[slow4dr]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

While this sounds logical.... Is it?

Wouldn't GM have likely based decisions of the 'pin' design & dimensions w/the vehicles anticipated use in mind which likely wasn't near what the current trends are (autocross specifically). Just wondering out loud here. Obviously you guys put alot of thought into what you design.

We are actually going to build the spindle and pin to be strong enough to handle anything a customer can throw at it. If a weakness presents itself during testing we will go a different route. The pin itself will be made form chromoly so strength won't be an issue. For selfish reasons I am pushing them to overengineer everything so I can be able to adapt a long travel set-up onto our crossmember.

Originally Posted by GEARBOXGARAGE

Looks like I type-o'd on the weight of a pick-up. Should of been "close to 4k" not "close to 3k". But any way, you're definitely right on the trucks being a "different monster all together" with most of the weight on the front. I not so sure if the pin size on the spindle is as big of an issue as the bearing size, but using a superior material like the Chrome-moly you mentioned is a huge plus. In theory, by incorporating a smaller I.D., or smaller pin design, with the larger O.D. allowed by the truck rotor, GM could then use a bearing with either more rollers, or larger rollers, or possibly both, increasing the weight capacity of that application. The larger/higher roller count disperses the energy more efficiently. For those that may not be familiar with the L10 Life I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a mathematical equation that can predict a 90% failure mode under specific loads. This can literally narrow it down to expected hours of in-service operation, pretty accurate stuff. A few months back, the engineering team I work with had a Lunch-N-Learn seminar with Timken Bearings and the information they shared was tremendous.

Again, kudos to you TCI, for the great development going on!

-J