GTLocke13

iTrader: (1)

Speaking of which, is Cy on here yet?

evo8dad

iTrader: (15)

I'm not sure if he is registered on here yet or not but, I know he is aware of the site.

Another suspension that I haven't really seen mentioned yet are the Zzyxx Motorsports, although I'm not sure if he is making them anymore. They were VERY high on my list but, they stopped production on the EMs and Competitions indefinitely unfortunately . I really wanted to run these not only for the engineering behind them but, they also utilize the Koni 8611s and can be sprung to just about any rate your heart desires and any combination of spring.

delongedoug

iTrader: (20)

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1669846

See post 17 from Steve (zzyzx)

evo8dad

iTrader: (15)

Yeah, thats what he had told me last summer when I spoke to him (after a million tries ;-) ). I guess he's still having some personal struggles. Its a shame because I REALLY want his EM-Hybrids that he had put together for me (on paper) but, I just couldn't wait for him. At the time (and it still seems to be the same) he just honestly had no idea when he could concentrate on new orders, which was a little concerning to me if I ever needed support ... would he be there??

spool_sample

iTrader: (3)

I've been trying to PM dsycks on here to see if his set of EM Sports are still for sale, but I have not heard a response after almost two weeks, so I don't know if he still has them.

If he does... dibs!

donour

iTrader: (6)

Lots of people have driven my car and everybody from novices to national champs have praised how easy it is to drive and how composed it is. It might be too softly sprung for concrete but for asphalt, I think it is just right. The valving allows for springrates starting at 450 lb/in and going above 1000 lb/in. As a matter of fact, if anybody wants to drive it, all they have to do is get to Albuquerque NM. I have a pretty open door policy about co-drives.

(Because I am a full time student, I _have_ to split costs to afford to run the car).

I've had my set for about a year. I guess the tech support has been a mixed bag. Every one of the dozen or so times that I've called steve, he has answered. This seems to be the case from everybody that I've talked to that bought something from him.

d

Dave Mac

iTrader: (2)

Yes, I may run it occasionally. I'll do a few events with Cy in my old RS too.

Fair

I guess, if you like comparing apples to oranges. AST's are monotube adjustables, and we don't sell them here with "one knob controls rebound+compression", which is only good for street cars. Those others you listed...

Ohlins and AST are a better comparison than anything else I've seen listed here. Wait, do the DFE's tie the rebound and compression together, too???

Well, we haven't brought in huge shipments for the VIII/IX, but we have made small numbers of 4100 inverted struts for EVO VIII/IX and AST has sold many hundreds of sets in Europe.


STU competitor tested with AST 4100 inverted in 2007


L: Compared to stock. R: When inverted, the Rebound knob moves to bottom






Of course our Vorshlag division makes Camber plates to fit the EVO VIII/IX as well - each is custom made to fit each brand strut and coilover spring diameter.


Pre-production (not engraved) set of Vorshlag camber plates on Mark Berry's FP Evo. Notice positive caster offset.


Oops! How did that get in here?

Cheers,

spool_sample

iTrader: (3)

Want!

Fair, did you get my PM?

EDIT: Nevermind, you just replied.

evo8dad

iTrader: (15)

The DFVs do not tie rebound/compression together, they are rebound adjustable only. The Flags are double adjustable.

Damn you for posting all that AST ****!!! Although I'm happy with the Ohlins I really was interested in 4100s (if only they were available when I was in the market for a new setup).

Yeah Ohlins and ASTs are a class above KWs and the PSS9s. I'd say a cheap entry level out of the box coilover would be something from Japan (Teins, JICs, HKSs, etc...). Next up would be KWs, PSS9s. The cream of the crop would be Ohlins, ASTs, Motons, custom Konis, Penskes (although these can get outrageously expensive real quick).

Obviously some of the entry level setups can be custom revalved and setup to be very competitive as a few have already proven.

kekek

iTrader: (22)

This last pic here isn't exactly apples to apples. You have an inverted strut on the top which is obviously going to have a much larger "upper shaft" in comparison to the KW "upper shaft" which is not inverted. One is the actual damper body (AST) and the other is the piston rod (KW).

So what is the actual piston rod diameter on the AST damper? The 22mm KW is actually pretty big for a piston rod.

Ok, so you have an alloy steel damper in the AST and KW uses "soft" stainless. KW has obviously compensated for material strength in their lower bracket by increasing material thickness. As long as they were designed with the material strength & condition in mind there shouldn't be an issue.

We could potentially say that the AST alloy steel is worse as it's potentially more brittle and is more prone to total failure in comparison to a more ductile stainless. BUT, we don't know the exact material or it's present condition so we can't say for sure. See where I'm going?

If you have some real world experience with why one is better then post it, I'm sure everyone would like to be informed.

Let's keep these comparo's apples to apples.

John

Fair

Good points. Most of our non-inverted designs use a similar 22mm shaft, so that was a somewhat unfair comparison. We do make a lot of inverted strut designs, however, and they do have some distinct advantages with respect to camber and toe changes (an inverted setup makes for a more rigid strut assembly).

As for real world - I pointed out the "soft" nature of the thick SS laser cut flanges as there seemed to have been a rash of bent flanges/redesigns/recalls with that style of late. I saw several bent sets of SS flanges from a certain brand in the past 2 years myself. SS is actually much softer than the chromoly series alloy steels - and having a rigid, strong strut body and clamp is always a good thing. Nobody else (top tier) uses stainless steel materials for strut bodies, as it generally has very few upsides other than corrosion resistance. AST strut bodies are TUV tested/approved and optimized for low weight, maximum strength, and longevity. We also make a number of shock and even strut bodies out of 7000 series aluminum as well, but that is mostly for competition only struts.


L: The bronze/red colored strut is an aluminum inverted AST strut for a Porsche 911. R: Aluminum bodied C6 Corvette 4200RR

Making OEM style, multi-piece stamped strut clamp flanges is an expensive proposal. Sure, once the material gets thick enough you can make simple flat sheet steel flanges that work, but to make it both strong and light you have to invest in the stamped tooling. AST invested in these tools to make a stronger, more rigid, lighter clamping bracket. We'll do one-off custom struts and some prototypes with laser cut flanges but all of our production units use these OEM style clamps.


AST 4200 double adjustable strut - flange detail

Cheers,

Cy

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, I've been lurking here for 3 or 4 months. This is my first post!

For 2009, the car will be the way DaveMac set it up but with some minor setup changes and some low-hanging-fruit weight reduction.

Then I have to learn to drive this beast!

russjnco

iTrader: (36)

I thought this was an interesting little nugget in this month's Fastrack posting:

I'm curious as to what this means, are they going to be looking at cost or performance?

Fair

Good catch - I read the FasTrack last night and the same entry caught my eye as well. I suspect they are worried about the Tire Wars going on in ST, with ever softer compounds creeping into the class each year and no way to police it fairly.

You see the problem is that a "Treadwear" rating on a tire is a completely fake number that the tire manufacturers slap on a tire model as they see fit. It has no basis in "tire wear" or compound rating or any form of testing whatsoever, and only relates to the marketing and class rules for the day. Notice how a lot of ST competitive tires went from 140 to 180 treadwear ratings in 2007 and 2008? The tires didn't change, just the little number on the sidewall. There was a threat to raise the minimum treadwear number for some racing classes, so they just upped the number - an easy fix for that potential rule change! The change was dropped quickly, and quietly.

I think the STAC/SEB knows they have setup the ST rules based on a completely fake number - one that they cannot police in a measurable way. They didn't chose durometer readings or setup some independent tire testing procedure or anything that had a basis in science - they based the tire rules solely on a marketing value. Now they are worried that they are losing control of the one thing that's supposed to make the Street Touring classes attractive - low tire costs-per-run. They know that as each new "140" treadwear model comes to market it is doing so with a softer compound, not harder or longer wearing in some other way. Its happened before, and its happening again...

The SEB lost control of R compounds in Stock long ago - now some Stock class car are getting 15-20 runs out of a $800-1000+ set of tires. The cost per run has gone up dramatically since the 1980s when R compounds first hit the Solo scene. Having witnessed this progression in ever softer R compounds first hand over the past 2 decades its easy to see it happening again in ST. I think that's what they are trying to keep control of in ST... but they wrote the rules wrong, and they don't have anything to fall back on except the little used "Tire Exclusion List". But as they exclude a certain tire brand they lose potential sponsorship revenue to the SCCA from that tire maker, so they are in a real pickle...