DSE Suspension Testing - Lateral-g Forums

**Stuart Adams** · #1 04-03-2006, 02:59 PM

Anybody see the latest testing numbers reported on the DSE suspension upgrades vs. stock?

907rs · #2 04-03-2006, 04:32 PM

Are they published somewhere Stuart?

JV69z/28 · #3 04-03-2006, 06:49 PM

The article is in this month's Super Chevy with the orange Camaro on the cover. The skid pad numbers before the four link with stock rear suspension with DSE front suspension are .81 with the stock rear leafs and .84 with the DSE 4 link. There is some debate whether or not the slollom speed is correct. It was real high like 58 MPH or something like that. Steve Rupp was suppose to check on that and report back today. There is a multiple page post over at www.pro-touring.com in open discussion about the story. Sorry I didn't link it. Check it out.

Speedster · #4 04-03-2006, 07:22 PM

The one that killed me was the severe change in 1/4 mile E.T. From a 15.16 to a 14.28 directly attributed to the QuadraLink versus the leaf springs - now that's planting your tires !!!

**Steve1968LS2** · #5 04-04-2006, 05:01 PM

The numbers are wrong.. must be a typo or a bad use of the formula..

the car did not run the cones at 58.39 mph.. no car ever has come close to that, especially on radial street tires (not R compounds)..

I don't know how the writer came up with those numbers, but they are not possible. The car was not tested by us so I don't have the tech sheet. More than likely they ran the test and screwed up the formula. If I knew the time through the cones I could calculate the correct MPH. The writer is not a Super Chevy staff writer, freelancer?

Alcino's car ran the cones at 48.1 and I know that car didn't beat it by 10mph.. a new C6 vette couldn't do 58mph, heck.. not even 49.. lol

For comparison (420ft cones)

g/28 = 46.48 mph
Alcino Mustang II = 48.1 mph
red '69 Camaro tested in the same issue as the DSE car = 48.5 (another one of our higher scoring cars.. actually the highest musclecar)

All three of these cars were running super sticky tires.. See a pattern?

There is NO such thing as a 125 foot skidpad.. it's 200 feet...

Look at it this way.. thier grip was .81 right? Alcino's was .99 right? Then how could they best his cones by 10mph if they had a .18 DEFICIT in grip?

Typo or bad math.. I don't think anyone was being dishonest.

Formulas:

420ft Slalom Equivilants

420/time = ft per sec x 3600 / 5280 = mph

Mean 69 · #6 04-04-2006, 07:05 PM

15.16, nor 14.28 are very respectable with a 400+ HP 383 crate motor, independent of the improvement in times. Something is screwy.

Could they have been running the wide cones, Steve? I'd bet, and in this case, well.....
M

Van B · #7 04-04-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2

There is NO such thing as a 125 foot skidpad.. it's 200 feet...

Am I wrong, or is a skidpad not much more than a circle drawn on a flat piece of paved surface? Therefore it could be any size you wanted it to be. While 200 ft may be the standard, does it mean a smaller or larger one cannot exist?