Ride height will be adjustable via the coil-over springs, the shocks have 7" of total travel, so there will be a bunch of available ride height variations with one shock position. We have the design modelled up using various ride heights, including one existing customer who is going to have a LOW car.
Sway bar is a great question, and a good catch. We are looking into a couple different mounting configurations, one frame mounted, and the second option would be to have the bar on the axle. Either way, the end product will be adjustable, over a modest range, so it will be useful as a fine tuning tool.
The majority of the structure is mild steel, and as a result, MIG welding is the "baseline." Wherever there is a tube adapter, the welds are TIG. In addition, in the future, we will also offer as an option an ultra-light version, made predominantly out of Chro-Mo, so that one will be TIG's entirely. With the price of materials, though, you'd have to be pretty serious about wanting it, it won't be cheap (but it will be even lighter...). Price will be less than $5k, by quite a ways (less axles, differential and carrier, and brakes) for the "standard" kit.
Vin, the housings will be offered standard as a typical first gen width, meaning the wheel mounting width is right at 60". However, we can easily offer custom widths as a very modest upgrade, so if you want to go wider and not require wheel adapters for late model Corvette offset wheels, for instance, that's not a problem. Same goes for deeper dish, we can go narrower too. I will state though, when we offer stuff for the front, it will require a decent amount of positive offset, similar to late model Corvette wheels, this is the only way to get the performance we are satisfied with up front.
In terms of performance expectations, our position is that this system will outperform any commercially available rear suspension kit on the market, bar none, at any cost, period. All of the available setups, ours included, have compromises in the design, somewhere. The other products compromise the maximum performance potential in order to make other aspects of the design "easier," such as the ease of bolting on, etc. We started from the other direction, our primary consideration was performance, and the sacrifices we made to the design were those that minimally impacted that aspect, while allowing "just enough" trade off to make it a completely reasonable product for multi-purpose projects in terms of install complexity, and other factors stated previously.
If I missed anything, forgive me, I'm kind of busy! Please though, the feedback and questions are incredibly helpful, I can't tell you how much the input is appreciated.
|