[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Coil-over shocks
> Computer simulations are VERY accurate and telling, I'm not sure what
> your cousin is meaning, unless he's talking about big car "Comfort and
>Feel" which is subjective anyway.
>>>> Interesting, he did ask where the Engineering degree came from in your
posts forwarded too... Not sure you will get agreement from any true
"engineers" on that statement, or the others above it <deleted>. More
variables go into a chassis than just suspension "stuff". Not a race team
out there that puts a suspension on the car from a computer, then takes it on
the track as the final. So "VERY accurate" is very liberal in definition.
>Bottom line: Don't write off a mod until you've btdt.
> BTDT on several car's. Would I do it on a track only car? Depends.
> Would I do it on a street car? Probally not.
>>> ? So bottom line, mod written off, no btdt.... Objectively, a lap time
might dictate you are missing something. Subjectively, on the street, you
might be too.
>My experience, as Audi Chassis Engineer Emeritus,
> Now that's going a LITTLE far..........
>>>? Claims of being an ENGINEER are going just as far, hence my Emeritus
status, self proclaimed. To "claim" to be an Engineer would take an
Engineering degree, minimum Undergrad. Self accredidation is an interesting
concept. Trans Am Chassis "Designer" or Chassis "Tech" might be more
appropriate. I would be VERY careful looking at a .sig line that has
"engineer" tied to it.
>is that coil-overs are a sensible and decent
>alternative, in performance and price, to ANY "kit" currently on the
> Proper execution of the mod, any mod in fact, is what differentiates the
>good from the bad. Lots of books and reference material available to
>that wants it, several include workbooks that make you a post-graduate
>Once again going VERY Far..... Especially the Post grad comment. If it
>was easy we all would be setting up Indycars making some large 6 digit
> incomes. That comment is the equivlent of telling someone that because
> they saw a doctor on "ER" transplant a heart they can do it too.
>Desiging suspension from the ground up is a excercise in compromise.
>Reengeneering an established design is tougher because you are not privy
> to certian other variables which can make large impacts in the final
>>>> No reference to "re" engineering. Understanding the formulas involved
in suspensions is not a rocket science exercise. For spring rates, and shock
rates, and chassis dynamics hardly going far at all.
>Reading books is a great way to get an understanding of terms and the
>realationships of certain variables. Will it make you a Post grad expert
> quickly? Never. That's why there are schools, and even once out of
>school it will still be trial and error until experience takes over.
>Experience is key though.
>>> That's btdt. "Expert" is a relative term. To understand and become an
"expert" on ANY of the "kits" out for audis now, doesn't take very long at
all. Understanding what was done and why and how, makes for an "informed"
>Proper suspension setup is not rocket science.
>Your right it's not rocket science, as someone pointed out rocket science
>is somewhat understated (What goes up must come down after all!)
>Suspension design is more along the line of Quantum physics.
>>> OK, hardly sending a car into orbit
>Understand the physics, and what you want the car to do,
> Which is the problem. Most people want their cars to "Handle Better"
>what does that exactly mean? Better transient response? More mechnical
>grip at the front? At the rear? etc etc...... What's it going to be?
>>> Hmmm.... I will stop short of entering this one. Given my humble
"experience" with this listers "kit" I might ask how and what applies here.
To keep the flames at bay, I might just note that sometimes the compromises
accepted are higher than one might believe or be told to be true
>and the rest is straight forward. Ride in a car
>with a proper suspension, the comparo is really easy, you have more
>evaluation in the seat of your pants than you might give yourself credit
>>Seat of the pants is one thing real numbers is another.
>>>> Ok, Subjective eval vs Objective eval. I give more credit to folks
"seat of the pants" subjectively, and would argue that the Objective prolly
won't be too far off. A suspension that feels right usually is, more
specifically, one that doesn't usually isn't
>Going wild in touring car?
>The best ideas in dampers are comming from Touring car. Better start
>>> When the price comes down... Let us know when you've btdt on the audi
>I don't see this coming to the mainstream for quite some time.
>>Your crystal ball is little foggy then.......
>>>> Hoping that is true, doubt it, but hoping
>Just a couple of pennies arbitraged thru the peso
> >I'd start saving those pennies for suspension school if I were you.
>>Eric Fletcher S.O.C.
'>>87 5KCSTQ WAY too many toys
>>Trans-am/Sportscar Chassis Engineer
>>St. Louis, MO
>>>> Interesting follow up. Surprised that one as "expert" hasn't done the
coil over kit for the audis, at least for eval, getting the front right, is
engineering. The eval that I've done, and driven, and the "stuff" designed,
as a self proclaimed audi chassis "engineer" is and has been proven to work
correctly, overcoming the pointed shortcomings by DESIGN and execution.
Objectively or Subjectively, it works, works well, in fact. Since this
above "Engineer" has put a lot of time into the offered suspension design,
maybe a comparo would be in order. Having been one to have several
suspensions, including Eric's, I raise an eyebrow some at the above post.
Some compromise is fine, and is subjective, I might add, some of the
Objective compromises are pretty glaring.
So, a few questions remain. Why does the EF "kit" lower the front of the car
by more than 1", since it is documented by this very lister, that is
undesireable? Why the use of "spacers"? Are the springs used spec'd by who?
Again, if spec'd, then why spacers? Are the shocks spec'd by who?
Objectively, has this kit been compared to anything? Why doesn't the
Engineer here fix the camber problem that plagues the "kit"? These are all
questions one could read a few books on, do some basic Quantum Physics, and
go hmmmm. There is one VERY informed consumer. When dropping more than a
grand on a suspension, 100 bux for a few suspension books with workbooks (for
the less anointed), could go a LONG way. A few on this list did it late in
the game, and became very learned very quickly.
I now would ask most politely, how one can claim to be an Engineer? Is this
a title bestowed by the "Team" of which you are a member, or is this a
recognized certification from some accredited "institution" of higher
learning? More than a few "real" ones on this list (that don't .sig line)
are prolly just as curious as myself. SAE might be interested in this
"title" as well. If one can't substantiate this claim, it might be better
left to the archives, and further deleted from .sig.
I only "claim" to be ignorant, and pretty quick about it.
Scott Justusson, S.O.B.