But I have never seen any kind of declaration/restriction from M7 about its use. That would indicate to me that the part was designed to such a degree that it would perform better than the stock piece.

What about a 300hp car could possible cause this? The tires would loose grip way before any substantial/damage causing torque could have been applied. It looks like it failed in a fairly linear fashion across the part. Not from a twisting force.

 

Did you have any failures on the twinscrew development vehicle?

 

We never got the project off the drawing board.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

In a normal situation you would have some interesting points however the facts in this particular case make what you ask impossible to achieve. To give you a brief history as I know it. Peter was on the receiving end of this and I am just trying to replay it from memory but I think I have the facts straight.

1/ We receive a email earlier this week from the customer stating that his arms broke and he wants us to replace them as well as pay for all related costs and the labor to replace said items . We check our records and the parts are WELL out of the warranty period and we inform the customer of this .

2/ He threatens with a law suit

With the way things are going I do not think we will be getting a chance to examine anything must less get a straight story as to what REALLY happened when the failure occurred. All I can say is that with future sales of this product all parties will be well informed of the intended use and possible dangers. We are just using the lessons learned in this situation to insure better things down the road. Thanks for the interest.

randy
m7 Tuning

 

Do you know what wheel hop is? You need to think REALLY hard about the forces that our suspension faces before generalizing.

First of all, the driveshaft, being as how there is power conveyed along it, does see lots of torque, BUT, it's a relatively narrow piece, which is hinged to allow movement of the wheel. It also has some 'relief' from the twisting of engine torque, since, once the torque is higher than the gripping potential of your tire, the tire breaks free and the shaft is no longer seeing lots of net torque. The torsional/torque forces are also minimized by making the driveshaft thin and stiff, hence low rotating moment and minimized torsional stress per given torque. Either way, just because it doesn't fail in a twin charge situation doesn't mean that MINI would offer any resolution if it snapped. The same goes for an aftermarket manufacturer.

BUT, yes, we're talking about a suspension piece, and you've gotta look over your conception again. There are some very tough forces on A-arm suspension components.


1) Wheel hop [with a poorly balanced wheel- when the wheel 'hops' due to the imbalance] can place lots of recurrent, oscillating force on a suspension piece, leading to premature failure. A similar effect is seen when you break a tire loose [your tire has tendency to hop periodically when beginning to burn out, due to the oscillatory nature of internal combustion engine's power strokes].

2) Torque force! OK, the wheel is held to the body, in the front, by a McPherson strut A-arm assembly. This 'A' arm holds the wheel steady in a front to back axis by its two connection points [the bottom of the 'A']. NOW, if you apply force to the wheel, the torque applied to the A Arm will have a tendency to try to bend the arm. Think of it like a stick with a chain and ball attached. Swing the ball forward and it will curve its path because of the force of the string holding it. Now, in a stock MCS, the part is made to hold stock power levels. But, if you apply some ridiculous forces to your front wheels and, say, apply your parking brake, as is often done when doing burn outs in drag racing [and as the owner of this piece was known to do, albeit quite poorly], your A-arm sees a TON of torque around its anchor points. It is wider than the driveshaft, and its rotational torque cannot be dissipated whatsoever when the wheel turns, unlike the relief provided to the driveshart when the wheel turns.

Literally, with a badly balanced tire and/or an improperly stressed condition, you can do severe damage to your suspension. When you add more torque [ie, twin charge], you risk failure due to these same stresses on a larger scale. Heck, with the added torque, you're more likely to break your tire loose and encounter wheel hop. Any suspension component is designed to deal with the realistic stresses of its application, with some extra safety engineered in. You can't expect every piece to be useful for every application. Again, do you think that MINI would have any liability whatsoever if this car owner had a stock part fail?

 

I hear ya'. In this case determining exactly what led to the failure is unlikely.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the M7 piece is no good. For all we know the part failed due to metal fatigue or something like that. Or, maybe the application was (as you said) just outside the design parameters of the part.

However, testing the strength and torsional rigitidity of both the M7 control arms and OEM control arms would go a long way to putting the matter to rest. The M7 pieces are either stronger, weaker or essentially the same in that regard. Clearly they're lighter, but as this thread brings to light, that's not the only consideration.

 

I will have to either have Peter jump in on this or check with Steen to get their toughts as this item was developed before my time as it were. Lets just say that those questions will be answered before another set is built. Hopefully this can put some thoughts of future problems to rest. If the customer and we are not satisfied with the answer it doesn't get built. Fair enough?
Randy
m7 Tuning

 

Fair enough. Maybe it's not that different than a lightweight wheel that offers better performance but less durability than a heavier OEM wheel.

 

I dont know if this was ever fully explained on NAM but didnt Peter claim some sort of suspension failure when he drove off the road and hit a life saving guard rail during a canyon run and then called that guy out on the track and then lost? Was the failure similar to what is pictured earlier in this thread?

Link

 

making any sort of car part lighter-weight is always going to involve changing the strength and toughness of the part and therefore the making ought to include some design engineering which would indicate appropriate stress levels. In my biz, the engineers usually pick a factor of five safety margin. In other words, if my stair is engineer approved to support ten 200lb people, they spec the steel and constrcution so it would still not fail with fifty 200 lb-ers on it.
Given that the mini cotrol arm is so critical and a failure could involve a fatality, no doubt BMW-Mini did such tests on the stocker. The fact that a few rear control arms have pooped out shows that even high-tech German engineering is subject to improvement.
With regard to the liability of Mini, should the stock componenet fail, what would you consider a safe structural limit in hp/torque increase? 50%, 100%? how much safety factor do you think they add in for unusual stress conditions, like emergency collision avoidance, for example? I would think those stresses would exceed loads from extra wheel hop, for example.
Seems like a risky benefit to go aftermarket in this context.

 

How was the customer informed? According to him, he has sent numerous emails, none of which have received a response.

 

So that's it? Lessons learned? On with business? What about what could have happened? Granted it didnt. What about others out there with these control arms?
Are they aware of this situation? Or is an accident going to happen before they are aware of it?
You told him they where out of warranty and that was that? Was the situation of his control arms breaking for whatever reason just going to drop? How can one expect to investigate a broken product when they wont even help the owner of that broken product? When you told him they were out of warranty, in his eyes, he just hit a brick wall.
This is a very serious matter. Luckily nothing happened, this time.
People file lawsuits and get Millions for far less.
It just doesnt seem like initiative is being taken here. Sad really, I would have thought something more would come out of this.

 

..... Unless I missed it....... IMO there is NO (18 years) warranty time limit on parts that if failure occcurs endanger lives ......(because of a mis calculation of safety factors in design.....) The old law for airplane parts should be the standard.... you may want to look it up......everything mechanical on an airplane has serious safety implications. This is not an intake etc...... You go to a concert and the chain motor that holds the speaker cluster gives way I think warranty would be a pretty slim defnse.

I have not read the whole thread but just the last few posts so maybe I missed a critical point here but I can't imagine what that would be

 

what about TI and AL on bikes, motorcycles, airplanes etc....... Moskito probably could add something to this as his life revolves around producing bikes made out of both and failure while descending at 50 mph on a bike made out of AL or TI would be a problem..... I don't know the answer...just asking the question?

 

[QUOTE=macncheese]I dont know if this was ever fully explained on NAM but didnt Peter claim some sort of suspension failure when he drove off the road and hit a life saving guard rail during a canyon run and then called that guy out on the track and then lost? Was the failure similar to what is pictured earlier in this thread?

That was a drop link which snapped .This was discussed to no end on NAM atthe time. The worst part of that incident was that the shock shaft became slightly bent which went un noticed at the time and caused problems at the track for the Subie event. The lower control arms were not a factor nor did they incur any damage.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

why doesn't m7 and andy go at it in the boxing ring. Seems like a match of we are all dying to see. come on, pay-per-view event.

 

I still cant see a front wheel drive Mini even with lsd with dsc off wheel hopping so violently on a regular basis,that it would twist an a arm to failure.Nor can I see any Mini driver with a slightly out of balance wheel causing this.My point is simple,if you supply a light weight a arm for the high performance market,do you design it for the stock hp output or do you make the reasonable assumption that its intended use is with a car with mods .The extent of the mods would be the only question.The big problem here is not ignoring the customer to the point he threatens you with a lawsuit.Again I am in business in a non related field but let me tell you when there is an equipment failure there is a big bang and people get hurt.If we experience equipmentment failure that causes a dangerous condition we immediatly try to metigate the situation,because if we dont we got two levels of govt on our ***.The supplier should have met with customer,replaced part with a different or stock part and worked with the mfg to identify the problem.This is definitly the cheapest way and keeps the customer on your side.Any other solution just begs getting sued,and getting sued costs every one a lot of money.

 

I was considering M7's progressive rate springs for my MCS, but now I've gotta wonder. I've already been burned with quality issues by another manufacturer (Alta) who took a similar tack with their "customer service"... not looking to go there again.

Dan

 

Do a little more research before you say such things.

Your logic makes little sense. You think the quality of things that M7 makes is "inadequate". M7 has their springs made by a company...this company does not make lower control arms. So how do you think that the accident related to the control arm would deal with the quality of the springs? The company they get their springs from make springs for thousands of cars(mostly imports)...and i have never read any problem about them.

Please before you make posts like that, be informed. The information is out there, and if you want to help the community, you wont post opinionated things without having knowledge about the issues first.

 

(in response to Pooch1's last post) ...


But there is a big difference in using a part for its exact intended use and with putting a part on heavily modified cars that are subject to a different person behind the wheel of each. If you look at the manufacturers warranty on just about any product in your home, it will have a time limit and it will also include some sort of verbage that states that it is only warrantied for intended use and they are not responsible for user error. This is something that smaller companies have to learn to include with their products and have to be sure to clearly state. It's all a learning process.


I see that this thread was made over 2 years ago, was there even a 300+ HP MINI in existence then? I bought my first MINI in mid-2004 so I do not remember. When you literally double the HP on a car, you are changing the dynamics and most of all, it all depends on who and how the car is driven.

I'm not saying that this is the fault of the driver, I have absolutely no way of knowing this but just that there are so many variables that go into the condition of a part on your car. If a part snapped on my car, I'd be very shocked but if a part snapped on the cars beloning to some people I know, I'd be glad the part put up such a good fight for its life.

I think the key to moving forward on a situation like this is to learn from it and in those little instruction booklets that come with every part, be sure there is a statment as to what the intended use of the part should be. I would hope that these parts were engineered for modded cars, that's just a given but modded to what point? Every small company has to learn lessons and the integrity and potential success of a company can be gauged by how quickly they learn and implement these changes. Some simple wording in the warranty such as "The manufacturers limited warranty of this part included part failure that is not the fault of the driver when used under normal conditions (define normal conditions). This part is intended for reasonably modified vehicles by use of commonly available after market parts. If you car has been specially modified or will be used in extreme conditions outside of daily driving or basic track use, please consult the maufacter and always, modify safely." Of course, I am nothing close to a lawyer but that's a good place to start.

I am aware that we are all a bunch of enthusiasts and our cars mean to world to us, but think in the terms of other products you have in your house or even the warranty that comes with your car. They all have time limits and they all have rules. Once my odometer passes 50,000 miles, I do not for a minute think that MINI will just replace a part on my car for free if it breaks. Or if my toaster stops working in a couple of years, I do not expect it to be replaced. Of course, parts should be built to long outlast their warranty but manufacturers have to limit to protect themselves. Of course, there are always exceptions when something crazy happens and I am certain that if this is the case, M7 will do the right thing and take care of it how it should be.

I'm not saying that parts are never made wrong and breaking is never their fault, just that a definition must be established and these things need to be made clear. I am sure that M7 and other companies following issues like this will learn and be sure to do this from now on. It's just common sense to me that if I double the HP on my car, most parts are not going to hold up so well, but in a legal sense this must be made clear ot the public.

 

Ok so here is excactly the progression how this went down last week....

I get a call last week from a local tuner, we discuss various issues and before I hang up the phone he says "by the way jan's front control arm failed" really I said why have I not heard word one about it?

The same afternoon I get an angry email from jan stating that I have not responded to his emails????????????? I had no idea what he was talking about.
So this is what happened, Jan sent out emails saying JB DSC1000345 which is
an attached image in an email, I opened the email (no message in the first email I opened up) at this point I trashed all of the files, as virouses are not worth the risk....simple as that, I did not delay the inevitable.

As for the arms, none broke other the once we used in racing or for testing.
we even added gusseting to add extra strength to the arms.

As for customer service, I think we are better then most, we always answer the phones, we always call back when people leave messages and if there's a problem we always ship replacement parts even before we receive the original
part back, a lot of companys would not do that as they are worried they going to get ripped of.

As for the part it self snapping like a twigg.......it would take some serious
forces, like 300+ hp and dragrace starts with axle tramp etc to accomplish this. Bottom line when Steen chassis designed the arms for us the intent was
an arm that could handle approx 200hp and about 180Ft-lb of tourqe no one was even considering 300+hp not even Jan. Steve's Auto clinic installed the arms and some other goddies to take Jan's stock car and possibly accheive
180-190 hp. At those power level;s the arms are safe but he has now basicaly doubbled Hp and tourqe adding that much more stress on components like the arms. Jan's car is for all intents and purpose ilegal for use
on the roads here in California.

At this time there's only 4 sets of these arms on cars around the country, it was never intended to be an everymans part
as they are expensive and really intended for a track driven car, or for someone who needed the best possible driving dynamics
with his MINI.

Peter

 

We must again thank Andy for turning a new part introduction/Q & A into something negative toward m7. Andy, just chill man. It's like you just sit and wait for m7 to put something new on the table so you can dig up the dirt. But at the same time I don't see any new threads from your company about anything new for the MINI. At least the guys at m7 are actually doing something constructive with their time, until you catch up with parts of your own, you should just chill.

 

Just a question for those more informed......the control arm doesn't look like it sustained a "twist" failure. I have seen suspension members after a "twist" failure on other (older muscle cars) and this doesn't look like one. It looks more like a material failure. Anyone able to shed some light on this?

 

Why does it look like a material failure to you? That might help them shed the light a bit better

 

The critical issue here is SAFETY. IMO, when M7 was informed/learned of the problem, they should have taken a pro-active role and done everything in their power to find out why the breakage occurred. Even if the particular consumer was angry or hostile, M7 needed to be persistant in their investigation of the problem. This they have failed to do...

The people at M7 are very familiar with the car that was involved in this most unfortunate incident. Yes, the control arms were sold and installed when the car had fewer modifications. In fact, M7 supplied many of the parts for that car. M7 is thoroughly familiar with the history of the car, including the twin-charging.

If the position of M7 is that the control arms weren't designed for these very high powered cars, and with the knowledge that they had of the particular car, why didn't M7 advise the owner of the car that the control arms in his car could be problematic? IMO, M7 had a responsibility to warn the customer. Even if M7 didn't want to deal directly with that person, they should have put out a cautionary notice, e.g., on this and other Mini-related forums. That they didn't pursue such a course of action suggests a serious abrogation of their responsibility as a safety conscious manufacturer.