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

[onesickpuppy]

I would say for endurance let the dyno do it, would be easier to achieve. I am not sure what the duty cycle of a shock dyno is though.
These tests need to have every variable kept to a minimum.

 

[BigJ]

Wonder if a thermocouple like a leaf style stuck to the shock body would be useful to see/compare shock temperatures during action.

In terms of heat cycling, I am planning to bring an IR thermometer to both the dyno and dirt tests. For the dyno I'm going to record temp vs time (good idea on the thermocouple though; that would make things much easier!). For the dirt I plan to use it to ensure start temps are the same run to run and use it to see and record the end temps after each.

I am using my own shocks right now trying to figure out how long they take to cool off; it seems like there's a relatively quick drop in temp and then it takes forever to drop the rest of the way. I have a feeling we're going to need to pick a realistic temp for the start; we obviously can't wait all day for them to cool off between each run and each driver.

Not ideal I know. But not a terrible compromise either I think.

 

[Squatting Dog]

I think shock dyno would be a better idea for endurance verses trying duplicate the endurance run with 3 separate drivers..

-Greg

 

[BigJ]

I'm NOT a shock dyno expert. I'm trying to climb the learning curve as time allows, so I can hopefully explain it to everyone else when the time comes.

So far, it seems to me a shock dyno is all about plotting velocity verses force. Basically it tells you how much the shock resists or allows movement (force in terms of lbs) for a particular velocity (inches per second) at which its moving.

I haven't come across data that shows something like an endurance or stress test. Maybe that is just a matter of running it on the dyno for X time recording no data, followed by another run during which you do record data. You might be able to see fade that way?

Again I'm not an expert. And I'm trying to learn how to best utilize it. Hopefully I run into an expert who can educate me and we can go from there.

 

[Outlaw Offroad]

Thanks for the thoughts Outlaw!

Yep, this thread is all about testing shocks! And it sounds like you've got one heck of an idea on how to test 'em. But much of what you're describing and suggesting is beyond the scope of what we can pull off realistically, and while I agree with you in a few spots, I disagree in others for our purposes. Specifically:
1) We will be running with beginner, intermediate and expert drivers. The supporters of this test range all over the board in terms of skill level behind the wheel, and so our drivers need to reflect that in order to help give a spectrum of impressions.
2) The Raptor we go with will in large part be dependent on which truck shows up for loan. I'm not going to be picky, especially when it comes to things like wheels and tires. So long as they're the same wheels and tires for all shocks, the relative differences will be pretty evident if they exist.
3) Agreed on tire pressure! That's just one detail among a dozen or two that need to stay consistent.
4) An endurance test is not realistic. A desert whoop section is on the list for sure. Rocks... we'll need to play that one by ear.
5) Agreed totally. I've made that clear and will continue to make it clear.

With all that said, I love the idea of an endurance test such as you describe. I strongly encourage you to organize something like that here on FRF, and make it happen! Lots to be learned in something like that for sure.

Thanks again!

I love this idea but keep in mind you are testing product not peoples driving style and ability. Any shock will be an improvement over stock so someone with little or no off road drive knowledge can't give a true testimony. It has been my experience that most Raptor owners who are new to off road can not give a proper first hand testimony when it come to comparing coil overs. Further more the reason the tests are being preformed is to see what product out performs the next and what product will fail first. The only way is to do different types of tests. The endurance test being the most important of the all. Shocks need to be run at temp for long periods of time to insure proper performance. This will also test the construction and internals of the shock. (seals, valves, pistons, bypass port design, shafts, rod ends, etc) I would love to do the endurance test however I think you have hit the nail on the head hear with this thread and the endurance test should be and is the only true way to test the shocks. After all the manufactures of all the coil overs listed here base the design of their shocks after race shocks. So with that said I have never seen or tested a truck for just a whoop section. I think this is absolutely pointless and has no true shock testing prospective behind it. I think all the manufactures will agree with me on this. No pun intended directly to you but I have had years of testing shocks for several shock manufactures and endurance testing is the only way. If you need help on setting this up I will help out in any way you would like. Also keep in mind I sell all 3 manufactures so I back you on this 100%.

 

[pirate air]

In terms of heat cycling, I am planning to bring an IR thermometer to both the dyno and dirt tests. For the dyno I'm going to record temp vs time (good idea on the thermocouple though; that would make things much easier!). For the dirt I plan to use it to ensure start temps are the same run to run and use it to see and record the end temps after each.

I am using my own shocks right now trying to figure out how long they take to cool off; it seems like there's a relatively quick drop in temp and then it takes forever to drop the rest of the way. I have a feeling we're going to need to pick a realistic temp for the start; we obviously can't wait all day for them to cool off between each run and each driver.

Not ideal I know. But not a terrible compromise either I think.

Yeah a temp gun should work too and I thought about using that instead but figured a thermocouple would be more direct and less likely to pick up heat from another source. If you wanna try a thermocouple I have experience with them if you need help.

A reasonable preheated starting temp shouldn't matter I don't think. The ending temp is what we want. Could data log a thermocouple and see how fast they heat up and what it peaks at.

 

[BigJ]

I love this idea but keep in mind you are testing product not peoples driving style and ability. Any shock will be an improvement over stock so someone with little or no off road drive knowledge can't give a true testimony. It has been my experience that most Raptor owners who are new to off road can not give a proper first hand testimony when it come to comparing coil overs. Further more the reason the tests are being preformed is to see what product out performs the next and what product will fail first. The only way is to do different types of tests. The endurance test being the most important of the all. Shocks need to be run at temp for long periods of time to insure proper performance. This will also test the construction and internals of the shock. (seals, valves, pistons, bypass port design, shafts, rod ends, etc) I would love to do the endurance test however I think you have hit the nail on the head hear with this thread and the endurance test should be and is the only true way to test the shocks. After all the manufactures of all the coil overs listed here base the design of their shocks after race shocks. So with that said I have never seen or tested a truck for just a whoop section. I think this is absolutely pointless and has no true shock testing prospective behind it. I think all the manufactures will agree with me on this. No pun intended directly to you but I have had years of testing shocks for several shock manufactures and endurance testing is the only way. If you need help on setting this up I will help out in any way you would like. Also keep in mind I sell all 3 manufactures so I back you on this 100%.

I think we're talking about two totally different tests with two totally different goals. I said right up front I will NOT be declaring a winner here. As you point out, this test is pointless if picking a winner is the goal.

But that's not the goal. The goal here is really simple: its to show in an unfiltered and unedited way several shock options on the same truck over the same terrain in the same hands under the same conditions. To my knowledge, that's never been done before with the Raptor.

So while I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I greatly respect your experience, I don't think we're on the same page in this. Same book for sure, but definitely different chapters.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Yeah a temp gun should work too and I thought about using that instead but figured a thermocouple would be more direct and less likely to pick up heat from another source. If you wanna try a thermocouple I have experience with them if you need help.

A reasonable preheated starting temp shouldn't matter I don't think. The ending temp is what we want. Could data log a thermocouple and see how fast they heat up and what it peaks at.

One thing I like about the IR gun maybe is that we can hit several spots on the shock, rather than a single one with a thermocouple. Unless we get a few thermocouples...

Lets think on this a little more and I'll keep running some informal tests with my IR gun. If it can be made reliable (as in not pick up other heat sources) I think that will be the easier way to go...

 

[pirate air]

I think we're talking about two totally different tests with two totally different goals. I said right up front I will NOT be declaring a winner here. As you point out, this test is pointless if picking a winner is the goal.

But that's not the goal. The goal here is really simple: its to show in an unfiltered and unedited way several shock options on the same truck over the same terrain in the same hands under the same conditions. To my knowledge, that's never been done before with the Raptor.

So while I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I greatly respect your experience, I don't think we're on the same page in this. Same book for sure, but definitely different chapters.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

One thing I like about the IR gun maybe is that we can hit several spots on the shock, rather than a single one with a thermocouple. Unless we get a few thermocouples...

Lets think on this a little more and I'll keep running some informal tests with my IR gun. If it can be made reliable (as in not pick up other heat sources) I think that will be the easier way to go...

Sounds good!

 

[juanpablo]

One thing I like about the IR gun maybe is that we can hit several spots on the shock, rather than a single one with a thermocouple. Unless we get a few thermocouples...

Lets think on this a little more and I'll keep running some informal tests with my IR gun. If it can be made reliable (as in not pick up other heat sources) I think that will be the easier way to go...

Using thermocouples would allow you to datalog the entire endurance test, giving you a time variable that could be used to track temperature profiles over different terrains without stopping, as long as notes are kept on checkpoint times.

A FLIR camera might also be more useful than an IR gun as it would give you a image you could share later of each shocks heat ranges over the entire setup.

 

[Squatting Dog]

I have several FLir cameras... Might be able to barrow them..

-Greg