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]

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:mad: . 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]

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.:willy: :willy: :willy: :willy: :willy:
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]

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]

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:mad: . 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.):D

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]

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

[tyoneal]

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]

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]

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


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.


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.


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.


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: http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=10738&page=2 Perhaps he could chime in here and tell us more about it.

[byndbad914]

=========================================
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 :D 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]

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 :thumbsup:

[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.

[Blake Foster]

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.


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.[/QUOTE]

this is exactly what i was saying.................. HELLO!!!


But then Tyler had to tell it like it is AGAIN! i can see the risk to a company to really get involved in something like this............ but what is the risk in not being involved? if the Marketing that is out there is really true? lets be honest the membership on here and PT is such a small % of the market.
I talked to a contact in the magazine biz and he confirmed it would make for good reading ............. but call us when it's all done and set up and we might come??

[byndbad914]

as soon as you use a "so-so" driver, the test is BS, period. A so-so driver has no consistency. To say a pro driver makes a mediocre suspension seem awesome is bogus - a pro driver is consistent first, and capable at driving both at limit. So, if it is mediocre v. another suspension, the pro driver will run faster with the better setup. A "so-so" driver won't be consistent in the same car v. different cars, and because he is not at limit, then he will do just the opposite as the previous argument to have him - he will make an awesome suspension seem mediocre.

All that said, I am amazed at the crap I see written in magazines over time and in fact have stopped subscribing to them for years now. I buy one issue every year, or at minimum read a friends, and that is the EMC. Even then, where there is only a small difference in points between the winner and down, they really should "tie" if they are within 5% of each other just due to variations in environment that must exist in the dyno room (just to be fair with the cash IMO).

I love EMC as generally speaking, you see where theory can fail and testing is breaking new ground and drives the top guys to find more and more power. Just look at the carb sizes they run - older theory would say you need much less carb than those guys are using as of late. So if you look at the susp challenge the same way (and mentioned before by someone else), maybe it will drive suppliers to fine tune better and better packages. That would be the best benefit of all.

So just invite a bunch of cars out, run them at a track and sell some mags. Make up some bogus calculation that divides lap time by weight or something, then multiply by 1000 to make the numbers seem big and voila, done. It will be entertaining reading and sell some issues for sure.

[Steve Chryssos]

This doesn't need to be done by a magazine. Not at all.

[zerotofear]

50 cents did somebody ask for 50 cents, We started our training programs in 1988, 3 day equipment specific topics like metal shaping, chassis construction , and assembly most was focused on but was not limited to NASCAR racing because 92% of our students could get jobs right away. Our biggest focus was on car construction techniques, in most situations testing sanctioning body rules for an advantage. It takes a special frame of mind to engineer a performance vehicle to perform at peak levels. The competitor in me was intrigued by this post I luv challenges, but being part of the GM Tech Team have been behind the scenes enough to know that factory cars have certain quirks built in to keep grandma from crashing her Z28 on the way to church and these quirks are in all production vehicles. If the challenge is tuning a "quote" mule then it could be used as long as the tuning parts are bolt on. I agree that structual changes would quickly challenge the integrity of the mule and any resultant information. Now, my fifty cents, set up the challenge with boundaries or the bad word RULES a total weight, a common tire, a common carburetor, or HP range, a tread width and thats it. The black top dyno could take it from there, any car , any year, any make, a set challenge on the same tracks, on the same weekend, run them all and let performance sort them out. I am in lets do it.

[tyoneal]

To All:

I really like the thought many of you have put into this.

...... and yes, some of you have pointed out some obvious issues with feasibility.

In any event, there is something I would like to add, in addition to the common sense ideas that have been brought up.

1) The test that, "Car & Driver", do are very specific so the comparisons are worth something. Slalom speed, lateral acceleration or skid pad, 1/4 mile, 0-60, 0-100, 60-0, 100-0 etc. These would at least give the reader something they were used to seeing, and it would be interesting to see how our cars compare to the modern cars on the road.

2) If it was possible to have a "Real", track to run on at the same time, I would find it very interesting for the times of about 5-10 laps to be recorded, then averaged together. Once done, group "like cars", (A-Bodies, F-Bodies, etc) together so the readers could see how they stacked up against each other with the different equipment, then the reader could see how the different bodied cars compared to each other.

3) For me personally, I would like to have a professional driver(s) do the driving, so optimum performance could be seen and understood. First, by having the car driven correctly, the reader would know that the performance parts are REALLY being tested. Second, the values shown would be tested using good driving techniques. Finally, for those of us wanting to test and learn to drive our own cars, we would have some kind of scale to gauge ourselves against.

This being said, the Companies who's parts are being tested, would have them shown in the best possible light. Hopefully, this would encourage participation, and with any luck give each of them something they could use to promote their products.

Also, if the components were listed of each car, it would give the readers an idea of which parts working together with others will/can produce a given level of performance.

It would help them by, giving them a realistic cost to build a particular level of sports car.

Which parts have proven to work successfully together at that level.

If this was done every so often, it might give a way to gauge any new products that come to the market against already existing technology.

To top things off and for fun, have the same test run against totally stock cars from that period, or at least publish the data that had been collected when those cars originally were made.

How do you think these things would impact the presentation of the data?

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

[Steve1968LS2]

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

.

I'm in ... lol


Running a "JEG's Engine Masters" deal on suspension is NOTHING like doing it on engines. With engines you strap to a dyno and go.

With suspensions there's so many subjective items that it's really hard (and expensive) to do this sort of test. We've talked about it and really have no idea how to logistically pull it off and have it still be fair to all parties involved.

To say "Magazines won't do it because it would piss off advertisers" is just wrong.. if that was true then why would be do the Engine Masters challenge and piss off engine part makers?

If Penny came to an event and won would be because the front system was good or because the back system was good enough to make up for deficencies in the front system? Or maybe I was just sneaky and had Dick Guldstand show me how to cheat without being caught. lol.. there are just so many variables.

[Teetoe_Jones]

Just to clarify my earlier comments:

I was not slamming the magazines. I think Primedia does a great job on showing us the newest, latest and greatest offerings our industry has to offer, but rather the paying advertisers will have an issue if they are not represented like they are in an advertisement. It would be the advertisers fault for making mis-leading ads and then trying to prove their worth in the "ring" vs the magazine who made the test and posted the truth.

Magazines=good.
Advertisers= pissed.

Tyler

[Steve Chryssos]

Just to clarify my earlier comments:

I was not slamming the magazines. I think Primedia does a great job on showing us the newest, latest and greatest offerings our industry has to offer, but rather the paying advertisers will have an issue if they are not represented like they are in an advertisement. It would be the advertisers fault for making mis-leading ads and then trying to prove their worth in the "ring" vs the magazine who made the test and posted the truth.

Magazines=good.
Advertisers= pissed.

Tyler

Okay, so remove advertisING from the equation by running an independent event sponsored by a relatively impartial source like Classic Industries or Optima Batteries. Then the "advertisers" will just be "manufacturers" with nothing to fear but themselves and their competition. Rupp is the only non-manufacturer with vehicle testing experience. So he gets my vote for writing up the rules of the challenge. Get that done and I'll take care of lining up a sponsor and sending out the invites.

[tyoneal]

To All:

There has to be a way of each company who chooses to show their products openly to us, actually doing what they are designed to do, in a method that won't bankrupt them in the process.

By letting the manufacturers choose their own car, prep it in there own way, and show us what it can do. Then by choosing a professional driver or just a competent person to run it through the slalom, the 300 foot skid pad, and any other test they would be willing to engage in, would be a great first attempt teaching the public about them and their products potential.
Any acceleration test, 0 to whatever they choose.

1/4 Mile times with their engine (It would be nice if known RWHP was Tested and published, and the weight of the car)

Any Braking Test, 60-0, 100-0, or whatever.

Of course with this also it would really help to know what tires were used, the tire pressure, the brakes, brake pads etc. in these test.

But have the suppliers design their own test. As readers, we can discuss the results and make our own decisions regarding the data provided.

The more verifiable data they could provide the more convincing the argument would be as to quality and Engineering ability.

Would there be anything easier (For the suppliers and the buyers) that would bring decent information to the forefront?

We would know what types of performance we cold expect, how much it would cost, and what cars it worked in.

DSE has their Mule, with there products installed on it. They run it at many events and venues. There visibility at these events is reassuring to buyers and it shows confidence using their own products out in public. (The Management and Crew of DSE is commendable in my eyes for doing this,) What could be better advertising other than having some specific performance test run on that very same vehicle?

In any event it would make great viewing if public, it would make great reading if published, it would be great in what ever format we could get it in, and if done with integrity, it would probably sell a ton of products.

The ease of installation, and it's durability would be covered in the magazines, or here on the public forums anyway.

There would be no losers as far as the companies are concerned. They would get viability, it would inspire people to talk about them and their products. They would have the opportunity to show their products how they chose, to the public.

That magazines would not be harming any business, or causing any grief to the advertisers, by reporting the Types of test, it's parameters and it's scores.

As far as I can tell this would be a very doable thing. Not exactly purely Scientific, but valuable never the less and definitely fun and NEW to read about.

Even if two similarly equipped cars scored differently in a fairly big way. It would surely have to be taken into consideration the methods each one used to address the issue, and the cost of the parts that were used.

Not everyone can afford certain types of parts, not everyone is willing to cut on the car. Not everyone has the skilled to install the more challenging applications.

With regards to suspension types. Some want more street-ability, other more track. Some more drag racing centered, other Road Racing.

Handling Characteristics:
Some people like soft springs and BIG sway bars, other like big springs and medium sway bars.

In the end, there are no right or wrong answers. It is just a collection of Data to help the customer make the right personal choices.

I just want to know:

1) What I'm buying for my car?
2) Why am I buying it?
3) How much will it cost?
4) What type of performance do I get for my money?

What are your thoughts in this respect?

Is this now a viable was for helping everyone concerned?

Thanks again for everyone's participation. In the end many of us will have a hell of a lot of $$$ in our Cars, and I honestly think this would prove to be a benefit for us.

If this has cleared many of the obstacles formally pointed out by the earlier postings, and seem viable, let's see what we can do to encourage this type of format in the future by our vendors and media.

Well it's late and I'm pooped. Good Night!

Best Regards,

Ty O'Neal

























Thanks again,

Ty O'Neal

[Steve Chryssos]

Don't let the manufacturers design the rules or many will cry foul. And don't get too hung up on manufacturer participation. The relevant manufacturers will show.

Also, for every individual who wants to compare data, there are five more who just want to see if DSE will beat AirRide or vice versa. Will the orange car beat the blue car? Or will XV beat all of the Camaros? Stuff like that. The "team" hype is inevitable as well as colorful. We need someone like Rupp to secure crate engines for the Camaro Challenge and "loaner" testing equipment. Get the rules done and the rest is just phone calls and letters.

[tyoneal]

Steve:

What would you suggest I do to help push something like this along. I would really like to see this type of competition move forward without it becoming just a lot of BS'ing over a few Beers and a forum.

I agree with you completely about, " The relevant manufacturers will show." It probably wouldn't be too surprising who didn't, "Choose", to participate, however, in the long run as new people enter into this area, the silent companies exposure would sure be poor eventually, if they didn't figure out how to, "bring the goods".

I really like competition and if it were possible, I'd like to see it looked at like people do Bonneville, yes we are competitors, however our main competition is agaist the laws of physics.

Example:

"This record, which consist of these guidelines, was beat to day by, T amount of seconds, a record that had been held by C Corp for x amount of years."

or,

"XYZ set a new record today when they proved that a 3G car can be built for less than "P" dollars. Here is what they scored and how they did it.

or,

These are the cars that have been able to officially achieve the 3G milestone.

1)"Bad Penny", (Steve please excuse me using your car it's just for example) Achieved 3G's, on 3-23-08 by using these components at this setting. It was done during the ABC event of 08. The Weather at the time was, "12345". The track condition was x. Driver was John Smith.

Therefore a challenge against Mother Nature would take place instead of between, Chevy's or Fords, or this performance company or that one.

Just the basics at first would have to be framed. If the information was entertaining, complete, and useful to the readers/publics, different milestones of one or another would certainly be called for or tried just for the fun of it.

The main goal would be to bring the PT, "Science" into a higher level of performance.

As far as the Companies designing the rules:

If they brought their best game to the trials and were seen as, "Gaming", the rules, most of the people watching would know the type people they were and it would hurt them in the long run.

However, if the spirit of the contest is to achieve maximum performance in a Street Legal, Street Driven car and they could clear those hurtles. Then, however they choose to make it happen would probably push everyone forward.

The thing that would make this difficult would be the balancing act of putting into a car all that is needed and no more, while retaining a street-able car.

Which ever way it is done, as long as it is easily understood, cheap enough where many people could play and presented in a way for money to be made to support the event, it might be a lot of fun.

The big absolutes as I can tell is, that the car would have to be weighed for starters, and if a record was beaten then inspection as in other types of these contest would be mandatory.

The Weight of the Vehicle is the critical factor. This one thing enables you to understand the accomplishment. (Given the instruments of measurement are fair)

Anyway, as usual, thanks again for your input.

More thoughts?

Ty

[Steve Chryssos]

If you're looking for some homework, respond with a list of all manufacturers who should be invited--not who you think will show--who you think should be asked. Remember that I propose a challenge within a challenge. So non-Camaro companies and products are of interest to many. I sure would like to see if a Mopar, Mustang or the Morrison 3g Vette, for example, outperforms the Camaros. That won't help me choose Camaro parts, but I still want to see a wide cross section of cars run.

As for the Camaro Challenge, weight is important. So are horsepower (power to weight), tire commonality, driver commonality, and street legality. If equivalent engines turn out to be an insurmountable requirement, then the track will need to be timed in segments to prevent the use of straight sections to make up for lost time in turns.

[tyoneal]

If you're looking for some homework, respond with a list of all manufacturers who should be invited--not who you think will show--who you think should be asked. Remember that I propose a challenge within a challenge. So non-Camaro companies and products are of interest to many. I sure would like to see if a Mopar, Mustang or the Morrison 3g Vette, for example, outperforms the Camaros. That won't help me choose Camaro parts, but I still want to see a wide cross section of cars run.

As for the Camaro Challenge, weight is important. So are horsepower (power to weight), tire commonality, driver commonality, and street legality. If equivalent engines turn out to be an insurmountable requirement, then the track will need to be timed in segments to prevent the use of straight sections to make up for lost time in turns.
=============================

Steve, you have a email.

Ty

[Steve Chryssos]

Received and replied.

[Blake Foster]

i have said it before
I think all the cars need to be comparable, ie. MAX HP (as tested at the event on a dyno), Min Weight, MAx wheel/Tire Size and specify the tire. make it have to pass SSCA rules for safety ( pick a SCCA calss Modified production) if the manufacturer want to bring a car that doesn't use up the max / min numbers then that is up to them. some one other than the manufacturers needs to come up with the criteria other wise you will just have the rules fit their existing car. i know i would

that is the only way you will be able to compare cars of the same body style Camaro, Mustang what ever.

[Steve Chryssos]

Weight has a profound effect on handling as does chassis stiffness. Most end user cars will not be fly weight therefore minimum weight cars are not representative of the average customer. The best way to control weight is by requiring that the car be street legal and possess typical street ready components such as steel doors/fenders/deck lid, wipers, horn, lights, steel bumpers, mirrors, minimum 2 seats, legal glass, full interior such as door panels, carpeting, headliner. I also suggest a minimum 4 point roll bar with racing harnesses for safety's sake as well as subframe connectors. That leaves leeway for stereo, AC, sound deadening, and a lightweight hood.

Horsepower is another challenge altogether. Not sure how to realistically handle that one without inconveniencing the participants.

[Blake Foster]

That's what i mean about weigth make the min weigth 3200lb?? 3000lb what ever just set a min weight, that way i dont build a 2400 lb street legal car!!with 600 hp and 345 R compound tires and electronically adjustable Koni Shocks or what ever you will need to make the field some what level so the evaluation will mean something.

[Steve Chryssos]

Got it. 3200lbs works. And maybe the best way to limit horsepower is by limiting the rear tire?

[tyoneal]

To all:

I personally would like to see the extremes of everything someone can do to a street legal car.

If someone has taken the time to get a 1st gens weight down to 2400 lbs., I would like to see it, and see how it runs. I want to see the extent on what the suspensions components can do under many applications.

With the CF Hoods etc. I think it's awesome to have that type of technology at our disposal. These types of additions to after market parts will have a profound impact on the handling of our cars in the future.

I would hate to see anyone penalized for having, or producing obvious kick ass parts.

Heck Totally stock cars would be fun as well.

If my car weighed 2950 lbs. and I was 6'4" and weighed 340 pounds, would I really have an advantage?

Street Legal is a good was to create a minimum requirement along with safety equipment.

If it would make participation a lot higher, specific classes could be created so everyone would feel there is a "Level Playing Field".

I would be inclined to a drive what you bring perspective. Knowing the weight of the cars and the Types, sizes and compounds of the tires will speak volumes when evaluating performance.

The data from a handling contest/competition perspective would in a great extent really shed some light on how well the car performs.

Road and Track doesn't have all these complications. They see the car, explain the nuances of the car, and run it. It will either pull a g laterally or it won't. It will go through the slalom fast or it won't.

Would it be a good Idea to say the Corvette called 3G could not compete because it was purpose built for handling?

We are all one way or another building, "Purpose" built cars.

If it's important classes could be well defined. I personally like competition and maybe that would really add an aspect to this type of contest.

I am just glad you are speaking your mind on this, because you obviously are interested in this type of things, and I sure your not alone. I hope many more people will add to this discussion so what is important to possible attendees would be provided in the best possible way.

I am open and I really appreciate your input.

I encourage everyone to jump in if they are the least bit interested in a real Pro Touring event with their cars.

In truth having wider tires would help to a point. When they became to big then they would probably work against the performance of the car.

Having these thing, "Open", at least in some class will help educate everyone on the boundaries of our cars. That can't be a bad thing.

Ty

[Blake Foster]

Ty
i think your complicating the whole thing.
car and driver is comparing 2 different cars, you are asking to compare different suspensions in the same car??? are you not?
then the cars must be the same and only the suspension different, no?

make it simple,
and you might have a chance

3000lb with driver minimum weight
305 tire with DOT R compound MAX
450hp MAX as checked on the dyno day of event.
SCCA legal roll cage and seat belts, helmet

[Steve Chryssos]

I think Ty means "race within a race". The Camaro is a close comparison, but the event should also have some "Open class" cars running to add excitement.

Also take note of this thread's stats. (four pages, 39 posts, 749 views) Compare them to the stats on the Ring Brothers' car pix thread. (12 pages, 111 posts, 13,260 views) An event of this nature is a huge undertaking with tremendous expense and logistics. Perhaps the interest just isn't there??

[tyoneal]

To All:

As requested I will post this entire series of messages for those interested in any, "Off Board" thoughts.
=====================================Ty,
Steve:

(From Lateral-g)
"If you're looking for some homework, respond with a list of all manufacturers who should be invited--not who you think will show--who you think should be asked. Remember that I propose a challenge within a challenge. So non-Camaro companies and products are of interest to many. I sure would like to see if a Mopar, Mustang or the Morrison 3g Vette, for example, outperforms the Camaros. That won't help me choose Camaro parts, but I still want to see a wide cross section of cars run.

As for the Camaro Challenge, weight is important. So are horsepower (power to weight), tire commonality, driver commonality, and street legality. If equivalent engines turn out to be an insurmountable requirement, then the track will need to be timed in segments to prevent the use of straight sections to make up for lost time in turns."
=====================================
In answering the first Paragraph, with few examples, anyone who produces anything for the PT market, having to do with suspension, would be on the, "List".

Maybe they would have their own car like DSE, or perhaps they would work with a group of suppliers producing a vehicle utilizing a number of different suspension products.

I would imagine the biggest number of participants would be the Pro Touring Enthusiast, who spend their Money on these products.

A SEMA list of companies would probably be a good place to start.
================================================== ================
With regards to the other items:

In the different Competitions I have been a part of, You want to encourage a lot of participation through a positive experience. (i.e. Fun and Trophies for Enthusiast, and Notoriety for the Manufacturers?)

For Example: Classifications (2 Types), "For Contestants Only" (non Manufacturers), "For Manufacturers",

With regards to encouraging a broad amount of cars and brands;

Best in Body Type,

Best A Body
Best B Body
Best C Body
Best D Body
Best E Body
Best F Body

"Best of Show from a Manufacturer",(Best Chevy, Best Ford, Best Mopar, Best AMC),

Then Grand Prize, "Best Overall", of the entire field.

If participation was large, this structure would give a large amount of people the opportunity to win a trophy, and the Manufacturers would win huge because more than likely the other winners were using a product they produced, thus giving them big bragging rights as being a part of many, "Winners", achievements.

An entry fee of $20 per car to cover expenses with proceeds above and beyond expenses being donated to a Charity. Door prizes to participants could be involved so literally, everyone who shows up and enters, has a chance to win something.

In the process a huge amount of information could be gathered from the winners as far as what components they had used in their cars, and what types of test they excelled in.
=============================================
Since you mentioned Weight being an important factor:

As for the Camaro Challenge, weight is important. So are horsepower (power to weight), tire commonality, driver commonality, and street legality. If equivalent engines turn out to be an insurmountable requirement, then the track will need to be timed in segments to prevent the use of straight sections to make up for lost time in turns.[/QUOTE]

Steve:

Since much of the Testing would be focused on Handling characteristics of the cars, instead of the power of the Engine (2 out of 3 parts) I would think that the testing could even weight the 3 different components as to force a focus on Handling rather than pure HP.

For instance:

Lateral Acceleration to 1g = 50% of total score
Braking to 1g= 25% of total score
Acceleration to 1g = 25% of total score

A System of scoring each of he 3 parts of the 3g Challenge could be shown as:

.5g = +50 Points
.6g = +40 Points
.7g = +30 Points
.8g = +20 Points
.9g = +10 Points
.91 = +9 Points
.92 = +8 Points
.93 = +7 Points
.94 = +6 Points
.95 = +5 Points
.96 = +4 Points
.97 = +3 Points
.98 = +2 Points
.99 = +1 Points
1g = 0 Points
1.1g = -2 Points
1.2g = -3 Points
1.3g = -4 Points
1.4g = -5 Points
1.5g = -6 Points

-6 points per segment is the best you can get

Lowest Scores would be the winners in each class.

All Acceleration would only be counted when, "Sustained", for <x seconds as measured on a 300' Skid pad (or 600' if available?) Drag Race, Braking etc.

(Reference to R&T for Best Scores might be available so people could see how their car compared to the, "Worlds Finest".)

Speed through Slalom = 0 points for any car who matches the best R&T Score (Refer to Current R&T for Best score) As with the rest of the grading, the further away you are to the, "Best" (Baseline), the more points you would be given.

It should be REAL hard to get a "0" in the contest. Lowest Point Competitor Wins.
=========================================

I know this is a just a brief sketch of an event, however it could be easily modified to account for time restraints, different participation numbers etc.

I just thought doing a mind dump regarding your questions might be a good way to get thing started.

Thoughts?

Ty

[tyoneal]

To All:

Can someone give me an idea what is the approximate going rate to rent a Track for a day? (M-Th, Fr, Sat-Sun)

Please also include the size, type and facilities that are on site.

I'm looking in the North Texas Area (Spring, early Summer) and have found several good prospect locations, however, I have no idea what kind of cost is usually involved.
==========================================

If there was some real support, I will see what I can do to get something like this started. This said, however, since my head injury several years ago, I have to take things as I can. I'm usually good for 2-3 hours at a time, then I have to "recharge". What I'm trying to say is, I would need some committed help for coordination and extended managing.

I would entertain helping to put up some seed money to help get this thing going if need be.

Anyone remotely interested in attending something like this, please speak up. I would like to try to make something like this a participatory event, meaning, You show up, you have the opportunity to drive your car a lot. (Open Track Driving, Lateral Skid Pad, and Slalom)

Answer and Remark PLEASE!

Please take the time to post here of PM me.

Thanks,

Ty