new bearing design and the failures went away, we were comfortable releasing a line of spindles that were available everywhere and were easy to change without making a mess or using incorrect torque specs. If this bearing issue was never solved, this line of spindles would never have been released.

I hope I answered all your questions, and again need to restate that I am no longer represent the company since I no longer work there. Just wanted you guys to know that there is a lengthy design process for every part and a reason that CPP parts bolt on without modification for a reason.

[The GMR]

Finally.... some pricing on the packages.


GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Hub and upright package (CPP-AFX-FH-C5) $1876.00
-Pair of uprights with GMR c5/6 hubs



GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Upright and The Brake Man Package $4685.20 (CPP-AFX-TBM-PT-FC6ST)
For the ultimate in hub / braking performance the GMR has put together this front package with proven race winning Brake Man Technology! This package included the following:

1. Two F4 Calipers with Lug Mount and 1.87″ pistons
2. Two Directional Pro-cast rotors 13″ by 1.25″
3. Four Brake Man Compound #82 pads
4. Two CPP – AFX uprights
5. Pair of GMR C5/6 Front Hubs assembled
6. GMR rotor adapters
7. Stainless Race proven NAS rotor hardware

GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Upright and OEM Corvette C6 Z06 Monobloc $4287.00 (CPP-AFX-Z06-C6FH)
If you style is true OEM performance in the from of the Z06 corvette then this is the package for you. Infamous Corvette C6 Z06 proven technology combined with the high performance of GMR C6 hubs this package will drastically increase the attitude of your pro tour car! This package includes the following:

1. Two 6 piston C6-Z06 Monobloc Calipers
2. Two Directional GT 14 inch by 1.25 inch rotors
3. Two CPP – AFX uprights
4. Pair of GMR C5/6 Front Hubs assembled
5. GMR rotor adapters
6. Stainless Race proven NAS rotor hardware

(brake pads are not available with OEM-Z06 packages due to variance in compounds)


Thanks
Jason

[diesel25lrs]

What happened to these prices?


"Mr. Tyler, You are the undisputed originator of this blended "GM design" but with such a good concept comes its competition...... CPP has done a great job in our opinion with form/function/cost. We really like the fact that it is of steel...... makes for little to no deflection. I believe a pair of uprights and C5 hubs will retail at around $400..... not to shabby for the guys on a budget who want serious parts. The Uprights themselves will be under $300! I believe we will be seeing many sets sold?"

Finally.... some pricing on the packages.


GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Hub and upright package (CPP-AFX-FH-C5) $1876.00
-Pair of uprights with GMR c5/6 hubs



GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Upright and The Brake Man Package $4685.20 (CPP-AFX-TBM-PT-FC6ST)
For the ultimate in hub / braking performance the GMR has put together this front package with proven race winning Brake Man Technology! This package included the following:

1. Two F4 Calipers with Lug Mount and 1.87″ pistons
2. Two Directional Pro-cast rotors 13″ by 1.25″
3. Four Brake Man Compound #82 pads
4. Two CPP – AFX uprights
5. Pair of GMR C5/6 Front Hubs assembled
6. GMR rotor adapters
7. Stainless Race proven NAS rotor hardware

GMR CPP A-F-X Body Front C6 Upright and OEM Corvette C6 Z06 Monobloc $4287.00 (CPP-AFX-Z06-C6FH)
If you style is true OEM performance in the from of the Z06 corvette then this is the package for you. Infamous Corvette C6 Z06 proven technology combined with the high performance of GMR C6 hubs this package will drastically increase the attitude of your pro tour car! This package includes the following:

1. Two 6 piston C6-Z06 Monobloc Calipers
2. Two Directional GT 14 inch by 1.25 inch rotors
3. Two CPP – AFX uprights
4. Pair of GMR C5/6 Front Hubs assembled
5. GMR rotor adapters
6. Stainless Race proven NAS rotor hardware

(brake pads are not available with OEM-Z06 packages due to variance in compounds)


Thanks
Jason

[dontlifttoshift]

Josh, the prices you highlighted were cpp's prcing on their uprights and a generic C5 hub, like the kind you might get at the parts store.

The pricing from GMR is the cpp uprights with your choice of brake kits built around the GMR rebuildable hub. The GMR hub setup alone retails at a tick over $1,600 for the pair. Even though that sounds like a ridiculous amount of money compare that to the c6-r hubs that the cool kids run and it gets much closer price wise, if you wear out the c6-r hubs they are not rebuildable.

[diesel25lrs]

Donny-Thanks for the explanation! I thought those hubs looked high $... Lol...

[TitoJones]

I actually had a very lengthy reply typed up until my computer crashed...so I apologize if I go over things a bit too quickly. I no longer work for CPP, since I could not pass up an opportunity to work on private projects for NASA and the military. I don't frequent this board...I only found this thread when I was recently searching the web to see how the old company I worked at was doing. I took it personally when ATS claimed that I copied their design...when I have never seen or held an ATS part in my hand. I understand that CPP does not have the best reputation for customer service, and there isn't anything I can do about that. As a car enthusiast myself with a degree in engineering, I was personally offended when these dubious claims came from people who have never installed or drove on the spindles/uprights. It looks like it's been out for less than a month, yet there are pages and pages of internet slander. The only reason I'm taking time out to sign up for a forum I don't frequent and type a lengthy response is because I designed these by myself without stealing anybody’s design.

Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I was out of town for a wedding and then caught a nasty flu.

Well that sure seems very different than the story I was told standing in CPP's booth at SEMA last year wearing someone else's badge. You had a tall spindle labeled an 'AFX' spindle that was coming soon. Seeing this I had to swap name badges with a friend of mine because the moment I inquired about them and they saw my name and company they refused to tell me a single thing about them. When I came back a day later with a new badge I was told they were made to compete with the popular ATS AFX tall spindle and that it was looked at intensively by CPP. You don't need to have one in your hand to make this product, we've been posting spec sheets with detailed measurements for nearly 7 years now. Regardless, let's get into your 'tech'.

-Yes, the ones that are currently in production look like the ones that are stock ride height. There were actually a few major challenges in accomplishing this. We made sure that the spindles fitted the most common brand name aftermarket control arms, as well as stock/replica sheet metal control arms. For the cheap ones found on eBay...good luck. The tolerances and geometry on those arms are everywhere. We cannot guarantee our part to work with one that is wrong, and inconsistent. I actually made a lot more spindles than the ones that have reached production, but due to issues with strength and suspension geometry directly conflicting with each other, these did not reach the market. Those spindles were for different cars, and the issues may be worked out in the future.

So you decided to make them exclusively not performance based in any respect judging by this statement. You know how sh*tty a factory alignment spec is on these cars? Obviously not, or making them to be compatible with a factory control arm would have been on the very bottom of your list. Factory upper control arms don't have enough adjustment to get the required static caster or camber settings into them; typically even with a shim stack as thick as my forearm. On an A body the upper control arm cross shafts are going to end up in the header trying to get anywhere near a modern day alignment setting and that is typically why most people go aftermarket. Of course there are companies like CPP that make aftermarket uppers that don't really address these issues and are just tubular because- hey, everyone else has one for sale, we can too.

One thing you haven't mentioned and even a client that called, ordered and inquired about was alignment settings, and recommended upper control arms for any make of car. Do you suffer from ball joint bind on a factory stamped upper control arm on an A body using these tall spindles? My guess is more than likely.
So what do you recommend as your alignment settings and what upper control arm can these settings be achieved with?

-I hope by answering this question, I'm not angering anyone from my old job. I figured that anyone can easily buy these spindles and compare them. At the same time, I made these over one year ago. If I remember correctly, the "tall" versions of the spindles were raised exactly 1" from stock. The reason 1" was chosen instead of 2", was because we wanted to offer a bolt in spindle that was did not give alignment issues, and that worked on OEM control arms. Upper and lower control arms as well as the spindle create a multi-link mechanism that moves in three axes, and anyone who simply adds 2" to the upper ball joint location and calls it a day is not doing enough. More dynamic camber is not always better. Sometimes braking is lost and suspension geometry is affected. And while we're on that topic, our dimensions were measured in many different ways on OEM NOS parts with multiple tools, as well as 3D laser scanning directly into CAD, and processed in Solidworks. This way we know for sure that we don't introduce new problems, such as bump steer or inability to even align the car into the equation.

Who has a 2" taller than factory spindle for these cars exactly? I've seen a ton of 2 inch ride height drop versions of tall spindles, but not an overall height increase of 2 inches. Also what was your camber gain per inch of suspension travel with your recommended alignment settings, and how do that camber curve compare to things like:
Guldstrand mod
1/2" taller upper ball joint (and additionally, 1/2" taller lower ball joint on A body cars)
What was your total bumpsteer with your above alignment settings? (please say zero, please say zero...)

Speaking of not doing enough....

-I can't speak for what CPP will do in the future, but I will say that by making sure we get the suspension geometry right the first time, we have no need to release a new steering arm that "corrects" bump steer. During my time at CPP, I've seen other companies release up to five different revisions of steering arms claiming to revise bump steer. If the spindle was designed correctly the first time, revised steering arms would never have to be released. Just because one setup costs more than another does not mean it has a better design. These costs may come from optimized manufacturing processes, such as extra machining time and cost for a feature that does not need machining, when it can be designed into the mold from the start. This of course cannot be decided in as easy as yes or no...and as an engineer that's where we make the judgment calls; based on the forces that section of the part sees, weight/strength of material considerations, and as well as unnecessary manufacturing steps that can be simplified for cost without sacrifices in strength. All that said, bump steer is always an important part in spindle/upright design. Believe me….as an engineer, the last thing I want to do is be baking in the Southern California sun after tens of thousands of dollars have been invested into making production parts with a bump steer gauge seeing where I went wrong. We design our parts from OEM parts, and pay attention to all aspects of spindle design from the very start. Attention was paid to keeping wheel offset, EXACT ball joint and steering arm locations and as well as metric machining tolerances for the new bearing and standard dimensions for the parts that attach to your car. CPP offers a shop tour every March...there's absolutely no secret how our lengthy design process works. The only part that is reversed engineered are the original OEM parts. We need to know what GM intended to do before we go about making a spindle to replace their application with ours. People are encouraged to ask the engineers questions about anything. Believe me...I'm not going to pull dimensions of a competitor’s part when we don't even know if they're correct or not in the first place. If they're repeatedly releasing new steering arms to "correct bump steer" (and making money at the same time), it's obvious that the bump steer wasn't dealt with from the beginning. The videos are on YouTube if you cannot make it to Anaheim for the tour.

Please tell me the company or companies that you have known to release no less than 5 revisions of steering arms to correct the bumpsteer issues they introduced by designing the upright incorrectly in the first place.

I'm going to give you a quick lesson on A, F, and X body spindles that are of OEM design.
Guess what they have a TON of?
Bumpsteer!
Guess what they lack and go the wrong direction on?
Camber gain!
Guess what your upright for sure has a ton of?
Bumpsteer!
Guess how you can make it worse?
By running a more aggressive camber gain than factory and not fixing it!
Guess how you fix it?
Relocate the steering arm attachment point, or revise the drag link, or redesign a new steering arm.

So if you did not change the OEM spindle steering arm attachment points and made sure you copied the OEM spindle to the 'T' by implementing lasers, and CAD, and high tech measurements using the metric system then you for sure, undisputedly, cannot be argued against, copied the horrible bumpsteer inducing characteristics of the factory spindle right along with it.

Congrats.
You should have spent time with that bumpsteer gauge like the rest of your competition did.
You know what I see in CPP's future?
Steering arms!! Yay! Hopefully they can figure out how to fix this issue the first time, you know, in the engineering phase where you make all the hard calls.

I'd be happy to post up graphs showing you what I'm stating. I can also tell you why ATS released a steering arm for the A body to correct bumpsteer on the already 'corrected' AFX spindle. But I'd like to see if you know why we did it. It's pretty simple, but let's see what kind of knowledge you have of these platforms.

-I don't know what hub is being distributed with the kit since I was only involved in the design phase of these spindles. However, there is something interesting to consider about these bearings. A simple Google search will show that many C5 Corvette owners suffer from premature bearing failures...as early as 20,000 miles. Due to the compact design of the bearing, the forces experienced by the internals of the bearing are much stronger than those experienced on a long axle pin, where the inner and outer bearings can be spaced far apart. Remember we are talking about OEM GM parts here. We waited a very long time to release these spindles because of these issues. If I remember correctly, it was Timken who solved the sealed bearing failures with a new design (don't quote me on this). After GM adopted this new bearing design and the failures went away, we were comfortable releasing a line of spindles that were available everywhere and were easy to change without making a mess or using incorrect torque specs. If this bearing issue was never solved, this line of spindles would never have been released.

I can tell you it isn't a revised Timken, GM, Delphi, or any other quality part made here in the states. The Delphi hub that the ATS AFX spindle uses costs more to buy wholesale than your entire upright is priced for in a pair. So way to go on using an inferior Chinese hub that will probably suffer worse than the old GM design used to. But the price is right and the profit margin must be killer, so keep passing those benefits on to the uneducated end user who thinks they are getting a performance product.

I hope I answered all your questions, and again need to restate that I am no longer represent the company since I no longer work there. Just wanted you guys to know that there is a lengthy design process for every part and a reason that CPP parts bolt on without modification for a reason.

You did great. Welcome to the forum.

I apologize to GMR for sh*tting up their thread.

Tyler

[Ron.in.SoCal]

Josh, the prices you highlighted were cpp's prcing on their uprights and a generic C5 hub, like the kind you might get at the parts store.

The pricing from GMR is the cpp uprights with your choice of brake kits built around the GMR rebuildable hub. The GMR hub setup alone retails at a tick over $1,600 for the pair. Even though that sounds like a ridiculous amount of money compare that to the c6-r hubs that the cool kids run and it gets much closer price wise, if you wear out the c6-r hubs they are not rebuildable.

Sort of. GM ZR1 (31 spline, 2009 and below) are half the cost but as you said Donnie, not rebuildable. I don't know anyone that has worn one yet out on our cars, but someone will one day.

[Jay@GMR]

Here is some more info on our C5/6 Front hubs....... enjoy!

[Nicks67GTO]

Im confused right now on several things and i think it can be cleared up easily....

1. We have the AFX C5 spindle originator here and hes claiming CPP's parts are a direct ripoff. We have the engineer from CPP who is now gone from the company but designed the CPP version claiming he never touched the original part and is saying he designed from scratch.

-SOLUTION: Can anyone get their hands on both parts and go over them and make a determination? Or is this not feasible just based on appearance and measurements?

2. Ok the next one isn't meant to offend GMR or anyone involved but it has to be said....I thought this was supposed to be a budget friendly setup with the less expensive steel CPP spindles and uprights?? Now i'm seeing a $42-4600 front brake package?? That's great if you have that kind of money to spend on fronts but honestly I bet bet most car hobby guys don't. Seriously, not even close. Is there any way to make this happen for the more conservative minded hobby guy using OEM quality C5 stuff or is that just a giant waste of time/money over a traditional GMD52 11" setup? If using stock C5 parts is a good idea and will greatly outperform traditional D52 11" GM pieces, is there any way to get a good package going on those OEM style parts???

[Nicks67GTO]

Question # 2: Well it looks like you can get a complete setup for under $1K directly from CPP. I think its still worth asking if there would be a dramatic difference in braking ability between an 11" D52 style setup and the C5 CPP cheapo setup

[Jay@GMR]

im confused right now on several things and i think it can be cleared up easily....

1. We have the afx c5 spindle originator here and hes claiming cpp's parts are a direct ripoff. We have the engineer from cpp who is now gone from the company but designed the cpp version claiming he never touched the original part and is saying he designed from scratch.

-solution: Can anyone get their hands on both parts and go over them and make a determination? Or is this not feasible just based on appearance and measurements?

based on both appearance and measurements..... They are not a "knock off".

2. Ok the next one isn't meant to offend gmr or anyone involved but it has to be said....i thought this was supposed to be a budget friendly setup with the less expensive steel cpp spindles and uprights?? Now i'm seeing a $42-4600 front brake package?? That's great if you have that kind of money to spend on fronts but honestly i bet bet most car hobby guys don't. Seriously, not even close. Is there any way to make this happen for the more conservative minded hobby guy using oem quality c5 stuff or is that just a giant waste of time/money over a traditional gmd52 11" setup? If using stock c5 parts is a good idea and will greatly outperform traditional d52 11" gm pieces, is there any way to get a good package going on those oem style parts???

no offense taken. Cpp's concept is intended to be a "budget friendly" option as you will see on their site, and is a great one for folks on a budget wanting to get into the whole c5/6 craze. Gmr wanted to also show folks that you can take this budget friendly set-up to the next level if desired.

question # 2: Well it looks like you can get a complete setup for under $1k directly from cpp. I think its still worth asking if there would be a dramatic difference in braking ability between an 11" d52 style setup and the c5 cpp cheapo setup

I would have to lean toward YES. By saying no, or not sure would be like saying the C5 Corvette did not offer better braking than our classic cars. If you are truly building on a strict budget and want a C5 hub unit/brake package, then the CPP C5 complete brake kit may be your only choice.... and at the price...... kinda hard to match.

Good luck with your project, and let us know if we can help.

[raustinss]

Wow talk about a passing match...here is my two cents to throw in...Tyler you do sound very jaded with the industry which is really too bad because it's our common bond here correct ? , regardless the original design is general motors we all know that and yes you put in a extreme amount of money,time and hard work into innovating your product . I can only imagine what it must feel like to have a company such as cpp "steal" or rip off your ideas. Yes maybe you should have patented it, but let's go back to when henry Ford was building cars.....others stole his ideas....don't act like it's the first time this has happened or its the end of the world. You should be proud of your accomplishments...flattered that it's so good that others want to copy it. The gmr isn't your enemy it cpp,and if your were still in the industry you could have approached them and done a package. Someone beat you to it accept it unfortunately wishing all the best in the future and please if you've got so many great ideas let them fly. Also we Canadians are also pretty kick ass don't be afraid to look north of the 49th parallel to source manufacturers for those other ideas. Cheers Ryan

[Rick D]

Jay, Deleted!! Thanks!

[Jay@GMR]

Jay,

Just thinking here and not bashing the GMR products, but why would you build a high end part to matched with "budget" upright? I know you guys are building some cool looking stuff and seems to be high end (the reason I say seems to be) is I have not seen any testing at the track on your parts?? I think of it like this, in the collision industry most people would not take the BMW 740 to Macco to have it fixed??? Not bashing Macco they have their place in the industry, just making the comparison.

Of course Rick, when you open with "I'm not bashing" I see that.... GMR did not build a high end part to be matched with a "budget" upright (I have mentioned before but will say AGAIN, it is simply an OPTION). You do know it works on Speedtech's upright as well as the stock C5/6 Corvette as well dont you. And for the record we built this aftermarket C5/6 GMR Hub for the OEM Upright. I take it we are the BMW 740 in this story?


On the testing does GMR have any real world testing??? I see lots of postings about these parts but I never hear about you guys out at the tracks showing what you have and how it's better then what is available from other company's?

You will need to be more specific, but I assume you are speaking of the GMR Front Hubs since our rear Housings/Floater hubs ARE out at tracks? But if it is our front hubs you are referring to, we are just now starting to promote and sales are fresh. We have tested privately and assure you they have performed flawlessly. I am sorry we cannot provide you with more info but as a NEW product it does take time to get product out to the end user and for guys like you to "see it at the track". We have sold many sets and expect you will start to see more in actual use soon so please be patient.

Do you see anything marginal in what we manufacture?

With the success of our rear floater hubs would you doubt our abilities to design a simple front hub design? If I remember right our rear hub started off NEW (as all products) and not seen at the tracks as well, and keep in mind..... that was just a little over a year ago...... and now, they ARE popping up at the tracks and we are taking orders daily. So just sit tight and check back with me in a year if that is your comfort level

Again not trying to bash or put you guys down but we see weekin and week out the other company's at the events beating the holy ***** out their stuff. Again maybe I just haven't heard or know of what you guys have out there?? I've asked before on the testing info and have never been given an answer??

Again, we do have product out there, but are we ridetech, DSE, Art Morrison, etc..... not by a long shot, someday we hope to share the success these companies do and have a larger presence at the events personally. So for now I feel we are doing very well and are gaining market share..... we are here to stay and thank the folks that have chose GMR for our quality components..... even though we are NEW

Thanks for the questions as I am sure some think the same, hopefully some day we will be validated in your eyes.

Jay

[Twentyover]

.... GMR did not build a high end part to be matched with a "budget" upright (I have mentioned before but will say AGAIN, it is simply an OPTION). You do know it works on Speedtech's upright as well as the stock C5/6 Corvette as well dont you. And for the record we built this aftermarket C5/6 GMR Hub for the OEM Upright....

Jay

This is why I'm not in marketing. If I were displaying a premium hub, I would have introduced it on a compatible premium upright. By introducing it on a budget upright, I think you can see that in many minds (mine included), you've tied your hub to the budget upright. You're going to be repeating the above explanation for the next five years. Correct or not, this is the impression this introduction has left. It's like a tire company introducing a premium ultra high performance tire on a Ford Tempo.

.... With the success of our rear floater hubs would you doubt our abilities to design a simple front hub design? ....

Jay

With all due respect Jay, that comes across as one of the most arrogant statements I've heard a supplier make. I work in the automotive industry, and I know how much we test. And still, parts break, or burn up or or otherwise fail. You have the advantage of a number of designs having proceeded yours. I would assume that GMR studied existing part failures and designed out those weakness'. Corvette hub designers probably thought they had an pretty invincible hub also. Time proved otherwise.