Before they had there's, XV had their own system, ours works a little bit better....
Do you have some data or competitive testing to draw that conclusion?
I did look at XV before ordering the US Car Tool parts. The pricing was close, but XV didn't offer [at least from what I saw] the torque box set, which I need. I had to make one order and pay shipping from one vendor.
The engine bay brace is a nice piece, but I will be building my own for my car.
I thought everybody knew???
As a matter of fact, I believe the XV products were the only ones tested in this manner???
I would have to drag out the data, I have it somewhere, but here's a picture of the chassis stiffness being tested. They found they didn't need the torque boxes, the system met their criteria...
There's a video somewhere of the testing, they showed a before with a "X" of tape across the engine bay and you could see the tape go slack when the body was twisted, and after, only a slight bit...
Nice picture.
I was a bit more interested in how you concluded kit XV's was better than the US Car Tool...and now also how it was concluded torque boxes "aren't needed" on a leaf-sprung application.
As a fellow engineer, you know we like to see data, test constraints, targets, etc, more than talk. Not that you must to provide it or anything, but it would be nice to see what is driving your claims.
Sure the US Car Tool video isn't the highest of caliber, but it does show their point in laymen's terms very well. A simple table of results in foot-lbs per degree/torsional stiffness as they added stiffening components and various weights would be easy enough to show which components did what for the car.
