The FRF Shock Shootout! All pre event details and discussion here

[BigJ]

You disagree the results would be skewed?

Lets look at it this way. If we accept that there will be a frame reinforcement and bump stop kit involved to protect the truck, to do what you're driving at "right", each setup would need to be tested based on its own recommendation (one test per shock) or tested with the bumpstop's set to eachother's recommended psi (X tests per shock)

For example, lets say we have ACME bump stops. MfgA tells us "don't run them". That means zero psi to us. MfgB says "run those at 125psi" and mfgC says "run those at 200psi".

If we only tested all of them as per mfgA's suggestion, mfgB and mfgC are at a disadvantage. By the same token, if we only tested all of them at mfgB's, mfgA and mfgC are behind the 8 ball. And so on.

So, the only fair thing to do here is test all three shocks at all three suggestions OR only test each according to its own recommendation.

See what I'm saying?

 

[BlueSVT]

Absolutely. I just think if a manufacturer actually suggests using a bump kit and had a recommended spec, then they feel they need them to perform properly... Which is not a good representation of the shock itself.

If that's a manufacturers suggestion, then the MSRP "as tested" needs to include the bump kit, so you can at least fairly compare pricing, since your making the performance comparison with those allowances.

 

[BigJ]

Absolutely. I just think if a manufacturer actually suggests using a bump kit and had a recommended spec, then they feel they need them to perform properly... Which is not a good representation of the shock itself.

If that's a manufacturers suggestion, then the MSRP "as tested" needs to include the bump kit, so you can at least fairly compare pricing, since your making the performance comparison with those allowances.

And this goes back to my original "that's not a fair statement to make" comment. Respectfully, its not for you or me to tell any manufacturer what a good representation of their shock is, or not. Not in this context, anyway.

All we can and should do is test it as they suggest any customer buy it, within our ability and limitations and tell everyone who cares all the gory details. Let the observer decide for themselves what a good representation of the shock is, or not.

And Blue, don't forget, we're trying for a whole 'nuther dataset here too... we're actively hunting for a qualified shock dyno and operator. The data that would seem to be important to you personally is going to be revealed in those graphs, if not in the dirt.

 

[The Car Stereo Company]

big j, you can wreck my truck, as long as it gets put back together when you are done.... with some upgraded parts.........

 

[BigJ]

big j, you can wreck my truck, as long as it gets put back together when you are done.... with some upgraded parts.........

You're a good man busa! But nah, I think we'll pass.

 

[justvettn]

Get the recommended PSI from all three and run all three at the the lowest PSI recomended of the three. That way you get your bump stop and frame reinforcement and the test is not skewed.

 

[The Car Stereo Company]

You're a good man busa! But nah, I think we'll pass.

wishful thinking i guess.....

 

[BigJ]

Get the recommended PSI from all three and run all three at the the lowest PSI recomended of the three. That way you get your bump stop and frame reinforcement and the test is not skewed.

Why does it make sense to test a shock within a system in a way the manufacturer does not recommend? Go back to my example; all you're doing is skewing the results in favor of the company that suggested the lowest psi. The other two are at an automatic disadvantage.

 

[justvettn]

No that would be the only way to make it equal, if you want to use bump-stops. Other wise its going to be unfair to the better shock if the weaker shock is getting more assistance from the bump shock. How are you going to do a fair comparison of shocks if one is being aided more by the bump shock.

 

[BigJ]

You're making an argument for testing each shock at every manufacturer's recommended setting. We can certainly do that, but to cherry pick the lowest isn't fair to any.

But I still would ask this: why does it make any sense to test these at settings other than what the manufacturer recommends? If the truck under performs, we haven't learned anything because the manufacturer is gonna say "yeah duh, we told you not to run it that way". On the other hand, if it excels, all we've accomplished is a little R&D for that manufacturer. Do we want to be their R&D department?

Hopefully they'll all say "don't need 'em" and we can set it to zero for all tests. This becomes a non issue then.

But I don't think that's going to happen. I think some manufacturers are going to say they do need them. And when we list the results, we'll be sure to indicate who said what. You can take the ball from there and declare a winner based on that fact alone, if that's what you're after.