How about a Jeg's Suspension Masters Challenge?

[Blake Foster]

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

love it

[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
_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

=================================
Tyler:

I know you would toss your products into the challenge as they are proven and top notch.

As long as the companies weren't lying about their products, the exposure would probably be worth a lot of $$$ in sales.

This said, why does the Engine Masters Challenge Succeed?

Wouldn't they expose the same things from the people who entered their contest?

How would you propose something like this taking place?

I really think the people who were Bull Sh*tting about their products would simply NOT show up. They could then still advertise, and their would not be any bad press about them.

Thanks for the reply, I'm looking forward to your insight.

Ty

[fvike]

Originally Posted by tyoneal

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

I totally agree with you Ty, on having data presented to consumers about suspension parts preformance. That is indeed where the big money in a build are spent.

Originally Posted by tyoneal

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)

I'm not poo pooing the idea, I'm just saying finding a suitable format to do it is extremly hard, because of all the varaibles.

Originally Posted by tyoneal

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.

Yeah, all information of products is helpful for customers considering them. But it's not very helpful in a EMC type of compition, where there is one challenge per year. It's not any good for a guy with a 2nd gen Camaro or Firebird if there is perhaps 5 year between Challenges that has that car as a mule.

Originally Posted by tyoneal

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.

I agree, the EMC is a great competition, and lots of useful info to be had from it, but I just don't see an competition in that format being applicable to suspension parts.

Originally Posted by tyoneal

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

Regards,
Ty

I'm all for a Challange like this, but I don't see how it can be done in an EMC type of compititon. That's what I'm saying, perhaps it didn't come clear in my first post. But in a way, we do have a suspension test going on in PHR. They do take most cars they do a story on out on the skid pad, and show us how many g's the car can take. They do a standarized test on the car. Bilsport Magazine in Sweden has a auto-x type test they do on all cars they present. Perhaps PHR could do the same. Jannes Z28's Camaro was in that test earlier: https://lateral-g.net/forums/show...t=10738&page=2 Perhaps he could chime in here and tell us more about it.

[byndbad914]

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

[tyoneal]

To All:

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll get to them shortly.

As I was reading the post, something dawned on me.

Wasn't the I.R.O.C. based on similar cars with just a driver difference?

What I would propose is:

Each business builds their own 1st Gen F-Body (Substitute whatever car you want) using their products and ideas, or packages. It doesn't matter what they do to the floor board or not. It is for them to design their best suspension. Then all the little things would go away.

If their package used CF, great, If another one uses a Tubular suspension, great. As long as it is something they sell and we can buy.

That would give them free reign to develop great suspensions, and we could be the ones to evaluate their performance based on what we were willing to do to our cars, and how much we were willing to spend.

In addition baselines would be known, and records would be set. They would also have set goals with their R & D.

It wouldn't make exactly apples to apples, however we could evaluate each companies efforts on a given platform, and there would be something for everyone there. The next year, they would come back with their next try. They could learn from their competition what worked and what didn't. Each years they would all probably get better because of the competition.

As a result We would have a wealth of information and a choice how we each wanted to approach the suspension part of our build.

Over time we could see what 5K can build, and what you can get for 10K and so on. Another plus is, as it became clear what worked for a specific model then who had the best price would become relevant. Possibly, making the market more competitive. In the long run our available technology choices would improve.

What do you think of this idea.

Ty

[Blake Foster]

I think you need to figure out the rules, use SCCA rules for the construction of the chassis that way everyone at least has a car that is legal to run on a road course!
then you need to decide on the other parameters
Max HP
Min Weight
bla bla bla

let me know............

[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.

[byndbad914]

Originally Posted by tyoneal

Wasn't the I.R.O.C. based on similar cars with just a driver difference?

We just said the same thing. I was afraid my post being so long would skew what I am getting at given the floorboard comment.

IROC cars are IDENTICAL cars, NOT built by each team. Everything including engine, trans, chassis is 100% IDENTICAL and maintained at ONE location. This tests two things - a team's ability to set the car up (monkey with suspension) for a given track, and the driver's capability to drive the same powered car. You need to take the driver out of the equation, so you have a single professional driver drive them all one at a time.

So, require the teams to build an exactly identical car with an exact crate motor and trans, and you will have NO challenge as nobody would invest that kind of money in a mule (it's like asking the engine masters to build and bring along their own dyno).

So the magazine needs to buy a couple of old Camaro IROC racers, and add the front and rear with stock 1969 Camaro suspension mounts in stock location (so each company's camaro bolt in kit does just that, bolts in.) Then do a couple suspensions per week and have the driver run them. Take an average of 5 laps. That is the ONLY way you could get a somewhat unbiased test of suspension designs. I don't care what they make the suspension out of, look like, etc... it just has to be a bolt on kit for a given car type. That would be the best test for a "typical" consumer. If it starts requiring custom mounting fabrication, it is BS for the typical consumer.

We are getting onto the same page

[Steve Chryssos]

I don't get to post much any more, but this topic always tightens my nuts. The concept of testing multiple chassis/suspension systems on ONE vehicle is absurd. How would you like to be the manufacturer who must weld his rear suspension into a car that has already had two or four preceding installs? What would be left of the rear frame rails and unibody/floorpan structure after welding in and then cutting out multiple designs? Talk about sloppy seconds. Toss the scientific method right out the window.
A front subframe comparison is slightly more realistic, but even that ignores the real world challenges associated with the installation process. Steering linkage, brake/fuel lines, exhaust, driveshaft length, pinion angle, track width etc., etc. etc. all vary from one subframe to another. And since most enthusiasts use permanent subframe connectors, there is cutting and welding involved. It seems unreasonable at best to expect manufacturers to accept such a challenge--especially if the scientific method is susceptible to scrutiny anyway.
No. If you guys want a suspension challenge, it's time to stop demanding that the test occur inside of a vacuum. You want a challenge? Here's your challenge:
Invite the following vehicles for a head to head challenge. The CARS will make it interesting and informative--not just the data.
-Bad Penny: Lateral Dynamics 3 link/21st Century C5 front subframe
-Detroit Speed Test Car: DSE Subframe/Quadralink
-XV Motorsports Challenger
-Air Ride Technologies Street Challenge First Gen: There 68 got stolen, but there are plently of customer cars to choose from
-Air Ride Technologies A Body
-American Touring Specialtes' new development car: That car should be called" "The car that Tyler bought at an annoyingly affordable price and then drove home from Cali so we all hate him. A lot." project car. Chicane LM front sub upgrade/LD 3 link rear??
-Art Morrison: Matt Jones' Camaro. Bring the 3g Vette too, please. Should spank everyone.
-Hotchkis Chevelle: With all bolt on parts
-Martz: 2nd Gen Camaro
-Hotchkis 2nd Gen Camaro

Now wouldn't you really love to see all of these cars run head to head? I'm sure I forgot many brands, but you get the idea. Invite 20-plus sources and you will get sufficient response to generate a valid challenge. And se all of those non-1st gen Camaros? Bring em. Enthusiasts are smart enough to extrapolate the 1st gen Camaro results. Better yet, run a challenge within a challenge. Make all of the first gens comply with certain guildelines to minimize variables. Like this:
-Same engine: (Speed in the straights can be used to compensate for deficiencies in turns, so engine output and power to weight are critical. Get GM to lend or donate some crate engines.
-Gearing: Limit gearing to a useable range i.e 3.55 to 4.11
-Same wheels/tires. All "sticker" tires.
-Roll cage: Set parameters for roll cages. Safety would be an important part of the competition and the added stiffening will reduce chassis flex as a variable.
-All coupes: Again, convertibles would greatly skew the results.
-Full street equipment: Wipers, radio, minimum two seats, headliner, carpet, windows, bumpers, lights, etc. I guarantee that all of the camaros will show up with the minimum requirements.
-Weight factor: Handicap cars based on weight to prevent cheating.
-One "so-so" driver. A great driver can make crap handle well. Plug in an amateur driver with "some" experience and NO ties to any of the companies.

Now doesn't that sound like a challenge that could actually happen? The test could occur during ONE day--not weeks. How many suspension systems could anyone swap and test in one day? Same weather, same track, same driver or the scientific method is trashed.

Let go of the antiseptic, hermetically sealed, "scientifically correct" test methodology. It will NEVER happen because it is unreasonable, cost prohibitive, and rife with problems. It's the perfect example of how message board threads and benchracing can be out of sync with reality.
Instead, pit some killer, well known cars against each other and compare the results just as Car and Driver might do when comparing a Ferrari to a Porsche. Those tests are valid aren't they? Give people a chance to root for their favorite car or brand. Add some color to the test. Straight data can be mind numbing.

To get started, all it would take is a few phone calls and some invitation letters. Let the readers know the names of all who were invited. And let the manufacturers know that you will let the readers know that they were invited.