Rock Krawler Suspension Open Tech Line for JK Forum Members
03-04-2018, 09:27 PM
#821
Super Moderator
Kind of odd when others have suggested to start a build thread, so you can get an audience that may be interested in following along, but instead start one in the RK tech support thread instead and try to act like it's a private discussion with RK that no one else can make responding comments. Expectations seem a bit skewed.
03-05-2018, 05:55 AM
#822
JK Super Freak
ShutterBug
According to our powder coaters among others, & I'm not speaking on Rk's behalf, but company's whom offer items for resale, do a basic or limited powder coating or painting of these products in order to save money. often it's let up to us to have these items re-coat or better treated depending on how we're going to use them.
At one point I'll admit that I was willing to have all of the RK's product re-coated by our platers. But elected not to as we're pressed for time. Based on your comment, this would be one thing we'll have to consider later on.
In other words, I'm re-coating our coils because we can & because our powder coaters will offer a better more secure coating process which Rk's may or may not offer. According to your statement, it would seem RK is offering a "basic" powder coating or paint coating on those items which you've described as having less than perfect finish.
If RK was to offer a extended warranty on their suspension system this would coat more and actually the items would or should be painted or coated more throughly. I'm not debunking the process or the company, merely doing what we wanted given that we have the capability to have our items re-coated or re-painted.
According to our powder coaters among others, & I'm not speaking on Rk's behalf, but company's whom offer items for resale, do a basic or limited powder coating or painting of these products in order to save money. often it's let up to us to have these items re-coat or better treated depending on how we're going to use them.
At one point I'll admit that I was willing to have all of the RK's product re-coated by our platers. But elected not to as we're pressed for time. Based on your comment, this would be one thing we'll have to consider later on.
In other words, I'm re-coating our coils because we can & because our powder coaters will offer a better more secure coating process which Rk's may or may not offer. According to your statement, it would seem RK is offering a "basic" powder coating or paint coating on those items which you've described as having less than perfect finish.
If RK was to offer a extended warranty on their suspension system this would coat more and actually the items would or should be painted or coated more throughly. I'm not debunking the process or the company, merely doing what we wanted given that we have the capability to have our items re-coated or re-painted.
The following users liked this post:
BoraBora (03-07-2018)
03-05-2018, 06:13 AM
#823
JK Jedi
Jeff, You're misinterpreting these comments as Metalcloak posted this warning on their site to denture customers from re-coating their coils. The only true way to clear this up, is to ask Metalcloak why this statement is on their site which suggests that
"in some cases, cause the metallurgical properties of the coils to be changed, resulting in the loss of the lift properties of the coils"
Meaning that if someone re-coated metalcloaks coils, the procedure can or could alter the structure of the coil thus causing failure down the road. The only assessment of this is that Metalclaok is using a lesser steel derivative or they would not post this warning. otherwise, why wouldn't Rk post this same warning.. essentially because RK is using a differ steel derivative which can and has withstood re-coating procedures.
"in some cases, cause the metallurgical properties of the coils to be changed, resulting in the loss of the lift properties of the coils"
Meaning that if someone re-coated metalcloaks coils, the procedure can or could alter the structure of the coil thus causing failure down the road. The only assessment of this is that Metalclaok is using a lesser steel derivative or they would not post this warning. otherwise, why wouldn't Rk post this same warning.. essentially because RK is using a differ steel derivative which can and has withstood re-coating procedures.
03-05-2018, 07:25 AM
#824
Super Moderator
Facts:
- Coils are made of Carbon steel which get heat treated to dial in the stiffness of the steel of the spring.
- When Carbon steel gets heated, the amount of Carbon content within the steel can be reduced therefore impacting the spring stiffness/rate.
- Powder coating process heats the steel of the springs
- This all falls under the science of metallurgy where powder coating facilities do not employ metallurgy scientists/engineers to know for certain if their powder coating process impacts a particular springs structural integrity or not.
- Quite a few folks on this forum have experienced sagging RK springs over the years.
- There is a direct substantiated line that can be drawn between powder coating of springs and springs sagging if a vendor chooses to do so in their warranty process, especially taking into consideration the vendor does not know the PC process each particular facility uses or has provided any kind of guidelines that a particular powder coating facilities process must adhere to, to avoid impacting the performance/warranty of their springs.
Maybe RK springs are not made of Carbon steel and they therefore have no concern of the various processes the different powder coating facilities use and therefore feel confident their springs won't be impacted and will still warranty them no questions asked if they find a warranty returned spring has been powder coated. Which as I mentioned earlier, is good to know ahead of time.
Last edited by Rednroll; 03-05-2018 at 07:32 AM.
03-05-2018, 08:02 AM
#826
JK Jedi
Jeff,
If you have a question or concern about a RockKrawler system (apparently you do because you flip flopped several times for then against the RK system) then you need to take it up with them. The point I'm making which you're deliberately avoiding to answer is why would Metalcloak add this warning to their coils when no one else has or does. Clearly this is an indication that there is something defective with Metalcloaks coils IF they are re-coated.
Again, There's only one way to clear this up and this is to actually from Metalcloak as to why they put this warning on their coils. Better yet why doesn't Metalcloak, RockKrawler etc post up the chemical compound/structure used to develop their coils. I can almost bet that Metalcloak's coil structure or failure rate (when subjected to stress testing) would be slightly higher or greater than RockKralwers.
Then add in the factor of having both sets of coils re-powder coated by the same company with the same color and testing the stress of both of these coils, 9 out of 10 times because Metalcloaks coils have been re-coated their failure rate would be 6 time greater that RockKrawlers. Simply because someone wanted to re-powder coat Metalcloaks coils thus voiding their warranty. it's safe to say that based on MetalCloaks warning, they've already tested their failure rate thus the reasoning because the warning.
If you have a question or concern about a RockKrawler system (apparently you do because you flip flopped several times for then against the RK system) then you need to take it up with them. The point I'm making which you're deliberately avoiding to answer is why would Metalcloak add this warning to their coils when no one else has or does. Clearly this is an indication that there is something defective with Metalcloaks coils IF they are re-coated.
Again, There's only one way to clear this up and this is to actually from Metalcloak as to why they put this warning on their coils. Better yet why doesn't Metalcloak, RockKrawler etc post up the chemical compound/structure used to develop their coils. I can almost bet that Metalcloak's coil structure or failure rate (when subjected to stress testing) would be slightly higher or greater than RockKralwers.
Then add in the factor of having both sets of coils re-powder coated by the same company with the same color and testing the stress of both of these coils, 9 out of 10 times because Metalcloaks coils have been re-coated their failure rate would be 6 time greater that RockKrawlers. Simply because someone wanted to re-powder coat Metalcloaks coils thus voiding their warranty. it's safe to say that based on MetalCloaks warning, they've already tested their failure rate thus the reasoning because the warning.
03-05-2018, 09:07 AM
#827
Super Moderator
"in some cases, cause the metallurgical properties of the coils to be changed, resulting in the loss of the lift properties of the coils"
Meaning that if someone re-coated metalcloaks coils, the procedure can or could alter the structure of the coil thus causing failure down the road. The only assessment of this is that Metalclaok is using a lesser steel derivative or they would not post this warning. otherwise, why wouldn't Rk post this same warning.. essentially because RK is using a differ steel derivative which can and has withstood re-coating procedures.
Let me enlighten you with a few others.
- MC Employs Engineers that are knowledgeable of the metallurgy design aspects of spring design and its steel manufacturing process and have identified the "risk" associated with how any additional heat applications such as powder coating could have an impact on the structural integrity of the spring.
- Since they've identified the associated "risk", they rather not have their engineers wasting time on warranty analysis of a spring in an effort to improve their products, only to find out the root cause failure was caused by a process that is out of their control and can't improve upon.
- MC's engineers may have conducted studies and have determined that "some" powder coating processes can have an impact on the structural integrity of the spring's steel properties and is therefore advising their customers against it. Since when is making your customers aware of a potential risk a bad thing?
If anything, my take away is very different than yours in that to me it shows MetalCloak employs very knowledgeable engineers who are aware of the risks, where that knowledge shows in the great quality of the products they sell. As well, they are sharing that knowledge and making their customers aware of the potential associated risk. I'm pretty certain if you're a RK fanboy and tend to see things through rose colored glasses, with horse blinders on, then you may tend to interpret these things very differently.
My assessment for the reason RK may not have identified this as a potential problem is because they may not have knowledgeable enough engineers on staff that have even realized the potential risk which can also be seen in the quality of RK products. Problems like their common poor powder coating processes shipping out their door to customers, resulting in rusted suspension parts that now look like sh*t after a year in service and following that up by telling their customers the rust is "normal". Their joints that rust, seize up and break because the customer didn't lube them on a weekly basis with some special lube because they're not wise enough to design a joint which doesn't require regular maintenance with special lubricants or their coils they keep sending out which randomly sag because they likely source them from a supplier that has no control of their metallurgy manufacturing or powder coating process. Their adjustable arms where the adjustment is rusted shut and can no longer be adjusted due to their piss poor powder coating, or even worse no rust protective coatings applied and then they tell you in return someone didn't apply enough anti-seize during install which they didn't include with the arms for the installation. Seems to be the RK way, make a piss poor design part and then point to the customer because the customer didn't do some type of special maintenance, or install procedure which are needed to compensate for their piss poor designs which don't account for the fact that people who live in high rust susceptible climates may need some reliable rust protection applied to these suspension parts to prevent them from rusting and seizing up over time. If you don't have enough insight to design suspension parts with adequate rust protection on them, then I sure as hell am not going to give them any credit that they have any kind of insight that heating carbon steel can have an impact on the structural integrity of their springs as well.
The FACT of the matter is that your interpretation is NOT the "only" assessment.
Last edited by Rednroll; 03-06-2018 at 05:15 AM.
03-06-2018, 07:35 AM
#828
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Switching gears ....
@Rock Krawler Suspension - I have a 3.5" X-Factor kit on my 2-door - I drove it through the last 4 winters, and even though I made an attempt at maintaining the joints, they are rusty as all get out. I tried to get under there and spray with with WD-40 at least 3 or 4 times a winter, but they are really bad. Especially the rear uppers.
I don't quite remember what size the joints are. Provided I can get the arms off and the joints out, what are the part numbers for the replacement joints? I might look at trying to swap out new joints before I decide if I'm just going to replace the lift.
BTW, it's not just the joints. The springs and arms peeled and rusted a couple years ago. Even the track bars have not held up very well, cosmetically. But now that the JK is no longer a daily, I want to get it cleaned of any major rust and keep it that way.
@Rock Krawler Suspension - I have a 3.5" X-Factor kit on my 2-door - I drove it through the last 4 winters, and even though I made an attempt at maintaining the joints, they are rusty as all get out. I tried to get under there and spray with with WD-40 at least 3 or 4 times a winter, but they are really bad. Especially the rear uppers.
I don't quite remember what size the joints are. Provided I can get the arms off and the joints out, what are the part numbers for the replacement joints? I might look at trying to swap out new joints before I decide if I'm just going to replace the lift.
BTW, it's not just the joints. The springs and arms peeled and rusted a couple years ago. Even the track bars have not held up very well, cosmetically. But now that the JK is no longer a daily, I want to get it cleaned of any major rust and keep it that way.
In 2017, we updated all of our PC'ing equipment to top of the line Wagner sprayers and we reevaluated all of our processes and cook times. Our current powder is much more durable. Give me a call at the shop and we can get you squared away.
Adam C
518-270-9822
Edit: can we stop worrying about who powder coats their springs what color? You guys are killing a thread over a disclaimer from another manufacturer which has nothing to do with RK. We have stated our piece here, lets get back to helping people and creating a better community.
Last edited by Rock Krawler Suspension; 03-06-2018 at 07:42 AM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Rock Krawler Suspension:
ShutterBug (03-06-2018),
TrailBadger (03-06-2018)
03-06-2018, 07:39 AM
#829
JK Jedi
The coils we had on that JKU install had a terrible coating on it. Very brittle that chipped with the coil simply falling over. Unless this was a left over from your old process you need to go back to the drawing board. Finish on the arms was not much better in terms of good smooth finish. They had lots of dust contamination in the powder coat.
03-06-2018, 09:02 AM
#830
JK Newbie
Join Date: May 2012
Location: New Iberia, La.
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you @TrailBadger, you just made my day.
Don't let these folks push you around, even Rock Krawler...................in their own thread.
You're famous man!
Don't let these folks push you around, even Rock Krawler...................in their own thread.
You're famous man!