Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tyoneal
=========================================
byndbad914:
I agree with your statement about all the different parameters.
Maybe the solution is for every company who wants to participate, bring their own Mule. Each one limited to any difference unless it is involved with their suspension.
Then it could be held on the same day, under similar conditions.
Many of the companies already have Camaro's/ F-Body's anyway as they had to have one to test and build their own products.
Good point.
What would you think if it was approached from that standpoint?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ty
BTW: Yes, the engine Challenge is awesome and incredible.
|
I definitely like your idea of using a mule car that has some sort of set parameters. Setting parameters constant would be tough as each company will have variances in their interior, exterior, etc. as few places have bone stock cars they added a whiz-bang suspension to (i.e. most build to display at places like SEMA, which the only stock vehicles there... aren't there)
So bear with me for a second... say you set a weight class. Give me that rule... me, I would completely gut the 69 Camaro (and I mean gut it to where you damn near can flintstone the car cuz I wanted to remove the floorboards hahaha) and then I would add a cage to stiffen the body (which technically helps my suspension package tho' isn't part of my suspension package) and I would then add my suspension components, add ballast to get back up to weight, and start tuning. Even with a mediocre suspension if the better suspension showed up in an equal weight but near stock car I would destroy the car on the track because I had a very low cg (cuz I would ballast low), fine tuned weight distribution based on tires supplied, and so forth.
So getting back to your rule of can't change anything but the suspension. I would say to keep the mule car cheap and easy, maybe have some sort of gutted car concept with a spec'd cage (so the chassis is not part of the suspension and the suspension is truly being tested). Now you have somewhat removed the car from the concept as it is really just a "spec" car, not much of a Ford, Chevy or Mopar. Weight would be low, so require ballast which is easily weighed and locations are specifically designed. Now even if the chassis is a little off, the ballast and its location should put the cg roughly where it is the same amongst the mules.
You could especially set a rule requiring the location and amount of the cg. That is easily measured. Base it on a measured cg location of a bone stock example, concours car of the given model. Then it won't much matter how you get there. In fact, state in the rules exactly how you intend to measure the cg location so that companies have to know up front how that is done so there would be no excuses later (hey, I don't measure it that way BS).
Essentially, I am thinking take a stock car center chassis with a spec engine/trans and then vary the front and rear clips to match say a Chevy front clip with a Camaro rear clip. Essentially it is like a spec racer which, in theory, requires you to know how to drive and set the car up, as supposedly the chassis, engine, trans, etc are constant. Then have a single driver (which is the hardest part as humans can't be consistent and one-after-another testing would tire him or her out) run it thru paces.
The thing that falls apart about discussing the Stig taking production cars thru the paces is he is testing
the whole car, not just the suspension. Even so, the half-second differences between the top cars I consider "noise" because just depending on whether he woke up with gas from a burrito the night before or if he had the best night's sleep ever could make a 1 second difference easily
But I am annoyed when they run a car just after a rain (periodically they have done that tho' rare). How can you compare that with a straight face??
Sorry for the long post... but you asked hahahaha
So my overall opinion ('bout damn time, right!), instead the magazine could:
1. Have a couple "spec" cars built with stock front and rear clips as mentioned to remove cost from the suppliers. Could probably buy a couple of older Camaro front clipped stock car chassis for a couple grand used and modify the rear for stock Camaro mount points.
2. Then have the susp company supply their product and come in and install it, let them go out and tune it for a day even (Friday evening install and tune on Sat as we is all working folk) and then
3. On Sunday bring in your Stig and run it at say Willow Springs or the Streets (Streets would be better for a suspension test). I am assuming SoCal as that is where most every magazine published resides and at least weather is somewhat constant (no snow or major rain season) - any track will do that is similar) Run 10 warm up laps on brand new tires to get the tires up to temp, then time the next five laps and take the average. That is what the suspension is capable of.
4. After the running, the magazine can take the car back to a shop and measure bump steer, camber gain (or loss if that is the case), etc.
Oh yeah, shocks too - maybe they could be adjustable. Not sure how I feel about that variable, but that said, if anyone is really serious about their suspension, they will tune their own shocks to their own car so I say give the suspension company an opportunity to show the best they can make their product perform up to allowing them to bring their own adjustable shocks or whatever.
That could be done over the course of a couple months (4.33 weekends x 2 spec cars each month - how many chassis companies would even respond?? Maybe a 2 month project each weekend in May and June). Then post the results including the measured suspension characteristics (like they spec out the engine components used). That would be pretty darn consistent and bad ass. That article I would buy.
edit - then the next year, clip the spec cars with an old Mustang setup, then next a Mopar of some sort, etc etc