How about a Jeg's Suspension Masters Challenge?

[tyoneal]

To All:

Every year there is Jegs Engine Masters Challenge, which allows competition between engine builders to prove the performance of their own Engines and products.

I would like to see if their would be any interest from the readers of the Magazines, and the consumers of suspension packages, to encourage the suspension suppliers to engage in a similar competition.

The competitors would be supplied a , "Mule", to install their package on, it would then be taken and put through a series of performance trials.

These trails would use normally accepted test by which the suspension and it's characteristics could be judged.

Since many here like to run Auto X, Drag Race and Road Race their cars, test could be constructed to evaluate the different packages with regards to these types of of uses.

Further, the suspensions could be evaluated on the ease of installation, the adjustment of their products, and the range of adjustments allowed by their products.

Purchasers could then decide on the suitability of each product for their own applications.

I think it would lead to a watershed of information for consumers and producers a like. As time went on I think the types and quality of products would improve over time, and as a result we could be building ever better cars.

It might be somewhat embarrassing at first for some of the suppliers, however, in the long run I think it would become a Win/Win for everyone.

Engines as everyone knows by now are capable of making huge power even to the point of absurdity, on pump gas. Power from the engines is not a problem for us. Our main challenge is building better handling cars, and then learning to drive them.

I for one would love to know what exactly there is to buy, and I think it would really further the, "Pro Touring", movement as far as suspension technology is concerned.

The Mule could be built out of a 1st gen Camaro/Firebird chassis built to very stringent specs:

For example the same engine would be used by everyone and could be dino'ed before the start of each competitors trials. This would help assure a baseline that the engine was of a certain make model and weight and produced X amount of rear wheel horse power before the start of each persons test.

The Mule would already have many of the common add-ons that are found on most of our cars. (Mini-Tubs etc.)

The competitors would use the same wheels and tires that were already set up to run on the Mule so that variation could be eliminated from the test results.

The competitors could install all they had for that particular car, whether it be all bolt on, like Hotchkiss Performance, or it could be as involved as DSE's front subframe and rear end, or AM's complete chassis.

What ever they wanted to bring to the trials would be up to them.

The Mule could be tested and shipped to the next participant who would install and test their products and be tested 60 days from the last competitors. Every month the Magazines could keep us up to date on the next competitor. The first month would cover what the company is installing, and how involved the installation is, then the following month the results of that companies products would be tested and printed in the next issue of the magazine.

By the time 12 -18 months later, We as consumers would have a great deal of information at our disposal for decision making. The companies would get
two months worth of exposure on their products, and the magazine would have some very interesting articles to print.

As competitors upgraded their products or had different types of products to sell, they could get back in line for another testing. For instance, AM has complete frames, and they have subframes. In one test they could highlight there premium products and in the next test they could highlight their value produces.

All in all we as readers would continue to get cutting edge information about the suspension products we all seek for our cars. I also think this would help diversify the the types of articles every month in the magazines. As long as a baseline was maintained (i.e. a common Mule) the information would have real meaning for the reader.

For me understanding each companies data, then trying to compare it to another companies data has been a nightmare, because there is to many variables that were not held constant for any real meaning in the article.

The Scientific Method of analyzing different produces is not a difficult thing to structure and there is really no reason NOT to use it unless real tangible information is not wanted to be exposed. I would doubt any of the manufacturers would desire this type of confusion, but for the benefit of the readers I really think this would be a huge improvement with regards to the suspension products on the market.

The Jegs Engine Masters Challenge is always an interesting thing to read every year and it helps open my eyes on the real differences between the different builders and their products.

I would encourage some kind of challenge regarding just the suspension suppliers so we can have the opportunity to buy the products that best suit our needs or desires.

Anyway, I would like to hear any other thoughts about this.

We took a pool a while back where we learn at least with the people on the forum that 65-70 percent of the readers would like to see a lot more articles on the LSx technology. I think this was significant information for any magazine to take a look at and try to incorporate into their upcoming issues.

Anyway, thats my opinion. What do you guys think?

I look forward to hearing from you and the manufacturers.

Take Care

Ty

[fvike]

Originally Posted by tyoneal

The Mule could be built out of a 1st gen Camaro/Firebird chassis built to very stringent specs

There's your problem. A F-body test would not be helpful for me as a Mustang owner. DSE wins; but they don't make parts for my car.
I think there's close to 20 different Rack & Pinion kits to be had for a classic Mustang. Would you be intressed in that test? The Mustang is a rear steer car (as in location of the rack from the engine), vs the F-body that is an front steer car. I.E bump steer data found on a Mustang test wouldn't be applicable to an F-body. So you don't have any gain from that test.

The F-body does have the biggest Pro-Touring following, so to sell magazines, it would be the best mule. No love for the Mopar guy, because there are few potensial customers, contra the GM and Ford camps.

What I'm saying, different cars, different setups, different specs. It's to many variables to cover all bases.

But I do want to see more test of suspension parts in magazines. I'm all for that.

[takid455]

I think it would be more interesting that reading about 50,000 ways to build a sbc. while 1st gen fbodys have a big following, what about us 2nd gen guys. I think that woudl be good to see how well they compare to modern muscle. i bet it wouldn't be too far off. on another not, I hav ecancels several magazines b/c I realy get tired of ready about chevys all the time. yes there should be a mix, but it seems that 85% is all bowtie . I wonder if they ever heard of a trans am , olds, buick, ect

[JamesJ]

I dont think that you could have a 100% repeatable test

[byndbad914]

Originally Posted by JamesJ

I dont think that you could have a 100% repeatable test

I agree. When you do engine challenges, the dynos and the "atmosphere" is more or less constant (temps in a dyno room change and frankly STP calcs have a bit of bogus to them). but that said, you have just a couple of dynos running in the same building and in theory can sorta control the environment.

If you have 50 different "mules", that is a problem. The only way to do it with some sort of repeatability would be to have a couple mule cars, both weighing the same with exactly similar chassis weight distributions (not wheel dist as that could vary with susp and adjustability, I am saying exactly or near exactly the same weight and cg location). Then you have to be able to quickly swap out suspension packages into that mule car and have "the Stig" drive every one thru the same course, etc with the same tires (new each time) etc. Way too hard to have repeatability for true comparisons.

Cool idea tho' on the surface and would be great if there were a way to do it... and I do love the engine masters challenge. I am absolutely blown away (having been a race engine builder for a few years) by the HP per cube they are getting on pump gas at 6500rpm! Staggering - I was reading the last challenge, which I thought was the coolest so far is it was a free-for-all on engine parameters with only essentially a HP/torque per cube calc. Bad ass and the best concept yet as bore v. stroke v. rod length etc were varying like crazy. The top guys... just staggering. But that is a LOT of dyno time on a particular combo, trust me. I knew a couple of the entrants over the years and 100 dyno runs getting a good combo (not winning BTW) is not "crazy talk".

[Blake Foster]

Why not just set min/max limits?
min weight allowed 3000lb
max HP 450
max torque 500 both tested on a portable chassis dyno at the event
max brake rotor size 14" max piston count 16
max wheel size 19
max tire tread width 12" rear 10" front
then you could get into the debate on shocks and sway bars..... and that could go on forever.
NHRA does it in Stock eliminator........ it has taken them 30 years to fine tune it and untill everyone starts cheating the system works.

[tyoneal]

Originally Posted by byndbad914

I agree. When you do engine challenges, the dynos and the "atmosphere" is more or less constant (temps in a dyno room change and frankly STP calcs have a bit of bogus to them). but that said, you have just a couple of dynos running in the same building and in theory can sorta control the environment.

If you have 50 different "mules", that is a problem. The only way to do it with some sort of repeatability would be to have a couple mule cars, both weighing the same with exactly similar chassis weight distributions (not wheel dist as that could vary with susp and adjustability, I am saying exactly or near exactly the same weight and cg location). Then you have to be able to quickly swap out suspension packages into that mule car and have "the Stig" drive every one thru the same course, etc with the same tires (new each time) etc. Way too hard to have repeatability for true comparisons.

Cool idea tho' on the surface and would be great if there were a way to do it... and I do love the engine masters challenge. I am absolutely blown away (having been a race engine builder for a few years) by the HP per cube they are getting on pump gas at 6500rpm! Staggering - I was reading the last challenge, which I thought was the coolest so far is it was a free-for-all on engine parameters with only essentially a HP/torque per cube calc. Bad ass and the best concept yet as bore v. stroke v. rod length etc were varying like crazy. The top guys... just staggering. But that is a LOT of dyno time on a particular combo, trust me. I knew a couple of the entrants over the years and 100 dyno runs getting a good combo (not winning BTW) is not "crazy talk".

=========================================
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.

[tyoneal]

Originally Posted by JamesJ

I dont think that you could have a 100% repeatable test

James:

I agree with you. This said though, there are few test like this that have 100% repeatability. Take, "Road & Track", Magazine for example. They are always running new cars through the same test they have run cars through for many years now.
=============================================
The test they run are not 100%, but they can still tell the reader a lot of information about each of the cars, and how they stack up against each other.
=============================================

Because a testing method is not 100% doesn't mean it's worthless information!

As of right now there is very little comparative information at all.

It seems by your answer that unless a testing method is 100% repeatable it has no use.

I don't understand your reasoning.

Please expand on this thought.

Thanks,

Ty

[Blake Foster]

Hahahahaha trust tyler to " tell it like it REALLY is"

love it

[MaxHarvard]

I would certainly read the information. It would be atleast a starting point for us guys trying different setups for suspension rather than blindly trial & erroring our way through it.