"I would disagree, @5200 lbs. + with speeds over 300
we feel it's absolutely nessarry in car #265"
Mike:
I too agree. Success at Bonneville without suspension
proves nothing more than it is possible to do a speed
without said suspension. If one chooses not to engage
the added complexity of suspension, that's fine. I did
just that with my lakester because I had financial and
time limitations. However, having tunable suspension
is almost always better than not having it. Will it
allow you to go faster? It could if you have handling
or traction problems a tunable suspension can cure.
"At 300+ with a heavy rear and steel wheels suspension
is futile."
I suppose this is true if the car weighs as much as
three 1972 Cadillac Coupe De Ville's. Weather adding
lead or aero loading the result is the same, you may
get additional traction and possibly a better handling
car but at what penalty? If you do not believe this,
watch Keith Turk's car at WOS. Compare the speed
results of this car before Keith owned it and after
WOS. The difference? Suspension for one, data
acquisition to study activity of springs and dampers
for another and if I miss my guess, now that handling
is not an issue, they will take downforce out of the
vehicle to free up some speed.
John
--- Flowbench@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/3/04 10:16:48 AM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> joyseydevil@comcast.net writes:
>
> > At 300+ with a heavy
> > rear and steel wheels suspension is futile .
> >
> >
>
> I would disagree, @5200 lbs. + with speeds over 300
> we feel it's absolutely
> nessarry in car #265
> Mike
__________________________________
|