These are just the graphs, conclusions are up the reader...if anyone that knows what they're talking about wants to commet, please do so.

Dyno service provided by Lee Grimes [CRX Lee] @ Koni North America.

The graph with no number is the other side shock at the setting as shipped from me (F4, R1 I think)

One of the shocks makes a funky noise, but there is no leakage...this dyno was done after a heavy racing season on the shocks (including a bunch of offroading) so these were NOT fresh shocks tested.


Please note that the scales are different between front and rear shocks. And obviously the shocks are setup for stiffer front springs.





Modified by El Pollo Diablo at 3:56 PM 5/28/2004


Modified by El Pollo Diablo at 9:50 AM 6/2/2004

 

could u explain the graphs more? i dont really understand them? how did u dyno this?

 

Looking at nice colors, can someone please explain in layman terms, I'd like to learn more.

Thanks for taking the time to post it btw Matt.

 

Same here, can someone explain those graphs? Please

Thanks for posting them

 

I'm guessing that in each position that the results should be as linear and seperate as possible with no meeting points and overlap?

 

J00 f00s will have to wait till i get home from manhattan

 

ill be waiting for you. How do you go about dynoing suspension??

 

Am I correct in assuming that the Force is in Neutons and the Velocity is m/s^2?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Am I correct in assuming that the Force is in Neutons and the Velocity is m/s^2?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm almos positive it's Lbs and inches....although CRX Lee will know for sure, I'll IM him to see if he wants to chime in.


PS. Newtons, and velocity = distance per unit of time....acceleration = distance per unit of time squared.

 

Force is lbs? Velocity can't be inches, thats fo sho, maybe in/sec......

Eek - I meant Velocity is meters per second, NOT squared. Im dumb.

Ps. Newtons. yes.

 

yes force is in Newtons, but velocity would be in m/s not m/s^2, thats acceleration.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by b18c1995 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes force is in Newtons, but velocity would be in m/s not m/s^2, thats acceleration.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yep, thanks, caught myself on that one. on me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Force is lbs? Velocity can't be inches, thats fo sho, maybe in/sec......

Eek - I meant Velocity is meters per second, NOT squared. Im dumb.

Ps. Newtons. yes.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Didn't mention seconds cause they're the same in metric and english

 

are the "settings" just different shock position's?

Austin-who was sure S6's had more the 6 way adjablity?

 

Newton meters?

This is the point where I should have paid more attention in physics.

Thank God I at least soaked up accounting, I use it every day.


Modified by 1GreyTeg at 1:43 PM 5/28/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm almos positive it's Lbs and inches....although CRX Lee will know for sure, I'll IM him to see if he wants to chime in.


PS. Newtons, and velocity = distance per unit of time....acceleration = distance per unit of time squared.
</TD></TR></TABLE>


huhuhu. i had a post writen up about the units and then decided not to post it. should have. anyway, my piece of **** JIC's were also done by koni. force is in newtons and velocity is in meters/second.

as for analyzing the graphs, someone like clayton, scott (RR98itr) and johnny tran are the people who would be best to hear from in this thread.

from what i know the first part of the graph, below .06m/s, is low speed compression and rebound and above that is high speed compression. this change between low speed and high speed should be more significant than what actually is shown in the dynos. the graphs of the JIC's are way better in this respect (probably about the only aspect where they are better).

these shocks, both front and rear, can handle much more spring than the JIC's. the range of adjustment in the fronts seems ok but the rears don't really show any damping different between full soft and full hard.

the biggest issue is see here is the same as with the JIC's as you move from one click to the next you want to see an increase in stiffness. 1&lt;2&lt;3&lt;4&lt;5&lt;6 and that is not the case. they seem to be all over the place.

this is cause by either improper valving for extreme sensitivity to heat. the latter being the case with the JIC's.


Modified by lanceh at 3:35 PM 5/28/2004

 

What rates do you use with those shocks, Matt?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Looking at nice colors, can someone please explain in layman terms, I'd like to learn more.

Thanks for taking the time to post it btw Matt.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well said.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1GreyTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Newton meters?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Newton = kg*m/s^2
Velocity in this graph = m/sec

 

seem like the S6 can handle less spring rate than the jic(just by reading the graph roughly), am i correct?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris N &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Newton = kg*m/s^2
Velocity in this graph = m/sec</TD></TR></TABLE>

okie dokie

I'll play the local village idiot through all of this while I try to absorb the important points.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoon_ek9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">seem like the S6 can handle less spring rate than the jic(just by reading the graph roughly), am i correct?</TD></TR></TABLE>

No... look again at the upper and lower bounds of the graph. The S6 are stronger. Fronts are stronger than the rears also.

 

I hope somebody else chimes in here...

but to offer just my own experience wth Zeal valving tho never proven....

I was always under the impression that the setting "1" was for the softest and 6 was for firmest.

In my attempts to have the best streetable ride with my 14k/12k spring rates....I had always left them on 1.

Sharp bumps like bridge expansions were extremely harsh.... we're talking the type that makes you wince and has the potential to crack the windshield - nevermind making the CD player skip.

At my last HPDE, I decided to turn it up to setting 3 where I thought it was going to get unbearable given setting 1 was already so intense. Well whaddya know....the car was instantly more forgiving and bumpy sections of the track were way more manageable.

I have turned the ***** from 1-6 and figured that 6 is actually a setting somewhere in between where 1 is stiffest, 3 appears to be softest. The ***** were removed, but I ensured I put them back as they were delivered from Zeal.

I can only conclude that the dampers may need to be rebuilt and tested perhaps on a dyno.... not to mention the ***** may have been improperly installed from the factory.... as the default rates produced similar discomforts.

 

Hrm...

http://www.we-todd-did-racing....D.jpg

 

There is really nothing WRONG with the graphs, but they are not a catch-all that some people think they are.

Some thinks that I am not too fond of:
-It would be better if the low speed valving (&lt;0.066 m/s) ramped up faster (steeper slope)
-It would be nicer if the stiffness adjustments didn't change the bump/compression at the same time as rebound, althugh it's not a big deal.
-Rear shock adjustments don't really do anything, might as well run them full stiff.
-the shocks are obviously valved for stiffer front springs.

Some other comments, the inconsistent graph for the other rear shock could be caused by a worn shock, or even damaged one due to my driving/usage, so it really shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing.

More could be determined if a brand new setup was tested. But once again, nothing really wrong with the shocks, and they have served me well and I have no immediate plans on getting rid of them. A revalve/rebuild might be in the works after this season.

Matt