Dropmember Competition ?? Have you guys seen this yet?

[edflores]

you have to do a simple mod to mount the bag. you would have to do that anyways to put bags on a stock setup. c4 stuff? i dunno. i never looked into that so you maybe right.

[rotgg]

fat man also narrows track by 2 inches does that sound familiar

[rayray1180]

It is a good peice and I still think that, but I think that suicide doors improved the piece. It's a paperweight because I have no need for two. I only have one truck. I wish I would have been able to contact Nate instead of KP and then I might not have had to go to sucide doors for their assistance.

[edflores]

Originally Posted by rayray1180

It is a good peice and I still think that, but I think that suicide doors improved the piece. It's a paperweight because I have no need for two. I only have one truck. I wish I would have been able to contact Nate instead of KP and then I might not have had to go to sucide doors for their assistance.

what year dropmember do you have? i might want it

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by rotgg

why is nobody on Nathans case about ripping off the products he got his idea from fatman, scotts hot rod,flat out engineering,jim meyer racing products,no limit engineering,jpl,heidt's,.......

fat man also narrows track by 2 inches does that sound familiar

The difference is Fatman, Scotts, No-Limit, & Heidt's are mustang II based crossmembers. They require MII specific arms, springs, shocks, spindles, & brakes (the Jim Meyer stuff is a twist of the MII that uses f-body GM stuff but it won't swap either). None of those 'kits' will allow you to use your existing GM truck a-arms, bags, shocks, & brakes...... the Dropmember does. The stock GM truck a-arms work w/minor clearancing.

Flat Out Engineering is Vette based & does not bolt-in. Although a couple of the kits mentioned do bolt-in to a GM truck chassis, none of those kits is built to raise the a-arm pivot points like when 'Z-ing' the frame.

The track width being narrowed is a result of the R&P dimensions. If you use a narrow rack, you get a narrowed track width vs. a stock GM truck (no top secrets stolen there).

Give me a reason to get on Nathans case & I won't have any issue w/it. Just ask him how I feel about the heims on the tie-rod ends..... .

[rotgg]

the fat man kit allows stock lower arms and i am sure if you mod the uppers they would work as well

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by rayray1180

It is a good peice and I still think that, but I think that suicide doors improved the piece. It's a paperweight because I have no need for two. I only have one truck. I wish I would have been able to contact Nate instead of KP and then I might not have had to go to sucide doors for their assistance.

If you don't mind I'm curious to know......

What prevented you from contacting Nathan?
What do you feel was improved upon when SD re-engineered the part?

I did call Nate to clarify one measurement in the instructions to ensure I was measuring from the correct place. Other than that, I installed mine in my driveway w/o issue. What exactly went wrong w/your install?

How do you feel about KP Components?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by rotgg

the fat man kit allows stock lower arms and i am sure if you mod the uppers they would work as well

News to me. Do you have a link w/info to this kit? I know they offer a kit that uses stock MII arms as well as tubular MII arms.

[rotgg]

because something is news to you doesn't mean it is news the fatman also raises the a arms like the drop member

[rotgg]

yes i think you are correct about the stock mustang arms and not stock truck arms

[Frizzle Fry]

I'll tell you what I would consider improvements over the DM.

1) Not having to move the engine. i.e. no need to mod driveshaft or firewall/tunnel.

2) can't think of a #2...

Now, is it possible to incorporate that much drop into it while gaining so much ground clearance and keep the engine in the stock position? I'm thinkin if it were Nate would have made it happen. But, nonetheless, that's my very short "wish list" for the DM.

As far as products being copied, we all know it's bound to happen, but don't feel sorry for PB. He's in the best position to be in: Leading the way! I have no doubt he'll maintain the innovative edge.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by rotgg

because something is news to you doesn't mean it is news

The 'news to me' comment wasn't personal. I stated it was 'news to me' because I research alot of this stuff pretty thoroughly before I open my mouth (or spend my $$). In my surfing, I've never seen a Fatmans (or any manufacturer for that matter), MII, bolt-in kit, that uses GM truck arms.

yes i think you are correct about the stock mustang arms and not stock truck arms

So apparently I'm correct?

the fatman also raises the a arms like the drop member

Yes, Fatmans moves the a-arms up, but not as high as the Dropmember. I know this because a friend installed one of these bolt-in kits & then had to cut it up to get it close to where the DM would be as installed. Even then, the DM as installed offers more ground clearance.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Frizzle Fry

As far as products being copied, we all know it's bound to happen, but don't feel sorry for PB. He's in the best position to be in: Leading the way! I have no doubt he'll maintain the innovative edge.

x2!

[C3500]

this **** is getting deep!

[rotgg]

does nate have a patent number for his product

[jimmydean]

Nate, you are a class act and I for one look forward to running the dropmember in my truck when the time comes.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by edflores

i asked. and now i asked again. jason probably doesnt want to give out to much info until hes going into production.
and i made a mistake with the walmart analogy. i was refering the the volume, not the bad rep

Why would SD/Jason not want to freely give out the info? Is he worried some one might build an improved version that's similar to his .
After all.... business is business in America .

[edflores]

like i said, im not him so i dunno. i hear them over on the other forum talking about certain sections being made in a brake rather than welded together. and it may just be a prototype. the production one might be different. i know he did a lot of work before he finally released his 5 link backhalf. maybe hes still tinkering.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by edflores

like i said, im not him so i dunno. i hear them over on the other forum talking about certain sections being made in a brake rather than welded together. and it may just be a prototype. the production one might be different. i know he did a lot of work before he finally released his 5 link backhalf. maybe hes still tinkering.

I wasn't asking you directly..... just asking out loud for anyone w/the info.
It's not worth registering on that other forum just to ask questions that the 'regulars' from the site will flame me about. I noticed you're registered there so maybe they'll answer you.

[C3500]

How does someone get 6,506 posts? maybe by asking stupid question out load?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by C3500

How does someone get 6,506 posts? maybe by asking stupid question out load?

What makes a legitimate question stupid? The 6500+ posts are from sharing info, experience, & asking for it when in doubt.

What's your issue w/me?

[PBFAB.COM]

Originally Posted by rotgg

fat man is bolt in for 60-87 trucks and had one for a long time before nate did sorry to bust your bubble on that and on the using truck arms thing unless i have missed something you cant use the stock arms unless u mod them and the hole point of the drop member is that you want a bolt in product also ask nate about flat out engineerings C4 C5 stuff the fat man also uses stock lower arms

There are two main characteristics about the Dropmember that made it "innovative".

The first, and lesser, is the fact that it utilizes C-10 control arms, spindles, and brakes, while incorporating a rack and pinion steering gear on a bolt-in crossmember section. The FIRST to do so. And yes, you can use factory arms with the Dropmember.

The second, and most important, is the revised suspension geometry. The C-10's factory suspension geometry was far from being optimum, and once significantly lowered, was far from desireable. The geometry designed into the Dropmember cured all the traditional problems associated with the factory geometry.

The physical appearance of the crossmember really doesn't mean squat. It's where all the pivot points of the suspension and steering are located in relation to eachother.

And in regards to the C4, C5 stuff... please don't get me started! Anybody can take a factory C4 cradle and build a jig off it. Trouble is, is that the factory C4/C5 geometry was designed for a vehicle with a different trac-width, wheel-base, center-of-gravity, and GVW. It takes a lot more work to optimize the geometry while maintaining factory parts.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by C3500

How does someone get 6,506 posts? maybe by asking stupid question out load?

why do you have a lingerie link as your signature ...

[rotgg]

so how many patents do you have for this "innovative" product

[Kontrol Phreaks]

Nicely said Nate.