The GGR forum has reached it's end, but posts are still available read-only for posterity. We invite you to make posts and discussions on the GGR Facebook page.

suspension points granularity

Use this forum to discuss rule proposals, other than the points proposal, which has its's own forum

Moderators: David Leong, Andrew Forrest

Post Reply
User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

suspension points granularity

Post by Dan Thompson » Sun May 13, 2007 9:49 pm

#65 Springs and torsion Bars. Currently 30 points for TT and 45 for AX for changing springs or torsion bars. A car such as a 914 is assigned the same # of points regardless if the car has only slightly upgraded springs such as 100#s or 140#s or if the car has 250# springs.
Just as in the tires I feel there need to be some granularity.
I know this will be tough but maybe it needs to be done as a % increase over stock for all cars. So for a 914 an increase to 140# springs should be ~ a 40% increase....
so we make an increase in spring rate of 0-40% worth 10 points
40-100% would be 20 points
over 100% would be 40 points
someone can come up with a different perspective.
I just think there needs to be a different points hit for a car with only a slightly increased spring rate VS. a car that has big increases in spring rates. :?
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Dave_Darling
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:09 pm
Location: Paly
Contact:

Post by Dave_Darling » Mon May 14, 2007 7:40 am

Agreed. I haven't put enough thought into what the numbers could be, but I do like that.

One of the things that I liked about the old system was that it was (very roughly) broken down by the "type of use" of the cars. The Stock classes were for real street cars (which were also stock!), the Improved classes were for dual-use cars that were not too uncomfortable on the street, and the Production classes for cars that were streetable but just barely. (Examples: Going to headers which loses your heat, any spring rate which means a very punishing street ride, etc.)

With the current points setup, any change to spring rates has the same impact on classifcation.

I don't have specific suggestions yet, but I agree that having finer granularity on some of the changes would be an improvement.

--DD
Dave Darling, 914 Tech Geek for Pelican Parts (http://www.pelicanparts.com/index.htm)

User avatar
David Leong
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Lafayette, CA
Contact:

Post by David Leong » Mon May 14, 2007 8:38 am

That is certainly NOT true.

In a 911, going to ANY different Torsion bar and you were instantly in Production. Going to a 17" wheel, same old story.

Speaking of same old stories, this is just another one
David Leong

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 2:47 pm

umm i guess i got to wade in on this one huh? are you tired of me yet?

So springing is as much as for feel as for performance. There have been many people who modify their cars with stiffer springs and go slower .. the reason is that they dont change much else. If you do the correct thing you change the shocks springs tires and alignment to take the advantage of what those componets can offer for improvements. Granularty for springrates is maybe a good idea. but I think ..(this is my opinion) you go to stiffer springs but at what point is it Better? I ran the yellow car a few yearsd with stock torsion bars. and in some cases those stock bars outperformed a race car.. So I dont think it be easy at all to say what springs are better..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 3:41 pm

just trying to address what I have heard at AXs in particular that no matter what spring they use it is the same # of points. Also #65 does not differentiate as to either/or both ends of the car.
So an "old" Bi car gets the same # of points as an "old" BP car because the Bi car changed the rear springs to 140#s, yet the BP car changed the front torsion bars to 21mm or more along with 180# springs.
with that scenario can you see where someone like DD sees an incongruity in the points?
so if everything else on the cars was the same they would end up in the same class, yet the old BP style car would have a decided advantage,,,don't you think?
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 4:57 pm

we have to wean ourselves from saying BP cars cuz no one will know what the heck we are saying ...

if and IF a BP car runs with stiffer springs but nothing else yes that car would be in a Bi Car class..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 4:58 pm

But Bi was limited to only a front bar and no front springs which was such bad way to class a car..No one would now build a 914 that way .... I hope
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 5:13 pm

that is exactly the crux of DD's problem. He built a BI car and now is taking the same points for springs that a car such as mine takes. Since he only has rear springs, yet I have front 21mm torsion bars and rear 180# springs.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 5:20 pm

I think there should of been a option to say .. non stock front springs or torsions bars, and one for non stock rear springs or torsion bars.. with half points allowed for that .. now that would be a good proposal also ..so such as in the case of DD he has only done one end .. which will be slowly a rare case now that you can change them at will..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 5:22 pm

agreed.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 5:28 pm

so there should be two lines for front and rear springs and anothe rline for if they ar emore than 40% stiffer than stock?
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 5:32 pm

I would be happy to just split it front and rear and forget the % increase for now...
let some other number cruncher figure out an equatable and easy way to do it and apply it.

:o
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 5:32 pm

chicken
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 5:33 pm

Zone7Rep wrote:chicken
uhhuh :shock:
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Mon May 14, 2007 5:44 pm

That is probally a easy one to pass..

But with springs as you now know .. where do you level where added points should be given for added stiffness? .. I always thought that to leave that as is .. to much of a can of worms ..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Dave_Darling
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:09 pm
Location: Paly
Contact:

Post by Dave_Darling » Mon May 14, 2007 7:32 pm

David Leong wrote:That is certainly NOT true.

In a 911 ...
Sorry, Dave--but I run a 914, and that is the filter I see things through. 914s in Improved were allowed to run 140s in the rear, "to avoid fitting a rear sway bar that would only be removed when the car progressed to Production" (or some such verbiage).

The Improved-class 914s were very much streetable cars, with relatively mild spring rates--stock F&R or stock F & 140#/in R. The Production-class cars were not nearly as streetable, what with 180# and up springs and 22mm torsions seeming to be the rule.

I liked that aspect of the old rules. Perfect? Nope, not by a lot. But there were things about it that I liked--in fact, some of those were (as far as I can tell) unique to the previous-generation of Z7 rules.

--DD
Dave Darling, 914 Tech Geek for Pelican Parts (http://www.pelicanparts.com/index.htm)

Dave_Darling
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:09 pm
Location: Paly
Contact:

Post by Dave_Darling » Mon May 14, 2007 7:35 pm

Larry, I agree that splitting up the springs and such leads to a real plethora of choices--do you go by spring rate, torsion bar diameter, wheel rate, or what? And is the front end more important than the rear, or vise-versa?

There is a really huge can of worms involved in this sort of proposal. I still haven't come up with any truly good ideas about it, but I am continuing to think about it in the back of my head.

--DD
Dave Darling, 914 Tech Geek for Pelican Parts (http://www.pelicanparts.com/index.htm)

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 9:50 pm

Ok here we go.

Proposal
#65A) Car has non- stock springs or torsion bars on the front suspension
15 points for AX and TT
#65B) Car has non-stock springs or torsion bar on the rear suspension
15 points for AX and TT

let the changes begin :o
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

more suspension proposals

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon May 14, 2007 10:20 pm

Proposal for non-stock sway bars
#57A) the car has non-stock front sway bars...10 points AX and TT
#57B) the car has non-stock rear sway bars...10 points AX and TT

Proposal for non-stock adjustable spring platforms
#67A)the car has non-stock front adjustable spring platforms 5 point AX,TT
#67B)the car has non-stock rear adjustable spring platforms 5 points AX,TT
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests