MaysEffect

This is apples n oranges. Engine management is worlds ahead of basic suspension systems. Not every car is making the same power based on several factors. There is an optimal base map which has to work in a field of operating parameters. The engine has levels of VVC and A/F parameters to work with depending on operating temps and air density.

Mass produced cars/bikes just recently starting using VVC to change compression/rebound parameters depending on road conditions and response timing. Even still its not the end all be all for perfect ride, where you still have to rely on the spring for the overall support of weight.

Thoroughly disagree. Chassis stiffening is considerably more complex than damper settings and spring rates. Companies spend millions of dollars alone in validating structural integrity, mapping out where there needs to be absorption and crash resistance independent of each other. Altering this is a matter of safety. Doing it for suspension characteristics is an impractical validation of chassis control and money is best spent else where first.

This may be a good point of reference, but as you said, in the end it has to work for you. Simply copying it tic of tac is a matter of following someone else blueprint. This isn't valid interpretation of data. There are several parameters behind tires that someone else may be able to exploit, but maybe you can't. Heat ranges being one. You may live in a cold climate area, where as i may live in a hot climate. RS3's may work better between 50-70F, where as a RE-11 may work better between 70-90F. Why get the same tire you have if my climate doesn't suit your option any better? What if all of the Utah hotshoes swore by said tire no matter what?

You started off by saying an obstacle is finding interpret-able data. Then followed up by saying simply copy someone else tic for tac is the easiest thing to do. The solution doesn't solve the problem at all.

Copying is not interpreting, and in most cases it is done blindly. I can copy an entire photo album from google and submit it as my own. I don't have to understand the parameters of a single image for it to be positively accepted by others or for me to make some vaguely blanketed statement about what it is.

If you are always under the wing of someone else, you will never fully be able to interpret information accurately. Being in a constant state of following others based on positive results isn't a winning formula.

Without the actual understanding of the potential options available, we'll never truly get what is actually best for our exact needs. You'll most likely get what sounds/looks the best for your money. In all cases this just doesn't always pan out to be the most reasonably philosophy to live by.


This is contradicting within itself, In order for me to even know something is best in one condition or the other, i have to be remotely knowledgeable about what works where. Business marketing in some cases is intentionally misleading to people and prescribes what is best for their needs simply because they need to sell what they have for offer. Or in other cases go overboard in the reminders of safety in the cases where some idiot might still try to use said product in the wrong conditions and subsequently try to sue them.

If a coilover kit has the words "comfortable for street" in its details but hides the fact the springs are 2000ib/in with 2 inches of spring travel. I may end up buying it off the false pretense that its comfortable. Same thing when marketing associates the words "soft" as a bases of suspension control. In most cases SOFT isn't exactly the best solution either. In everyday lingo, we usually associate "soft" with plush and comfortable. Are we supposed to accurately interpret this to real life terminology? How is soft or hard accurately measurable and where is the line where softer turns to hard? Does Hard mean my a$$ won't work after 20 minutes of driving?

100% agree.
BUT...If you don't have the time to understand what you are changing even on a basic level, why are you even messing around with it in the first place? How long will it take for someone to read this page? In my guesstimation, significantly less time than installing a coilover kit or wait in your installers lobby looking at sports illustrated or Motortrend.

You don't need to be a innovator to comprehend things you are willing to spend money on modifying or using. I don't need to know how to make a iphone to understand a battery that stores energy powers a motherboard and its subsequent pieces to turn pre-written codes into visual/audible applications. I also don't need to know the exact ratio in my air/fuel charge to know more of it will result in a larger explosion in a cylinder chamber (although it would be helpful so that i don't blow a hole through my engine block when a gauge reads 14.5:1)

At the end of the day, having a basic understanding of what you will be working with is better than having no understanding and just hoping it works best based on someone else performance capabilities. If you don't know, being mislead into false knowledge isn't helpful. Its even less helpful than not understanding at all. And that is exactly what happens when false pretenses are published on marketing pages on how something will make blah better, or works period for daily usage. "Better" implies all one needs to know to make a decision. You throw in some mouth watering scripts like "great value, more agile, comfortable, faster, more blah" and my money has already escaped my pocket book. Throw some eye catching beauty shots in the mix. MAN!!

I disagree, although a valid topic for discussion. Sharing data is so you can have a bases of understanding of what should be expected. Not so you can just go out and copy it. Again, what if copying said changes meant you had to spend an arm and a leg to get said performance gains? What if you could make it better? or get comparable gains with a completely different set of parameters and cost? The guys over at OnPointDyno (Sasha) were able to extract over 375whp on a N/A engine. You can also make that much by simply bolting on a basic supercharger kit. Completely different parameters. Comparable results.

Shock dyno's are rarely posted because people generally have no comparable data. What does this information actually tell me?



All of this has to be interpreted to some base of information.

In the case of a dyno graph for engine performance we all can gather that a higher curve value would generally mean a higher power output. But without a bases of understanding of what is happening where within that curve, how would we know one value is better than another?


Here we just see values of how different setups work, just a approximation of how much and potentially where. No exact data between specifics in tunes. Do i just get the one that has the highest total value?



Here we see comparable values between several kits and its subsequent gains and drawbacks over stock and competitor kits. This gives us a much better representation of what i have or could have purchased in relation to other kits. or what i could possibly do with my own custom kit.

With regards to the shock dyno's, what exactly can we interpret without comparable data of other plots from competitor profiles? Someone simply telling me its better than blah and showing me its "adjustable" can be all i need to throw down cash for something i still don't understand.