Design questions round 2... DING!.


Will there be any provision for altering ride height via shock mounts? Weather your running coilovers or bags this would be a huge benefit.

Where will you incorporate sway bar mounts? Obviously it will have to use something like a competition splined bar that is chassi mounted.

Now it's pretty clear this is going to be a pretty high end setup. What advantages does it have over an IRS setup?

So I wont be able to run the brakes that I purchased for my 10 bolt on this rear? Welding on the axle flange woldn't work? Thanks

If you specify that you need GM bolt flange. Vin

Ah, I kind of wish you wouldn't have told me that. I am losing reasons to tell myself why I shouldn't spend money on this! I can't use my back seat anyways, my brakes will work, and I have found a buyer for the suspension pieces I currently have... looks like I may be placing an order soon lol

vince...i called griggs because they have a rep for products that WORK, i probably did catch em on a bad day, i had some questions, and whoever i talked to said they would find out and call me back, well after a week or so, i called them back to find out if they got any answers...and was talked to as i was an inconveinence to whatever they were doin..... still didnt get any answers.... so regardless of how good the products perform...i would not purchase anything from them.

sooooooooo now i will wait for the lateral dynamics crew to do their thing, as soon as they finish up all this camaro stuff..... i have a mustang patiently waiting.

if you guys need an R&D mule.... im more than happy to "donate" my time, shop space, and labor for workin out the details on the mustang set-up

Thats an awful lot of welds. Are they mig or tig? Does this thing have a finish, or do I have to paint it?

Do you have a general range on price? More than 5000, less than 5000?

Seems like a pretty trick piece. What is your heritage, racing or the Big 3?

Ride height will be adjustable via the coil-over springs, the shocks have 7" of total travel, so there will be a bunch of available ride height variations with one shock position. We have the design modelled up using various ride heights, including one existing customer who is going to have a LOW car.

Sway bar is a great question, and a good catch. We are looking into a couple different mounting configurations, one frame mounted, and the second option would be to have the bar on the axle. Either way, the end product will be adjustable, over a modest range, so it will be useful as a fine tuning tool.

The majority of the structure is mild steel, and as a result, MIG welding is the "baseline." Wherever there is a tube adapter, the welds are TIG. In addition, in the future, we will also offer as an option an ultra-light version, made predominantly out of Chro-Mo, so that one will be TIG's entirely. With the price of materials, though, you'd have to be pretty serious about wanting it, it won't be cheap (but it will be even lighter...). Price will be less than $5k, by quite a ways (less axles, differential and carrier, and brakes) for the "standard" kit.

Vin, the housings will be offered standard as a typical first gen width, meaning the wheel mounting width is right at 60". However, we can easily offer custom widths as a very modest upgrade, so if you want to go wider and not require wheel adapters for late model Corvette offset wheels, for instance, that's not a problem. Same goes for deeper dish, we can go narrower too. I will state though, when we offer stuff for the front, it will require a decent amount of positive offset, similar to late model Corvette wheels, this is the only way to get the performance we are satisfied with up front.

In terms of performance expectations, our position is that this system will outperform any commercially available rear suspension kit on the market, bar none, at any cost, period. All of the available setups, ours included, have compromises in the design, somewhere. The other products compromise the maximum performance potential in order to make other aspects of the design "easier," such as the ease of bolting on, etc. We started from the other direction, our primary consideration was performance, and the sacrifices we made to the design were those that minimally impacted that aspect, while allowing "just enough" trade off to make it a completely reasonable product for multi-purpose projects in terms of install complexity, and other factors stated previously.

If I missed anything, forgive me, I'm kind of busy! Please though, the feedback and questions are incredibly helpful, I can't tell you how much the input is appreciated.

Would you mind explaining this one a bit more... Reason I ask is that from my experience it's not a great idea to do drastic ride height adjustment with spring preload. It changes the spring rate quite a bit and can cause overly harsh suspension charasteristics. Would it be done with different length springs, spring rates, progressive winds?

I would personally work towards mounting it on the frame one way or another. One of the main benefits of this system is reducing unsprung weight, no need to plop another 30lbs of steel rod on it. Yes it will be a little more involved for the installer but really, anyone considering this should be able to handle a swaybar install.


Sounds like your guys have a well thought out system here that should be easily adaptable for many different setups. You might look into a universal brake adaptor that would mount to the standard C5 flange. I'm thinking something that would be a basic rough design, that you would drill/tap for different configurations. Would be pretty simple to make something that could incorporate the standard radial mount caliper spreads (4-5.5") and in heights that would allow people to run from 12.5-15" rotors. I know personally if my only concern with changing brakes was to buy a $150 caliper adaptor it would make my decision on the whole setup a lot easier.
Nice to see someone finally thinking out the front suspension pieces so we can all run very wide wheels and not have an insaine scrub radius. :hail:

Without looking over the drawing and structural analysis I don't know for sure but there is one thing that jumps out at me. The front crossmember that locates the links. The low location looks great but the upper mount seems as though it could use some diagonal braces to combat rotational torque. My concern is that with a high torque motor launching hard on sticky tires it may twist the upper section of the cross member.

But all in all it looks great, can't wait to see one setup in person. Now just PM me the address where I can mail my consulting bill :P

Awesome work! Very sexy setup. I am quite interested in how it will Outperform all the others? Track? 1/4 mile? Street?

Is it a true statement to say that this setup is geared more for corners/track use? Or is it a good compromise for all around street/track/strip use?

How would you rank this setup in terms of street/track/strip?

Trev

brakes
 

The nice thing about a C5 flange and axle off set is the variety of brake choices. Now instead of having to make a brake adapter you just run a C5 backing plate/park brake and caliper mount. That alone opens the door for Stock C5,C6 Zo6,Wilwood,Brembos,Precision,Mov-it and Baer+ kits. Vin

We agree, in fact, one of the biggest things we looked at was the expected ride height variation with the system. This is the primary drive for the relatively long shock travel, actually it is pretty typical, but "well" thought out. If you go to one extreme or another, it "may" necessitate a different free height spring. For certain, and this is not exclusive to our setup, but the lower you make things, the stiffer the spring you'll need to keep the booty end of the car off of the bump stops. Less travel means higher wheel rate for a given chassis. Nice thing about springs, they are COMPLETELY linear in rate, no matte how much you preload them, f = kx, nature helps here. This applies to linearly wound springs, only. Of course, when they get into coil bind, the rate changes pretty dramatically.

Completely agree, the "good" thing is that the rear roll resistance required is not that large, a really small tubular bar is basically all that will be needed, so it'll be light one way or the other, it is really more a fine tuning tool than anything. Frame mount (like the Watt's...) is preferred, but if it sits on the axle, it won't be terribly heavy and a subsequent addition to unsprung weight.

Excellent. One thing that is not so obvious from a force distribution standpoint is that the upper arm, in our setup, only sees about the same (in relative terms) as ONE of the lower links under throttle, everything is a lot less strained under brakes due to bias. Not trying to be nasty, but the upper links on a four link aren't only redundant from a roll-bind aspect, but also from a load consideration (provided there is a crossmember to handle loads). Anyway, for anyone using a high horsepower serious drivetrain, well, we strongly feel that safety is critical, and a full cage is a necessary thing. In this case, a good chassis shop will know to triangulate the load path from the upper link back into the cage. Beyond that, the stock setup is darned capable for a street tire'd car, even if they're sticky ones.

On the top, in all honesty. There is nothing that a really high performance, well thought out setup suffers from, and again, in our approach, we have traded the convenience of bolting on a set of brackets for a system that is extremely high performing, but still completely reasonable installation. You simply cannot match the performance potential of this design with a bolt on setup, period. Now, let's be a bit more specific, street/auto-cross/road course all need the same basic elements to be friendly. The drag strip differs the most, you want a ton of forward bite, but other aspects of overall performance aren't nearly as important. Driven a really fast drag car on the street? Enough said. Here's something to consider, a contemporary Trans Am car can bust out a high ten second ET, with a 310 ci motor, can reach 170-180 on the fast straights, but most importantly, can brake REALLY well, and can mange sustained 1.8!!!! G's in the turns. Can we do that? No, but, it does make you ask what's "really" important, overall balance, or one particular aspect? We like balance. Extreme balance.

Back to work, consultants can pm me for a t-shirt!!!
Mark

Looks like I'm gonna have to talk to you at the show. I just have to find you now. :willy:

Starting at the ATS booth, walk out, hang a right , go to the end of the isle, hang another right down the next isle, and look about 3 booths up on the left side, and you'll find Lateral Dynamics.
We will be torrmenting them with ATS paper air planes the entire show.

Mark-
Killer setup. I wish I hadn't already done the T56 transaxle in 50/50, or it would have gotten your 3 link.

Tyler

Might I suggest

http://www.northerntool.com/images/p...s/45088_lg.jpg

'80s babes not required, but would be a nice touch

Or perhaps one of these: The AirZooka

Am I the only one that thinks this thing is a bit over designed? What is the wall thickness of that mess of tubes on the axle?

I am going to go out on a limb and ASSume you some sort of clue as to what you are looking at. You do do realize that this arrangement includes a frame mounted Watts link and the bracing nesessary for that and the bellcrank correct? Yes, running a Watts link and frame mounted vs. rear housing mounted is overkill but might as well go big. The frame mounted Watts link requires a great deal of trial and error to get it right, I can tell you Mark has been working on this for over a year (everyday) and is fanatical about things being done right.

Pretty bold post for one of your first, how about sharing some of your background for making such a statement since we haven't gotten to know you yet. (This is a pretty tight community and Mark is well known as a expert in his feild).

First, what do all the tubes on the axle have to do with a frame mounted watts link? The only thing that connects to the axle are the links?

Second, are you telling me this design was accomplished through trial and error? Shouldn't it have been designed by engineering principles.

It just seems like there is a bunch of unsprung weight on that axle.

Hmmm...my background...Internet poster. What is the background of Mark. I would assume he is a suspension engineer or has a great deal of race experience. Maybe we should be concerned about his background.

The question was intentionally open ended. I want justification for all the tubing on the rear axle. I am not making it, I am buying it, so I want to have some level of confidence that I am buying something from a qualified company.

OK, so you don’t like my vague questions. So, I will ask engineering questions. Then I can do the math to see if this is something I need.

1. Was this designed for a range of ride heights? If so, what is the range and the Jounce and Rebound levels for each ride height.
2. It looks like the tubes for the watts link hang below the diff. How far below, and what is the ground clearance at curb and full jounce?
3. What is the rear roll steer % at each curb height?
4. What is the range of anti squat and anti lift %?
5. What CG height are you assuming?
6. I know you need to remove a portion of the tunnel, do you need to remove any of the floor or trunk to accommodate the rear mount for the three link. It seems like it would limit jounce travel.
7. How long are the links for the watts link? What about the length of the bell crank?
8. What are the tube diameters and wall thicknesses for this setup?
9. What is the weight of the whole system and how much of that is unsprung?

There a few questions to ponder. I assume at the very least Mark is an ME.

Mark and his partner Katz are both experts in this field. Trust me I know first had had from working directly with Katz he cuts weight wherever it is possible he is concerned with performance first and looks secondary when it comes to this type of stuff. I suggest you read this from the begging before making random assumptions form the viewing of only a few pictures.

What Are your engineering credentials?

And buy the way this was designed "by engineering principals." but this is not a exact science and still takes a long period of trial and error to find the just the right amount of compromise to build a well balanced and functional system.

I have read this entire thread.

I edited my original post to include engineering questions. My engineering credentials MSME. Again, the beauty of this is I can ask questions. I am not selling my wares. If he can answer my last few questions I may have some confidence in the system.

So I ask again, what are marks engineering credentials, or for that matter "katz"?

3 link
 

ipityapun, its obvious you need to do some more research on 3 links and suspension, but i am sure mark can CLUE you in, look here for pics of marks 69 camaro with 3 link in it. https://lateral-g.net/members/magers
there are a few pics there to wet your pallet
jake

No its obvious you don't. Every question I asked is rooted in suspension design. This is a test.

What is the SVSA length?

What are you talking about? I want to know values. Not pretty pictures. I read the little article. He mentions a bunch of terms, but no values. All I want are values.

I am beginning to think mark and company are not rooted in engineering. I am all for the love fest, but all I want are the numbers. I am sure that high end WinGEO software can pump out the numbers.

If he plans on going to SEMA, this is the stuff he will be asked. The pretty picture only goes so far.

Guess what. After all the numbers, he will need to justify them. What is so difficult to understand. He should be proud to post the numbers, since this is the "best suspension, bar none".

I doubt Mark is going to just had out some of the numbers you are asking for. They have put a lot of time and money into this and just handing out some of their proprietary information over the Internet just isn’t going to happen. You are ASSuming wrongly buy saying "Mark and company are not rotted in engineering" in fact I would think of them as engineers first and car guys second.

As far a degrees that Both Katz and Mark hold I have no Idea they will have to fill you in on that.

Lets just wait to see what Mark has to say. I am sure he will join in with much insight to your questions.

I think that since he has not had a chance to answer your questions here, it's a little presumptious of you to make a statement like that. Or perhaps "slanderous" is a little more accurate. Your original questions are fair, but the tone you are taking now is not.

Mark WILL be back to respond, and Lateral Dynamics IS a company rooted in sound engineering principle.

What's YOUR background? Full disclosure would be nice, if you're going to throw crap around.

iapitapun, (I guess the middle pita means pain in the azz? just a guess)

Geeshhh, give the guy a little time to respond!

Not sure why you're so concerned with numbers and this product, if your such an expert you should just ignore his product, as I'm sure you could build a better one on your own anyways.

Lets back this down a few notches. People are getting defensive and it's easy to see that this could turn ugly and become a flame fest which will benefit no one.

Iapitapun, I believe Mark will have responses to your questions, but I know he's busy getting ready for SEMA.

Listen. I am waiting for Mark to respond. I realize all this other chatter is just that.

I expect Mark will answer at some point in the day.

Cool it on the slander. I think is not slanderous.

What escapes me is that everyone here should be happy for these questions. There are no proprietary numbers. These are numbers people need to know. If you say you have the best suspension in the world these questions will help support your cause.

Do you think people will spend thousands of dollars on a suspension that is welded together in someones garage, just because someone says it is good. Hell I am not going to cut up my classic car on promises of performance.

I am waiting for Mark's response, and I realize SEMA is looming. Everyone wants full disclosure on my background. I am the ice cream man, what does it matter. If I am a customer I want to know these numbers. They are not proprietary. If these numbers are not available to the public, not one of these will be sold.

So everyone should sit back and wait as I am doing.

I respect that, but where my concerns lie is with the escalating nature of this thread. Lets see what Mark has to say before more people start getting too worked up.

Yes, it has started to escalate. All I am interested in are the numbers. Apparently, Mark is well respected here. I am sure he is a great guy. So, I will wait to see what he has to say.

I had really hoped that the thread would not get hostile, but I suppose that the wonders of the internet have a hard time preventing that. I can see the reasoning behind the questions, I would want to know also. And in defense, there are not a whole lot of hard numbers. Many of the questions I will not answer due to proprietary reasons, but I will answer some of the specifics.

My credentials are BS Applied Physics, Optics, with a smattering of graduate studies in Optical Engineering, as well as graduate level Business. Katz is a BSME. We also consult with professional engineering firms for supplemental analysis that we do not have the capability to do, these firms (one main firm) have a tremendous amount of depth. My last position in the corporate world was Director of Core Module Engineering for a medical laser company, where I had a team of highly skilled engineers from multiple disciplines that designed an incredibly complex opto-mechanical/electro-optical laser based delivery system for use in vision correction surgery. In relative terms, the engineering complexity of designing a performance suspension system is childs play compared to the projects I have successfully led in the past (this is no way intended to belittle what we are doing, nor is it to too my own horn). I left that post to start this business. And in response to the software "pumping out numbers," it is true that it is a really usefull tool(s), it is clear that a engineering team can not be competitive without the use of today's programs. I hired two guys that use Solidworks, and all of the other stuff, because I don't, I hate computers, and I do all of my own calcualtions using the same HP calculator I used in undergrad school, using the classical equations from Olley, Milliken, and all of the rest of the literature (which is extensive, and good). This creates an excellent check and balance system for design details which I am proud of, anyone can buy WinGeo and whip up a design, but far fewer can tell what the numbers mean. We can.

The system is designed to accomodate a variety of ride heights. Katz aggressive design nature pulled us to have a very low ride height, my more conservative approach drug us the other direction, I deal with speed bumps ona daily basis. The most challenging geometry issues are with the car at a very low ride height. In this form, and again, it is sensitive to ride height, approximate numbers are as follows: SVSA > 70", A/S > 70%. Roll steer is dependent upon two factors in our design. One, the roll center height is defined by the Watt's bellcrank location. Two, because we incorporated skew into the lower control arm (plan view), the convergence point defines an additional lateral restraint point. The line running through the RRCH, and the forward restraint point, in Side View, defines the roll axis. There's a great picture of this in Milliken's book, page 653. For very low ride heights, the angle of the LCA's in side view become more parallel, so the roll axis becomes very neutral. In no case, in the extremes of high A/S, and the lowest RRCH from the Watt's, is the roll understeer percentage more than a few percent. Not being evasive here, it is just that the darned numbers are HIGHLY sensitive to the ride height and Watt's location, etc. CG used for all examples is ~20" (with a 47/53-ish rear weight bias), which is conservative, but the reason is that what is really important is the CG of the SPRUNG mass, the CG of the combined sprung and unsprung mass will be a few inches lower (a reasonable estimate for this approach is to find the height of the cam centerline). Using the "other" approach will result in a lower CG, and all of the A/S numbers look even better, which is basically what we have seen competitors do, so a marketing comparison will show them as being "better," or at least higher. That's okay.

Here's a note on this stuff. With a coupled trailing arm suspension, there is a constant battle between three things (independent of packaging). SVSA, A/S, and Roll Steer. For a given setup, you get to pick two. If you want very high A/S and neutral roll steer, the ONLY way to accomodate this is to have a very short SVSA, and experience has shown, this creates a nightmare in heavy braking (violent brake hop). Might be okay at the auto-cross where the speeds aren't that high, but heading into turn #1 at Willow Springs and not having brake control is not a happy moment. Okay, so how about high anti-squat, but with a longer SVSA? In order to do this, you need to raise the Instant Center, which means the LCA's need to incline steeply upwards, so what gives? Roll steer, and in the wrong way. In this general condition, you will get a big time roll oversteer condition. Again, this is well known too, to quote a friend's experience in his AI race car, "corner entry was pretty good, but midway through the turn, I had to correct my steering big time in order not to run "over" the apex, it was kind of strange feeling. Corner exit was a blast, I felt like a hero being able to get into the throttle a lot sooner, but I later realized that this was partially because I was going through the middle of the turn a lot slower." Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause, and yes, roll steer is a real issue.

This is the root of our design. The balance of Roll Steer, Anti-Squat, and a suitably long SVSA (Adam's says 40", Milliken 60", experience says at least 60") is what we worked so hard to achieve. Trying to make it fit was a challenge, we did our best, and we are very happy with the results. For the tech hungry folks, sorry for all of the vague marketing talk earlier on this thread, there is a real balance for describing a product in terms that everyone can relate to. For those of you who know me, Katz, etc, I would think you would attest that we are far better on the specific tech than the fluffy stuff.

Some other quick answers: The Watt's location on the axle is beefy for a reason, there is a very well known company that suffers from failure of the Panhard bracket on their product in a race environment, and if nothing changes in the design, there will be another company that suffers from this with a newly released product (it won't be us). The Watt's brackets are placed below the axle for a couple reasons: our philosophy is to have low RRCH, placing the pickup points lower on the axle puts the bellcrank more in line with the pickups, and therefore reduces the bending moment on the links themselves (more of a compression/tensile load in this fashion). The passenger side is the lower one, there is more support structure there, so we put it there to help improve left/right weight bias (it's a terribly small amount, but....). There is nothing terribly magic about the link length/bellcrank offset for the Watt's, specific dimensions are proprietary, and as an MSME, I am sure you know how these things work, they aren't exclusive to cars by a long shot.

Forward crossmember, 14.5 lbs. Rear, 14.5 lbs. Watt's bracket, 16 lbs (if this sounds heavy, it is because of need, deflection under lateral loads on the bellcrank pivot is the biggest driver for the design, it is bulletproof). 1/2 the weight of the coil-overs, control arms, and Watt's linkage arms is of the order of ~12 lbs(?), for a total weight of about 60 pounds, give or take. All sprung. With a leaf car, half the weight of the leafs, shocks is considered sprung, so about 45 lbs or so. So, we increased the sprung mass by a few pounds (while, at the same time, adding a significant amount of additional structure, helping to improve the torsional rigidity of the flexible car somewhat). Now consider the fact that the unsprung mass of ours includes 1/2 the weight of the coil-overs/trailing arms, and the differential. As stated above, this weight (less the rear axle assembly, we'll get to that in a minute), is about 12 pounds, unsprung. Leaf? 45 pounds or so, unsprung, so we have eliminated about 30 lbs of unprung mass relative to what is coming off of the car.

I have to start a new thread with the remainder, it limitedme to 10k characters. That's okay, I can use this for a FAQ section on the website!
M

Here's the rest:

The housing. I will state that the tube structures are less than .100" wall thickness, with the actual axle tubes being of a different dimension. Sorry specific details are proprietary, I hope you can understand. All of the tubes for the Watt's location do two things: one, they are responsible for carrying ALL lateral loads and transfering it into the frame via the Watt's link. We do not tolerate deflection, or fatigue issues. Two, this structure, as well as the additional back-bracing creates a very strong (in bending) axle assembly, while allowing light weight materials (load paths considered). So what? Well, one very important thing: axle assembly deflection. Today's tires stick pretty darned good, and in addition, horsepower doesn't seem to be the limiting factor in most cars these days, north of 500 HP is considered normal. These two factors result in one really nasty outcome for a car: toe-out during forward acceleration. Our opinion is that this MUST be avoided at all reasonable cost, especially in corner exit, a toe out condition in this case will make the car tend towards oversteer, so the driver will have to back off of the throttle to let things settle, we don't like that. Okay, that's all fine. What does it weigh? All in, the axle assembly (without axles, center section, or brakes)weighs a touch less than 60 pounds (we can custom make lighter ones for race applications). Add in an aluminum gear carrier from Strange, which is about 14 pounds, and the rear is right around 70 or so pounds. How much does a 12 bolt rear weigh without brakes, axles and center section? Honestly, we don't know, but we are completely confident that there is no possible comparison in overall strength, torsional and bending rigidity.

I am sure there is something I left out. Please be patient with follow-on questions, we are working very hard to get ready for the show, and I cannot spend a lot of time behind the keyboard. I hope that this at least gave you something to chew on (other than pretty pictures), and if you have other specific questions, please bring them on. I'll do my very best to answer them without giving up specifics of the design that others can grab without having to do the dilligence that we went through. Frankly, I live for the tech, and I have complete confidence in being able to describe our design, and why it takes the form that it does, in any level of technical detail. And if I don't know, I'll tell you. If you have a better idea, we would LOVE to hear about it, we thrive on learning and applying new ideas. And please guys, I ask all of you guys to relax, this forum is the best one going right now, I hope we can keep it that way.

Cheers,
Mark

Edit: Added another pretty picture, well, I think it's pretty.

Mark,

Wow! :eek:

Good tech stuff rawks!

So, you are not a suspension engineer. For that matter you are not an engineer. Director of a medical laser company does not correlate to suspension engineer in any way. Just an observation.

There is a bending moment on the links? How does that happen with a rod end?

Again, most of my questions have not been answered. Maybe they were lost in translation or you just don't have the numbers. You may want to have them handy at some point in the future. It may help market it better. Right now I keep seeing excerpts from Milliken and Adams. I have those books. I do not need to read them here.

The things I would still like to see are:

1. Was this designed for a range of ride heights? If so, what is the range and the Jounce and Rebound levels for each ride height.
2. It looks like the tubes for the watts link hang below the diff. How far below, and what is the ground clearance at curb and full jounce?
3. What is the rear roll steer % at each curb height?
4. What is the range of anti squat and anti lift %?
5. I know you need to remove a portion of the tunnel, do you need to remove any of the floor or trunk to accommodate the rear mount for the three link. It seems like it would limit jounce travel.
7. How long are the links for the watts link? What about the length of the bell crank? I guess I can always scale them from a drawing or measure them at SEMA.

These sound like items that should have been design criteria.

I wish you luck. It might be wise to have this information available at SEMA.

iapitapun-
Welcome to Lateral-G. We are a close nit family here, and like to know each others names. What is yours, and where are you from?
If I didn't know better I'd say you either came from CC.com and want to remain an 'unknown', or you are a competitior trying to get info.
Just an FYI, Mark doesn't need to be an Engineer to have an idea for a 3 link. He employs Katz, a suspension engineer, formerly of Art Morrision, and he knows what is up. I do the exact same thing in my business. I have the ideas, and my engineer makes the parts.
Just wanted to say hello, and get to know a little more about you, your company, and your background. Again, welcome to our little corner of the web.
Tyler

I got here by following a thread from Pro-Touring. What does CC have to do with anything. At least CC allows people to post real questions. I have read this thread over an over and keep seeing chatter of SVSA length, roll steer, etc. All I asked is tell me what the result was.

Maybe it would be better if I said it RAWKS :willy: :cool: :rolleyes: :_paranoid :P

How does any of the help a competitor, how is it proprietary?

Yeah I get that it is a close nit group and you all want mark to make tons of money. When I see statements about bending moments in links I get a little nervous.

Earlier in this thread the statement was made that this is the best suspension on the planet, bar none at any cost. Prove it. That is all I ask.

Telling me the SVSA length or the adjustability range should not be proprietary. The Antisquat and lift ranges are not either. These are marketing blurbs. Technical marketing blurbs.

The funny thing is thes questions are here to help everyone. This suspension will require heavy modification to my car, and set me back a few bucks. I want to know some technical stuff. Why can't anyone see that.

Hey if the questions I am asking are all proprietary I apologize. I am sure I can call any manufacturer out there and have them give me anti-squat numbers. As a new company mark and company are going to have to prove themselves.

Bottom line, my 6 questions have values associated with them. None of which will compromise any part of his design. If he has them, I would love to see them. If not, good luck marketing this product.

I am tired of typing. I will look for my answers later in the day.

Ya know, sometimes on message boards it seems like somone is being hostile and/or accusatory when in reality they are simply being direct. That said, I dunno if it's your intent to come across as hostile, but man it sure seems that way.

Not Hostile. I am or maybe was a possible customer. I am asking simple questions of the experts.

Apparently everyone is getting upset because I want to rate this on its technical merits.

Maybe I will stop with the questions. If this thread progresses further, maybe someone will want to know the same.

This is a new company, I want proof they know what they are talking about. That is it. Am I the only one with these questions? I have only seen one or two other posts with technical questions.

I will not buy a product based on people thinking it looks cool. Sorry. Maybe I have asked inappropriate questions.

Maybe alot of my questions will be answered at SEMA or after. I will wait for that.

ipityyou
 

man oh man, if you are such a suspension hero, and know what the numbers mean and how they relate, wtf would you buy someone elses kit??? this makes no sense and more than likely i hope someone finds you out, so people can stop buying products from you, cause obviously you are butt hurt over the fact this 3 link is gonna work, let alone out perform any other kit there.
i am still lost to the fact you know all this suspenison talk, but yet you want someone elses kit, man i wish you could be my hero

I agree, the way it was worded sure does make some hostile accusations. The bit about not being a suspension engineer was a bit harsh IMO. I'm not a "suspension engineer" but this stuff is excessively simple compared to some of the stuff we deal with on a daily basis.

Last I checked DSE, Hotchkis, Alston, and a host of others don't publish the figures you asked for. Could be for a number of reasons, one being the range of adjustment is so vast that it's completely application dependant. Not saying they shouldn't post the figures but when trying to appeal to the general public you try not to give them so much info they become intimidated by the product.

Not defending them but honestly when your first post on the subject is calling out someones experience and education you come across as quite the asshole. It's not like he's a CPA with a pocket protector and an etch-a-sketch, having a bs in applied physics does lend it's self to the general cause fairly well here. :yes:

Ultimately if you think you can do better give it a shot, sure works for Stielow . Oh and if you re-read the thread quite a few of your questions have been covered if you put a little thought into it. :thumbsup:

I'm not sure if his posts are truly of the accusatory nature as they seem or just bad writing. If he really has a competent understanding of suspension design and theory it would be foolish to buy any "kit" as they will all have short falls for a given application. IMO he's either a bitter competator or some noob who got google happy and is trying to sound smrt... I mean smart. :willy:

Next he's going to post a callout thread to Moton on the dampning range of their shocks for every combination of a million different shim stacks and nitrogen charges :willy:

Mark dosen't need me or anyone else to come to his aid, but just the same I am somewhat compelled, by virtue of a similar experience in my former career.

Iapitapun, here's a little role playing game for you.

Imagine you are sitting at work, doing something bitchin with your MSME, but you have a deadline for the project, and that deadline is this Friday the 28th.

Now while all this is going on some big fella who you've never seen nor heard of; with spiked hair, ear-rings, tatoos and a goatee (ok...thats me) comes into your office.

Now, right off the bat I start raising a ruckus screaming and yelling and asking if you got your degree from some diploma mill in the Philipines, shouting out loud about your questionable background, that of your co-workers and casting aspersions on the lineage of your dog.

Then, I go on-and-on about how it seems you have no freakin idea what you are doing since you have yet to publish the data on the project you are STILL WORKING ON.

Then, after all that, I ask, nay, I DEMAND that you to give me all of your measurements, the results of your R&D and essentially everything that you have done to differentiate your product from that of your competition.

Now you don't know if I'm some dude with a fat wad of cash burning a hole in my pocket, some wack-job off the street, or a competitor with a patent axe to grind. But what you do know is that I have insulted your credibility and questioned your integrity in front of others. If you didn't tell me to pound sand in my arse I'd be surprised.
I'm guessing Mark gave you a lot more of an answer than you would give me.

But here's the thing. I actually wouldn't do any of the above. If I was interested in what you were working on, the first thing I'd do is tell you what I want from my project and let you tell me (not sell me) if your product is even remotely close to what I'm looking for. Then I'd ask you to explain why, filling in any follow up questions on the features and benefits along the way. That's what I did when I first heard about Mark's system and ya know what? It worked. Try it.