|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis thanks
[Re: cudazappa]
#1266028
08/15/12 11:16 AM
08/15/12 11:16 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,395
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,395
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
After riding in it, checked in with John and after he said they were like 1.18 or 1.16 bars
Whether they are 1.12, 1.18, or 1.22 it demonstrates one of a couple possible factors;
1) if 1.12, they demonstrate considerable performance for a reasonable rate and show there is still room for improved roll resistance and increased performance.
2) If 1.22, then it shows proper shock control can make large wheel rates feel much more confortable than most guys would be willing believe by simply reading a web forum.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis thanks
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1266029
08/16/12 01:36 AM
08/16/12 01:36 AM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
After riding in it, checked in with John and after he said they were like 1.18 or 1.16 bars
Whether they are 1.12, 1.18, or 1.22 it demonstrates one of a couple possible factors;
1) if 1.12, they demonstrate considerable performance for a reasonable rate and show there is still room for improved roll resistance and increased performance.
2) If 1.22, then it shows proper shock control can make large wheel rates feel much more confortable than most guys would be willing believe by simply reading a web forum.
E-Max has 1.12 bars on it and the roll resistance is about as good as you are going to get. If the car is really hammered on and you come off the rumbles just right, she'll go into three/two wheel motion, but other than that she keeps all four positively planted; she is right on the soft side of perfect roll resistance. Only way we could get it better now is in the chassis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
