Ok, but what’s the difference in the technology? Or is this just valving/rate differences in the package? And moved on from what exactly?
My point is the rate of that progression is limited by the barrier to responding to the demand. For digital that’s very rapid as the whole industry is predicated on small evolutionary change. Big physical engineered products aren’t governed by the same rules.
No doubt things move on but not as quickly as many think. However, as Oli points out the technology for developing each solution to the non-OEM suspension market is served by carving up the market. Hence too many choices. I’d still maintain most of this is marketing though. And again I’d agree with Oli that the technology has moved on, and that technology being social media and YouTube (look at THQs output, they know their market!) rather than the underlying suspension principles.
What has moved on is the suppliers knowledge, more so than the product improvements , 6 Years ago suspension suppliers were fitting one kit to every type of van regardless of its size, weight and uses , The b14 debacle is a point of note . Pioneering on , to current times CRS have constantly been warning about one kit fits all scenarios and the down side of this. developing suitable modular kits to cope with the weights of heavily modified Vans particularly . We ship suspension set ups all over the world particularly for Audi RS cars , we remove the so called DRC Audi innovation and replace it with conventional parts , the results are better , My point being that if innovation is to maximise profit , marketability and not to improve product performance we simply dont need it . This is happening in our transporter market on a grand scale . Constant launches of upgrade kits , with new names, titles and appearance. No real improvements in performance or price at all .
I think that were we do need some innovation is in spring materials , the amount of broken springs ( all brands ) we encounter is proof that spring steel and design could be improved. ?
I would like to agree with Oli on one point he made regarding the incorrect lengths of drop links being used , Every one who purchased a B14 kit, (all models ) who didn't get longer drop links with the kit were short changed . That kit should have them and thousands of these kits were sold incorrectly with out them . There is a T U V certificate for these Kits and it clearly states on the Document that the kit isnt approved if longer drop links aren't used , All of the B14 s we have removed in our shop didnt have longer drop links fitted . All the clever ones out there will know what this meant and the affect it has on the roll performance. Maybe Oli could explain why this happened on a grand scale and why nothing was done about this ?
Customers who come to us for their suspension needs will know that i do try to profile each client to see what level of comfort they are expecting , I do this by asking lots of questions . Bad Example When a 75 year old client asks for comfort , but not lower , a KW STXA kit set at 60 mm isnt the answer for him , even with a Test drive and the so called sweet spot found !! This Poor chap wasted £2200.00 before getting to me a week later to sort it out properly. This is where suppliers could improve . I guess that if you only sell Coil overs , there will be situations that you cant help . Broader range of systems is needed not 20 kits that do the same thing , that isnt choice .
Fivetones . KW are one of only 11 companies ( I was told) to have the shock dyno you spoke about , i took this photo when i last did there Race car set up course in Germany . The other 10 I believe are in Formula 1 workshops . Its brilliant because it can simulate a complete Race track , or any road surface over and over with absolute precision .
