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 fvike

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.

=============================================
FWIW: Whether it is a Mustang OR a Camaro I would still enjoy reading GOOD SOLID information. I might want to do a Mustang Next.

Poo Pooing an idea because it doesn't fit your particular need at this time I think is short sided. What I would really think would help the consumer is to have REAL information about the different products. In this case suspension since it is the other place where BIG money is spent. (Engine being the other)

There are tons of Mustang owners, and if products were evaluated scientifically in one area, there is no reason why that wouldn't take hold in another area, if the buyers found it truly helpful.

I think the Engine Masters Challenge is a great idea, one that could be used to help us in our decision making process in other areas.

Thanks for writing and your input. Please rebut my reasoning is you feel like it.

Regards,

Ty

[tyoneal]

Originally Posted by 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

==========================
takid455:

I agree 100% that it would be better than another sbc article.

Thanks for chiming in. Your right, what about the second gen guy's? Testing and challenges have to start somewhere. The main reason the first gen would be a good place to start is, there have been a number of choices for the type suspensions/car for a long time, much longer that the second gen, mopars etc. Having many companies products evaluated could show strong and weak points of many products over a broader price range and uses. There is just not that many choices YET for the second gen cars. I would be shocked if the number of suspension products doesn't expand in the future though.

At the very least you would find out what company was able to correctly build the best suspension for a first gen Camaro. Then, if they came out with a product you could use, you would know right off the bat who has been successful on other types of platforms.

Everyone could always gather some helpful information even indirectly from this type of test. This has been done for years in the automotive industry on many different products.

Tires, Oils, Gas products, comparisons between different manufacturers of cars, comparisons between the same manufacturers of the same car but different years. The list goes on and on and on, but at least in many of these there is an attempt at comparing apples and apples so the results of the test have some meaning.

I am just proposing a intimate look at suspensions. Something that is really important for most of us on this forum.

We have and use this info when we buy and engine, or when we buy the parts for the engine. We use this type of information all the time with regards to tires. (Something many of us go though on a regular basis.)

Suspension are very complicate items and are difficult to evaluate. Any standardized test that could performed on what the market offers would have to be helpful for everyone concerned.

Look at the show, "Top Gear". Even they have a testing procedures for all the different cars they test. Each car is tested over the same track buy the same driver. While NOT perfect and complete, it does start to paint a picture for the people watching it. If nothing else it would give someone a good indication which car for the money gives the driver the fastest car around a particular track.

As products for the 2nd gen Camaro's became available, they would be an obvious candidate for this type of test maybe the following year. What I'm trying to garner support for is, to encourage support for a somewhat standardized testing method, we could use for our evaluation of different products.

Air Ride suspensions has been trying to accomplish something very similar with the event they have been hosting.

To be honest, it wouldn't bother me what cars they started with, as long as it was started. It is only natural to start testing items that are the most popular as that is where the biggest market is, and the most potential positive exposure for the companies and the Magazines that might cover it. They would be the ones choosing to participate in something like this and it would be a fairly expensive proposition on their part.

This said however, a good showing in a National magazine against other competitors would surely be something worth having to help sell you products in the future. Added to this, many companies advertise fairly extensively and are already aware at what it take to market ones company. It's damn expensive.

Even if a company was last in measured performance, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there product was inferior, because they might show that at a particular price point they give the best bang for the buck, or that they might give 80% of the performance for 50% of the price. They would still be a winner in their segment of the market, or from the point of view from many consumers looking for the best for the price.

Anyway, thanks for responding, and if you feel like it, pop in again on this.

Take care,

Ty

[Teetoe_Jones]

Ty-

It will never happen as much as I'd love for it to. All the big name advertisers would be pissed that their product was shown to have flaws after they spend $5K+ on magazine ads each month. I can't see companies like Fatman- who advertises 'Zero Bumpsteer' spindles- allowing a test that shows how they have actually doubled the bumpsteer on the A body with their G Force spindle onto pages of a mag they pay to be in every month. The people who read magazines and believe every printed word on its pages need to get onto the internet and do some research. 7/10 times mosts ads are mis-leading or flat out marketing lies. Primedia would lose tons of cash each month if they did a subjective test on all the suspensions out on the market.

But I'll toss my products into the ring if they decide to go for it.

Tyler

[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