DSE Suspension Testing - Lateral-g Forums

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

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

907rs · #2 04-03-2006, 04:32 PM

Are they published somewhere Stuart?

JV69z/28 · #3 04-03-2006, 06:49 PM

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

Speedster · #4 04-03-2006, 07:22 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

For comparison (420ft cones)

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

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

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

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

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

Formulas:

420ft Slalom Equivilants

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

Mean 69 · #6 04-04-2006, 07:05 PM

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

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

JV69z/28 · #7 04-04-2006, 07:24 PM

Hey Steve when you say red Camaro are you talking about the car used in the Heidts spindle test? If so what do you think of those numbers? That car has the dropped spindles and narrowed control arms. They don't list the tire sizes and wheel specs (I wonder why) but the numbers for that car are world class and right there with the DSE stuff. Is that possible? If so to get that low down look that may not be such a bad option. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

**Steve1968LS2** · #8 04-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JV69z/28

Hey Steve when you say red Camaro are you talking about the car used in the Heidts spindle test? If so what do you think of those numbers? That car has the dropped spindles and narrowed control arms. They don't list the tire sizes and wheel specs (I wonder why) but the numbers for that car are world class and right there with the DSE stuff. Is that possible? If so to get that low down look that may not be such a bad option. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

All I know about that test is that those were the numbers the car ran. I have the run sheet and I double checked all their calculations.

It ran the best times with the Nitto tires. I could easily find the tire and wheel sizes.

It's all in the tuning.. hell, Alcino ran numbers about that good and better than most of the exotic stuff and his suspension certainly wasn't exotic by any stretch..

I don't understand you comment about the "low down look".. of the red Camaro?

Also, I should restate that I am sure the DSE deal performed well. It's just that those numbers are not possible given the data I read. According to that the car was way faster than any other car, even a new vette, BEFORE they even installed the parts. lol

**Steve1968LS2** · #9 04-04-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean 69

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

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

Don't know.. this test wasn't done on this coast so I have no idea. You've been to our tests and you have seen the equipment we use to test. Radar and sensors and all the goodies. Maybe they used a stopwatch. I doubt they cheated since the numbers were so far off, and I know DSE to be an honest company. I think it was either bad math, a transposition or bad data gathering (equipment).

Mark, can you see a car on hard tires being 10mph faster than Alcino's car on the race rubber?

JV69z/28 · #10 04-04-2006, 08:22 PM

Sorry pour choise of words. Some people call it the "money stance". I was just refering to more than the normal 2" drop provided by lowering springs. By the tire and wheel sizes I was getting at it's a fact the dropped spindles limit the front wheel back space - did the narrowed control arms allow the use of 8" wide wheels with less back space? Those performance numbers seem really good - are the tires where most of the gain is coming from? I'm not trying to hi-jack the thread just trying to better understand where the improvements are coming from. The bottom line is when you guys at PHR do an article you finish reading with answers - these articles leave you with more questions than answers. Thanks again.