Our success can be attributed to a complete, engineered package. Simply dropping in air springs will not net the numbers achieved by our Chevelle.

Control Arms:
We base our StrongArms off the factory arms, but we alter areas that need addressed; camber, caster, ball joint angles, etc. They also lower unsprung weight, and the overall weight of the vehicle (on the PHR G28 project, they saved 80lbs when replacing the stock suspension with our entire package)

Spindles:
The Fatman GMax spindles are a "taller" design, meaning they locate the upper ball joint higher than the stock unit. This increases negative camber gain under compression.

Sway Bars:
Our Muscle bars (and now PosiLink sway bar links) aid the suspension in limiting body roll, but are not so stiff as to induce negative handling.

Control System:
By utilizing a 4-way compressor control system we can eliminate air passing from one bag to another. It also allows us the ability to change spring rates in each air spring. A change of 5psi can provide the needed extra spring rate while maintaining the same ride height.

Air Springs:
By design air springs have a very progressive spring rate. The more the spring is compressed, the higher the spring rate. By choosing the proper air spring for the application, and setting them at the proper height, we lower the car (lowering COG), and gain the progressive spring rate when we need it. Instead of the suspension hitting the bump stops, the air spring will increase its rate, providing a solid, predictable vehicle in the corners.

Variable Dampers:
We use double adjustable shocks in all the vehicles we run on a road course or Auto-X. The damper is simply a timing device. It controls when, and for how long, the tires are in contact with the tarmac. It also allows us to control how quickly our spring rate is increased or decreased. The more compression damping I throw at the Chevelle, the slower the spring rate increases. The same is true for extension; the more extension damping I dial in, the slower the spring rate decreases.

When all these areas are engineered together you can achieve a very well mannered car during track use. But you also have the advantage of a comfortable street cruiser.

I stated this in another post, but I feel it's worth mentioning again: Our cars are set up by our staff, not a trained, professional driver. I grew up in a family that raced Dirt Late Models (http://www.latemodelracer.com/) so I understand vehicle dynamics. However, I have a degree in Classic English Literature; I'm not a trained engineer. A little common sense goes a long way (and growing up under 880HP 430cid small blocks in a 2100lb car sliding around a slick dirt track didn't hurt. Maybe I should see if Bret will let me try drifting?)!

I posted that clip of the blue Chevelle on an autocross track... it handles dead flat in the turns. With the right tires, I bet 1 g would be easily possible.

http://www.v8tvshow.com/forum/index.....msg465#msg465

Sustained is still not the same as the bi-directional averaged score we do in testing. :)

Yea, the ART cars are VERY well sorted out.. they do lots and lots of driving events and that certainly helps.

That 1.2G claim seems to come from the RTH autocross, and the log shows the 1.2G area to be a rather large constant radius left hander (or right, I'm not sure of the direction of travel.) Not sure if it's banked or unbanked. Hopefully they'll chime in.

Look at the G2X log here.
http://www.ridetech.com/streetchallenge/trackdata.asp

I know we're not talking bidirectional skidpad data, and steady state skidpad data is only one datapoint in the overall performance of a vehicle anyways.

The fact that the airride setups are complete packages are most certainly a huge part of the reason they do so well. A poorly thought out piece-mealed together suspension, even if all good individual components, can turn poor numbers if the combo isn't matched or tuned.

Very true.. I just want people to know there's difference in how we test g-force and it's VERY hard to get a g the way we do it.

I think my next build will have an ART system, they sure have confidence in the stuff and arn't afraid to throw down against anyone.

The G2X data was gathered in 2006 at our (then annual) Street Challenge event held at Putnam Park Road Course (http://www.putnampark.com/).

Steve, I know our data and the way you acquire yours are different and I DO NOT want to claim our data was acquired "Car and Driver" style. Ours was acquired on a road course, with a pro driver, on street tires (225 front!) At that time we hadn't done much data acquisition, and we were astonished with the numbers, so on the web they went.

Sometime in the near future I'd like to perform the average two-way test on some of our stuff and post those numbers. We just have to find the time, and the location.

You're date is just as valid as ours.. I just want people to alway consider how data is gathered. That way when they see one car the did 1.2g and one that did .99g they will ask "what was the scientific methodology used to get that number?" That way they can make a valid comparison between the two cars.

Using out method nobody could do even 1g on street tires (non r-compound).

I think the most impressive point about ART stuff is how well it does in the various auto-x and road track events. I think kicking butt in that really quiets down the doubters.

Might want to try a stock Lotus Elise. It will get VERY VERY close and might even break it. Large magazine 200' skidpad numbers for the Elise seem to range from .99 to 1.06 G and that's on the stock Yokohama Advan Neova tires, which are not R-compounds. Then again, it's a sub-2K pound rollerskate. I will say they are a total hoot to drive. :bow:

So will there be a G-body kit coming soon? If you need a test vehicle I've got one. :unibrow:

G Body is already done:
http://ridetech.com/wizard/results.a...el=Monte+Carlo