Such as:
FEA and fatigue analysis that compare a stock K to the redesign before tooling.
In-house testing that was performed to make sure the new part met or exceeded the stock K-member in a variety of situations, engineering validation.
Claiming things "are better", or "were fixed" wouldn't fly in my field, we need numbers to backup most everything we do, or we didn't accomplish anything.
It always sounds like someone at XV at some point paid good money for excellent tests. Either the data was never passed down to back up the designs or they were just stuck on a rig for pretty pictures.
Goody points out a lot of valid points, most of which, dare I say all, are not available from any aftermarket K member maker and
most don't have it to share anyway because their parts were not professionally engineered.
I see many anecdotal bandwagoneers claiming "it handles like it's on rails" or, "I never had a problem with it". Both statements tell me they didn't have a problem because they wouldn't know what a problem was if it put them into the wall anyway.
You want to sell me an aftermarket K member your selling point had better be more than "it's lighter" or "more room". Neither of which is a selling point to a competently informed person looking for anything other than straight line handling a quarter mile at a time.
