MM Road & Track Springs

[Arustik]

1.2g with a Pilot Super Sport? Please excuse my skepticism

Same, then they told me they had a 285 square setup on the car, which all put it together.

 

[sheizasosay]

Same, then they told me they had a 285 square setup on the car, which all put it together.

Still extremely impressive. I will lay out my case for suspicion. Reference http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1107_2012_chevrolet_corvette_z06_centennial_edition_test/

A Vette with magnetic dampers and tires that are in a different(stickier) category altogether. 285's on the front and 335 rears. Of course with the fronts the lateral G will be affected by the weakest link in the tires (285). But that car *only* achieved a 1.13G.

Given that the vette weighs less, has a better suspension and "perfect" dampers, even with the reserve of the 285 width fronts, the vette is still on a substantially stickier tire.

So....that's all I'm saying. This is also why I started asking people on here in another thread (probably should have made another thread) about what kind of lateral G numbers they were getting and what kind of tires they had.

MM isn't a vendor hear and can't comment, which is unfortunate as I have a lot of respect for them and their capabilities and their long-standing accomplishments to road racing and mustang suspension development. I don't want to bash them without their ability to respond. God knows Jack Hidley would hand me my ass in any type of suspension discussion.

 

[Ivan 5.0]

God knows Jack Hidley would hand me my ass in any type of suspension discussion.

Isn't he on cornercarvers? Maybe inquire there?

 

[Whiskey11]

Isn't he on cornercarvers? Maybe inquire there?

He is, although I don't recommend posting there. If you think THIS place is harsh, that place makes this place look like kindergarten... I have an account, I've made ONE post, because that is all I could really contribute to discussions going on there...

Still extremely impressive. I will lay out my case for suspicion. Reference http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1107_2012_chevrolet_corvette_z06_centennial_edition_test/

A Vette with magnetic dampers and tires that are in a different(stickier) category altogether. 285's on the front and 335 rears. Of course with the fronts the lateral G will be affected by the weakest link in the tires (285). But that car *only* achieved a 1.13G.

Given that the vette weighs less, has a better suspension and "perfect" dampers, even with the reserve of the 285 width fronts, the vette is still on a substantially stickier tire.

So....that's all I'm saying. This is also why I started asking people on here in another thread (probably should have made another thread) about what kind of lateral G numbers they were getting and what kind of tires they had.

MM isn't a vendor hear and can't comment, which is unfortunate as I have a lot of respect for them and their capabilities and their long-standing accomplishments to road racing and mustang suspension development. I don't want to bash them without their ability to respond. God knows Jack Hidley would hand me my ass in any type of suspension discussion.

There are waaaay too many factors here to really, I mean REALLY, compare lateral G numbers from one comparison to another. Even if it's on the same track, there are just too many variables in the temperature, surface cleanliness, surface type, surface construction, humidity, driver confidence, etc, etc.

I pulled a peak 1.28 and was consistently over 1.15 G on 245/45/18 Star Specs with -1.7º of camber, Steeda Sports and Tokico D-Specs in a car that was very, very pushy. Who knows what I was pulling on 265/40/18 Hankook RS3's (by all accounts a faster tire) with 440/200lbs/in springs and -3.0º of camber.

All of those measurements were taken on the Lincoln Air Park's concrete which is a fairly abrasive and grippy surface. It was also well rubbered in and relatively clean on line.

I'm sure I could find a piece of Asphalt where my car would pull around 1.1g peak and a little over 1g consistently.

 

[sheizasosay]

There are waaaay too many factors here to really, I mean REALLY, compare lateral G numbers from one comparison to another. Even if it's on the same track, there are just too many variables in the temperature, surface cleanliness, surface type, surface construction, humidity, driver confidence, etc, etc.

I pulled a peak 1.28 and was consistently over 1.15 G on 245/45/18 Star Specs with -1.7º of camber, Steeda Sports and Tokico D-Specs in a car that was very, very pushy. Who knows what I was pulling on 265/40/18 Hankook RS3's (by all accounts a faster tire) with 440/200lbs/in springs and -3.0º of camber.

All of those measurements were taken on the Lincoln Air Park's concrete which is a fairly abrasive and grippy surface. It was also well rubbered in and relatively clean on line.

I'm sure I could find a piece of Asphalt where my car would pull around 1.1g peak and a little over 1g consistently.

Yeah you got a few points there that are totally valid. Track surface... big; bank/road camber...huge; temps...sure.

I would wager driver confidence was not the limiting factor of achieving 1.2G's with MM's test team. 1.2Gs is a strong and unlikely number for 300 treadwear tires. If you want to disagree with that, ok. Debatable.

With the vette, driver confidence definitely was not a factor. There is no such animal as "driver's confidence" on a 100-foot radius skidpad. That is not debatable.

Measuring equipment would be a factor left out.

Edit- on second thought, considering the variables, my point is pointless. Good post whiskey.

 

[NoTicket]

I don't understand, where in MMs page does it say that they averaged 1.2g on a skidpad run?

1.2G consistently through SOME corner is another matter. For example, turn 6 at Laguna Seca is a left hand turn that is banked and has a short lived fairly steep grade. I wager you could actually hit 1.2G through this corner with that setup fairly easily. But you could probably hit that many setups.

 

[Ivan 5.0]

I don't understand, where in MMs page does it say that they averaged 1.2g on a skidpad run?

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/2011-2014-Mustang-Road-and-Track-Grip-Box-P1443.aspx

They say, "Delivers continuous cornering forces above 1.2g, as tested with Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires (tread wear rating of 300)."

 

[Norm Peterson]

These springs are part of the above-linked Grip Box as well as being part of a different part number Grip Box for the 2010 and earlier cars. Street and track sessions were mentioned rather than any particular skidpad test or venue. I have no idea where or even how they might test their products.


Last I knew, C-C.com membership wasn't something that occurred by return email where you click the link to complete the process like it works at most other places. If you choose to join, plan on being patient and using the interim to find your thick skin . . .


Norm

 

[NoTicket]

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/2011-2014-Mustang-Road-and-Track-Grip-Box-P1443.aspx

They say, "Delivers continuous cornering forces above 1.2g, as tested with Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires (tread wear rating of 300)."

Continuous cornering forces does sound like they might be talking about a skidpad. If that is what they are implying then sure, they are probably lying or using faulty equipment for recording.

 

[Ivan 5.0]

I just sent MM an email regarding the discussion of this thread. Hopefully they can provide some clarification.

 

[Jack Hidley]

I'm on a trip currently, so I don't have access to the original data logs that were taken for the measurements in question.

The measurements were taken at Buttonwillow Raceway Park, in configuration 13 I believe. I'm fairly certain that we did not use any data from the banked corners as these would obviously skew the results unfairly.

The data was measured with a Motec ADL3 data logger which is squared to the car before testing and has had all of the accelerometers temperature compensated.

We used the term "Delivers continuous cornering forces" to differentiate the measurements from some type of peak measurement, which would be nearly meaningless. Any time a signal is measured, that has any significant amount of time variance, the average level is going to measure very differently depending on the amount of integration (filtering) that is used. When I get home next week, I can post what integration time we used for the 1.2g measurement.

Yes, the tires were a square 285 setup. BW is paved with asphalt.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

 

[Whiskey11]

Last I knew, C-C.com membership wasn't something that occurred by return email where you click the link to complete the process like it works at most other places. If you choose to join, plan on being patient and using the interim to find your thick skin . . .


Norm

You'd be correct, took less than 24 hours for the admins to get me in though. It's not a difficult process if you follow the instructions!

I'm on a trip currently, so I don't have access to the original data logs that were taken for the measurements in question.

The measurements were taken at Buttonwillow Raceway Park, in configuration 13 I believe. I'm fairly certain that we did not use any data from the banked corners as these would obviously skew the results unfairly.

The data was measured with a Motec ADL3 data logger which is squared to the car before testing and has had all of the accelerometers temperature compensated.

We used the term "Delivers continuous cornering forces" to differentiate the measurements from some type of peak measurement, which would be nearly meaningless. Any time a signal is measured, that has any significant amount of time variance, the average level is going to measure very differently depending on the amount of integration (filtering) that is used. When I get home next week, I can post what integration time we used for the 1.2g measurement.

Yes, the tires were a square 285 setup. BW is paved with asphalt.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

Mr. Hidley, welcome to S197forums. I hope you hang around and enjoy a far more serious crowd than your average Mustang forum. You already know who I am, I'm that guy on Facebook who was asking about having to pull the rear bar with your R&T springs because of the rear spring rate relative to the front.

 

[sheizasosay]

I'm on a trip currently, so I don't have access to the original data logs that were taken for the measurements in question.

The measurements were taken at Buttonwillow Raceway Park, in configuration 13 I believe. I'm fairly certain that we did not use any data from the banked corners as these would obviously skew the results unfairly.

The data was measured with a Motec ADL3 data logger which is squared to the car before testing and has had all of the accelerometers temperature compensated.

We used the term "Delivers continuous cornering forces" to differentiate the measurements from some type of peak measurement, which would be nearly meaningless. Any time a signal is measured, that has any significant amount of time variance, the average level is going to measure very differently depending on the amount of integration (filtering) that is used. When I get home next week, I can post what integration time we used for the 1.2g measurement.

Yes, the tires were a square 285 setup. BW is paved with asphalt.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

When you get time to reply....do you think the Vette I previously referenced would pull higher than 1.2Gs on the same MM test? I am having difficulty comparing the two numbers without feeling the Vette would easily out do the Mustang.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hidley]

The Corvette test that you referenced above pulled 1.13g on a skidpad with a presumably stock alignment. On a racetrack, I expect that its cornering forces would be higher than this. Skidpads almost always result in the lowest cornering grip measurements for a couple of reasons. I also expect the Corvette to have a semi performance alignment. This will reduce its cornering grip some also, compared to a real performance alignment

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support.

 

[Arustik]

The Corvette test that you referenced above pulled 1.13g on a skidpad with a presumably stock alignment. On a racetrack, I expect that its cornering forces would be higher than this. Skidpads almost always result in the lowest cornering grip measurements for a couple of reasons. I also expect the Corvette to have a semi performance alignment. This will reduce its cornering grip some also, compared to a real performance alignment

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support.

All valid points as well.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

All valid points as well.

Indeed. You'll find that Jack is the "real deal" and loses more knowledge about suspension design, theory and operation over breakfast than most of us well ever have...

 

[sheizasosay]

All valid points as well.

100% agree and settles my questions. I think it's pretty clear what happened here. I didn't consider all the variables. I don't think I had ever really put a lot of thought into differences in tests for Lateral G #s. It's something I will certainly keep in mind in the future.

Indeed. You'll find that Jack is the "real deal" and loses more knowledge about suspension design, theory and operation over breakfast than most of us well ever have...

I'm glad he stopped by.

 

[sheizasosay]

Ivan, what is your sway bar setup? You got the stockers still? You take off the rear bar? How is the oversteer/under steer bias? You hit your bump stops any? Lets bring this thread back around to the topic.

 

[Arustik]

Ivan, what is your sway bar setup? You got the stockers still? You take off the rear bar? How is the oversteer/under steer bias? You hit your bump stops any? Lets bring this thread back around to the topic.

My rear springs are very stiff (325lbs). I'm thinking about removing the rear sways to soften the rear for less "oversteer".

 

[sheizasosay]

My rear springs are very stiff (325lbs). I'm thinking about removing the rear sways to soften the rear for less "oversteer".

I would tell you to take it off, but I think I'm getting a reputation for boycotting rear swaybars.