"Best" Ohlins spring rates?
12-02-16, 03:34 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
"Best" Ohlins spring rates?
Hey out there-
Well, my '93 is coming along...the engine Rob @ Pineapple built is pretty well sorted, almost broken in. She's shod with RPF1's, 18x9.5 w/255/35 Michelin Super Sports all around, and Ohlins DFV's with the stock 11kg springs. Maybe I'm just gettin' old, but I'm feeling like this is a bit brutal on the street. Which is mainly where this car will be driven-some autocross, a bit of track, perhaps, but mainly street. Somewhere on this forum I found a thread where a chap had replaced the 11's with an 8/6 setup, and he said he loved it. Of course, I haven't been able to find the thread...but I contacted Ohlins, and for $80 a corner they'll set me up with pretty much anything I might want.
The Ohlins guy said that the valving would most likely not be totally ideal, but admitted that with the range of adjustment on the shocks it would most likely be fine, and that for a substantially higher price, they would rework the damping to fit the springs.
I must say, though the car handles absolutely amazing on smooth (or reasonably smooth) surfaces, when there gets to be some irregularities it isn't able to keep the wheels planted all the time, regardless of damping changes. So I'm thinking of a setup of maybe 8 kg front, 7 kg rear, or 8 or 7 all around.
Please let me know your thoughts-and if the guy who wrote the original thread reads this, PLEASE pm me so I can get your detailed thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks a lot, everybody.
Well, my '93 is coming along...the engine Rob @ Pineapple built is pretty well sorted, almost broken in. She's shod with RPF1's, 18x9.5 w/255/35 Michelin Super Sports all around, and Ohlins DFV's with the stock 11kg springs. Maybe I'm just gettin' old, but I'm feeling like this is a bit brutal on the street. Which is mainly where this car will be driven-some autocross, a bit of track, perhaps, but mainly street. Somewhere on this forum I found a thread where a chap had replaced the 11's with an 8/6 setup, and he said he loved it. Of course, I haven't been able to find the thread...but I contacted Ohlins, and for $80 a corner they'll set me up with pretty much anything I might want.
The Ohlins guy said that the valving would most likely not be totally ideal, but admitted that with the range of adjustment on the shocks it would most likely be fine, and that for a substantially higher price, they would rework the damping to fit the springs.
I must say, though the car handles absolutely amazing on smooth (or reasonably smooth) surfaces, when there gets to be some irregularities it isn't able to keep the wheels planted all the time, regardless of damping changes. So I'm thinking of a setup of maybe 8 kg front, 7 kg rear, or 8 or 7 all around.
Please let me know your thoughts-and if the guy who wrote the original thread reads this, PLEASE pm me so I can get your detailed thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks a lot, everybody.
12-02-16, 10:27 AM
#3
Senior Member
To this day I am amazed at their ability to soak up bumps, potholes, etc. on the street.
And at the track it does an incredible job going over curbing without upsetting the car in the slightest.
The spring rates are high-ish for street only use, but IMO a great compromise for street/track (hence "Road and Track" moniker).
The price dropped from $3000 to $2400 six months after I got mine, and now they've dropped to $2000. I almost wonder if something changed internally...
12-02-16, 11:31 AM
#4
I think its your tires, but...
Spring rate is a matter of preference.
Stock FD springs are 4.8K Front and 3.6K Rear and contemporary reviews lambasted the FD for its punishing ride and all out performance orientation over comfort.
Yes, most of that was from the wonky R1 shock's damping, but lets face it- Corvettes ride like wet noodles because that is the limit of what Americans will tolerate even in a performance car.
If a comfortable ride is your prime consideration you should drop the spring rate down (even to stock) and have the shocks re-valved or just use stock springs and Koni Yellows as they are very softly damped.
You should also not lower the car as with soft springs you will hit the bumpstops more often which is jarring.
The more and softer the tire sidewall the more comfortable the ride as well.
For occasional auto-x and track use you can put some super hefty swaybars on. It makes the suspension less independent, but rides comfortably still.
Stock FDs are still pretty fast on the track/at auto-x. You just have to drive them accordingly allowing a lot of time for weight transfer.
------------
As far as traction over irregular pavement from a performance standpoint as opposed to comfort (as I am sure it will come up).
Its always a trade-off.
If you car has less traction over bumps or poorly patched/broken pavement because the suspension is set-up for smooth pavement you as a driver note the road condition and drive accordingly.
Even on a race track there are sections you have to slow down for.
If your car is set-up specifically to handle the rough sections best you will be slower EVERYWHERE else. It is up to you to decide what trade-off is best.
But ditch the tires.
Spring rate is a matter of preference.
Stock FD springs are 4.8K Front and 3.6K Rear and contemporary reviews lambasted the FD for its punishing ride and all out performance orientation over comfort.
Yes, most of that was from the wonky R1 shock's damping, but lets face it- Corvettes ride like wet noodles because that is the limit of what Americans will tolerate even in a performance car.
If a comfortable ride is your prime consideration you should drop the spring rate down (even to stock) and have the shocks re-valved or just use stock springs and Koni Yellows as they are very softly damped.
You should also not lower the car as with soft springs you will hit the bumpstops more often which is jarring.
The more and softer the tire sidewall the more comfortable the ride as well.
For occasional auto-x and track use you can put some super hefty swaybars on. It makes the suspension less independent, but rides comfortably still.
Stock FDs are still pretty fast on the track/at auto-x. You just have to drive them accordingly allowing a lot of time for weight transfer.
------------
As far as traction over irregular pavement from a performance standpoint as opposed to comfort (as I am sure it will come up).
Its always a trade-off.
If you car has less traction over bumps or poorly patched/broken pavement because the suspension is set-up for smooth pavement you as a driver note the road condition and drive accordingly.
Even on a race track there are sections you have to slow down for.
If your car is set-up specifically to handle the rough sections best you will be slower EVERYWHERE else. It is up to you to decide what trade-off is best.
But ditch the tires.
12-02-16, 12:24 PM
#5
My car with 13k / 9k feels pretty good until you hit something like a crack or especially lane markers. Worse with lower speed. It's like the shock are solid over little stuff like that. The car bangs and feels unsettled....
If anything they are too stiff there, but then too soft at the bigger undulations etc. The car can feel a little floaty in those situations.
My other car is a mk2 mr2 with konis and h&r springs. It absorbs just about everything pretty well. You can hardly feel little stuff like lane markers etc, but it's a little bouncy on the big stuff. Overall it's sad to say that it's better than the expensive ohlins.
I had koni and racing beat springs on my rx7 before ohlins and I hated the ride and handling. Ohlins was a huge step up but still not quite there.
If anything they are too stiff there, but then too soft at the bigger undulations etc. The car can feel a little floaty in those situations.
My other car is a mk2 mr2 with konis and h&r springs. It absorbs just about everything pretty well. You can hardly feel little stuff like lane markers etc, but it's a little bouncy on the big stuff. Overall it's sad to say that it's better than the expensive ohlins.
I had koni and racing beat springs on my rx7 before ohlins and I hated the ride and handling. Ohlins was a huge step up but still not quite there.
12-02-16, 12:27 PM
#7
My car with 13k / 9k feels pretty good until you hit something like a crack or especially lane markers. Worse with lower speed. It's like the shock are solid over little stuff like that. The car bangs and feels unsettled....
If anything they are too stiff there, but then too soft at the bigger undulations etc. The car can feel a little floaty in those situations.
My other car is a mk2 mr2 with konis and h&r springs. It absorbs just about everything pretty well. You can hardly feel little stuff like lane markers etc, but it's a little bouncy on the big stuff. Overall it's sad to say that it's better than the expensive ohlins.
I had koni and racing beat springs on my rx7 before ohlins and I hated the ride and handling. Ohlins was a huge step up but still not quite there.
If anything they are too stiff there, but then too soft at the bigger undulations etc. The car can feel a little floaty in those situations.
My other car is a mk2 mr2 with konis and h&r springs. It absorbs just about everything pretty well. You can hardly feel little stuff like lane markers etc, but it's a little bouncy on the big stuff. Overall it's sad to say that it's better than the expensive ohlins.
I had koni and racing beat springs on my rx7 before ohlins and I hated the ride and handling. Ohlins was a huge step up but still not quite there.
Trending Topics
12-02-16, 06:15 PM
#10
It is the compromise they arrived at for ride comfort and performance and it works very well.
Just about the only thing faster than a stock Z06 on race tires at the track is a Z06 on race tires and coilovers.
Now, apply that to FDs. FDs are pretty damn fast on race tires stock...
The C7 Corvettes are different beasts than the previous ones- they are definitely using the shock technology to kill the old 'vettes dive and lift and include electronic driver aids. You can really see it at work.
Vette Engineering Manager Explains C7 Chassis
Just about the only thing faster than a stock Z06 on race tires at the track is a Z06 on race tires and coilovers.
Now, apply that to FDs. FDs are pretty damn fast on race tires stock...
The C7 Corvettes are different beasts than the previous ones- they are definitely using the shock technology to kill the old 'vettes dive and lift and include electronic driver aids. You can really see it at work.
Vette Engineering Manager Explains C7 Chassis
12-02-16, 06:28 PM
#11
It is the compromise they arrived at for ride comfort and performance and it works very well.
Just about the only thing faster than a stock Z06 on race tires at the track is a Z06 on race tires and coilovers.
Now, apply that to FDs. FDs are pretty damn fast on race tires stock...
The C7 Corvettes are different beasts than the previous ones- they are definitely using the shock technology to kill the old 'vettes dive and lift and include electronic driver aids. You can really see it at work.
Vette Engineering Manager Explains C7 Chassis
Just about the only thing faster than a stock Z06 on race tires at the track is a Z06 on race tires and coilovers.
Now, apply that to FDs. FDs are pretty damn fast on race tires stock...
The C7 Corvettes are different beasts than the previous ones- they are definitely using the shock technology to kill the old 'vettes dive and lift and include electronic driver aids. You can really see it at work.
Vette Engineering Manager Explains C7 Chassis
The C7 GS or a 991 GT3 with a good driver are really a challenge.
A well sorted FD with 400+ HP (v8 or otherwise) is lethal on a track. Not much is going to be able to touch it.
12-02-16, 11:46 PM
#12
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
my co worker has a miata with kyb's and lowering springs, and he keeps complaining about how bad the ride is. finally he tossed me the keys, and i took it for a spin and its WAY harder than the race car on the street.
part B. a few years ago we all had FC's. mine was a low mileage stock GXL, paul's wife has an identical GXL with AGX's and 350/250 coil overs, and then mike #2 had a GTUs with 450/350's and koni's.
handling was about what you'd expect. the GTUs was best, the AGX car was next (with Ra1's it couldn't break traction in any direction), and the stock car was stock! actually stock with a careful alignment was pretty good at low speeds.
the ride was a surprise though. the stock car was worst. it was weirdly jiggly at low speeds, and got floaty over 50. the AGX car was next, it rides just like you expect a car with aftermarket shocks and coil overs to ride, its firm and bumpy without being punishing.
the surprise was the GTUs, it had a nice smooth ride. it was like the stock car without the jiggly part.
conclusion, the shocks have a bigger impact on ride quality than the springs do.
12-03-16, 09:28 PM
#13
Well, Ohlins has different set-ups for the different applications they do as well.
What I found from my cars is-
The FD Ohlins set-up is more focused on really making the car transition fast/easily correctable with the higher rear spring rate and low low speed damping/high spring rate.
On the RX-8 they really went another direction with the set-up with preserving more understeer with a very soft rear spring rate so you have to be on the throttle to counteract the mild understeer.
This is a classic low power suspension set-up trick and you will hear Keiichi Tsuchiya talk about all the time.
What I found from my cars is-
The FD Ohlins set-up is more focused on really making the car transition fast/easily correctable with the higher rear spring rate and low low speed damping/high spring rate.
On the RX-8 they really went another direction with the set-up with preserving more understeer with a very soft rear spring rate so you have to be on the throttle to counteract the mild understeer.
This is a classic low power suspension set-up trick and you will hear Keiichi Tsuchiya talk about all the time.
12-04-16, 11:06 AM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
Well, Ohlins has different set-ups for the different applications they do as well.
What I found from my cars is-
The FD Ohlins set-up is more focused on really making the car transition fast/easily correctable with the higher rear spring rate and low low speed damping/high spring rate.
On the RX-8 they really went another direction with the set-up with preserving more understeer with a very soft rear spring rate so you have to be on the throttle to counteract the mild understeer.
This is a classic low power suspension set-up trick and you will hear Keiichi Tsuchiya talk about all the time.
What I found from my cars is-
The FD Ohlins set-up is more focused on really making the car transition fast/easily correctable with the higher rear spring rate and low low speed damping/high spring rate.
On the RX-8 they really went another direction with the set-up with preserving more understeer with a very soft rear spring rate so you have to be on the throttle to counteract the mild understeer.
This is a classic low power suspension set-up trick and you will hear Keiichi Tsuchiya talk about all the time.
12-04-16, 12:33 PM
#15
The ZEALs on my FD are 10k-10k and feel like a stock R1 on the street.
The FD is really close to 50/50 weight distribution (as we all know lol), so you might not want too much of a spring rate/dampening difference between the two axles.
The FD is really close to 50/50 weight distribution (as we all know lol), so you might not want too much of a spring rate/dampening difference between the two axles.
12-05-16, 07:54 AM
#16
Senior Member
I believe motion ratios on the FD are ~0.61 front and ~0.69 rear (somebody correct me here if these are off, I haven't measured them myself).
With 10/10 springs you have:
Front wheel rate = 10 kg/mm * (0.61)^2 = 3.72 kg/mm
Rear wheel rate = 10 kg/mm * (0.69)^2 = 4.76 kg/mm
44%/56% front/rear stiffness
Stock spring rates and those for a lot of aftermarket coilovers are front-biased to give more even front/rear wheel rates.
I swapped out the 11kg/mm Ohlins front springs for 13kg/mm (keeping the rear 11s) to even out the wheel rates a bit, in consideration of trying to put down 500+hp.
F 13 kg/mm * 0.61^2 = 4.84 kg/mm
R 11 kg/mm * 0.69^2 = 5.24 kg/mm
Still rear biased, but not as much at 48%/52%
Last edited by ZDan; 12-05-16 at 08:38 AM.
12-05-16, 10:39 AM
#17
Wheel rate IS spring rate. Spring rate at the contact patch. The title of this thread.
Not a mathematics genius here, I'm just going by the way my cars feel on the track. I've been through a few different suspension set ups and a lot of different race tracks and this is the one that gives me the most confidence at speed on a road course.
Not a mathematics genius here, I'm just going by the way my cars feel on the track. I've been through a few different suspension set ups and a lot of different race tracks and this is the one that gives me the most confidence at speed on a road course.
12-05-16, 11:05 AM
#18
Not a mathematics genius here, I'm just going by the way my cars feel on the track. I've been through a few different suspension set ups and a lot of different race tracks and this is the one that gives me the most confidence at speed on a road course.
Well, "feel" is the key word there- that is driver preference Natey.
You and I and others feel confident with a car that you can put the rear out into oversteer to enable turning no matter what the situation.
When a car tends toward understeer we feel trapped. We feel like we need a loose rear to control the direction of the car once we are over the limit of traction.
Ohlins obviously set-up their FD spring rates for drivers like us.
--------
Many others feel confident with a car that will lose traction with a bias toward slight understeer.
They may be the type of driver that feel like they are only in control of the car when it is under the limit of traction and want a gentle transition they can easily correct for to being over the limit of traction.
Or they may a driver be confident with large corrections to alter rear traction to overcome the slight understeer bias such as clutch kicking, e-brake, throttle lift with an engine with huge amounts of rotating mass/friction or application of engine torque.
These drivers would benefit from less rear spring rate bias on their FD.
---------
I have friends that drive both ways and neither is any faster in general- it is just a preference.
12-05-16, 03:35 PM
#19
Senior Member
Title of the thread is "'Best' Ohlins spring rates?"
So we are talking about spring rates here.
But if you want to talk about how rates relate to the car's weight distribution, you definitely want to be talking about wheel rates and not spring rates.
Not a mathematics genius here, I'm just going by the way my cars feel on the track. I've been through a few different suspension set ups and a lot of different race tracks and this is the one that gives me the most confidence at speed on a road course.
For me, 11/11 was totally agreeable, but I wanted to increase roll stiffness while also trying to ensure I could maximize drive out of corners with 500-550hp. So I went to 13s up front keeping 11s in back. I can always stiffen the rears as well if I don't like or can't tune out the understeer.
Optimal setup will depend on many factors of course.
BTW you don't have to be a mathematics genius to understand the concept of leverage. The wheels of our cars have much greater leverage on the springs vs. strut cars. Consequently much stiffer springs are needed for the same effective stiffness at the wheels, a.k.a. wheel rates.
Our cars have different motion ratios front and rear, therefore different front/rear spring rates are needed *if* you want the wheel rates to match the weight distribution.
But any number of aftermarket coilover setups utilize "even" spring rates, which, again, give 44%/56% relative front/rear wheel rates, and that has worked fine for a lot of people who track these cars.
12-08-16, 02:12 PM
#20
Hey out there-
Well, my '93 is coming along...the engine Rob @ Pineapple built is pretty well sorted, almost broken in. She's shod with RPF1's, 18x9.5 w/255/35 Michelin Super Sports all around, and Ohlins DFV's with the stock 11kg springs. Maybe I'm just gettin' old, but I'm feeling like this is a bit brutal on the street. Which is mainly where this car will be driven-some autocross, a bit of track, perhaps, but mainly street. Somewhere on this forum I found a thread where a chap had replaced the 11's with an 8/6 setup, and he said he loved it. Of course, I haven't been able to find the thread...but I contacted Ohlins, and for $80 a corner they'll set me up with pretty much anything I might want.
The Ohlins guy said that the valving would most likely not be totally ideal, but admitted that with the range of adjustment on the shocks it would most likely be fine, and that for a substantially higher price, they would rework the damping to fit the springs.
I must say, though the car handles absolutely amazing on smooth (or reasonably smooth) surfaces, when there gets to be some irregularities it isn't able to keep the wheels planted all the time, regardless of damping changes. So I'm thinking of a setup of maybe 8 kg front, 7 kg rear, or 8 or 7 all around.
Please let me know your thoughts-and if the guy who wrote the original thread reads this, PLEASE pm me so I can get your detailed thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks a lot, everybody.
Well, my '93 is coming along...the engine Rob @ Pineapple built is pretty well sorted, almost broken in. She's shod with RPF1's, 18x9.5 w/255/35 Michelin Super Sports all around, and Ohlins DFV's with the stock 11kg springs. Maybe I'm just gettin' old, but I'm feeling like this is a bit brutal on the street. Which is mainly where this car will be driven-some autocross, a bit of track, perhaps, but mainly street. Somewhere on this forum I found a thread where a chap had replaced the 11's with an 8/6 setup, and he said he loved it. Of course, I haven't been able to find the thread...but I contacted Ohlins, and for $80 a corner they'll set me up with pretty much anything I might want.
The Ohlins guy said that the valving would most likely not be totally ideal, but admitted that with the range of adjustment on the shocks it would most likely be fine, and that for a substantially higher price, they would rework the damping to fit the springs.
I must say, though the car handles absolutely amazing on smooth (or reasonably smooth) surfaces, when there gets to be some irregularities it isn't able to keep the wheels planted all the time, regardless of damping changes. So I'm thinking of a setup of maybe 8 kg front, 7 kg rear, or 8 or 7 all around.
Please let me know your thoughts-and if the guy who wrote the original thread reads this, PLEASE pm me so I can get your detailed thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks a lot, everybody.
Math and other idealistic arguments aside, you will get more compliance in your suspension and less of the feeling of fighting the wheel on rough roads by softening the springs. You may want to try some 9k (~500lb) f / 8k (~450 lb) r or the 8k f and 7 rear. Running the 9/8 will keep you closer to what Ohlins tuned the shocks to. Sake Bomb had recommended staying within 30% of the 11k rate to stay within the shock's tuning parameters.
Ride comfort, ride quality, stiff, soft is ultimately a personal thing. What one considers a desirable ride characteristic, too soft, too stiff etc will vary person to person and age group to age group. The older I get, the less tolerant of unnecessarily stiff suspensions on the street. On track is a different story.
Alignment also plays a factor in this. A little bit of toe-in in the front results in a tamer, less darty feel compared to 0 toe. Same thing applies when you run a lot of negative camber.
Last edited by gracer7-rx7; 12-10-16 at 11:00 AM.
12-19-16, 04:08 PM
#22
Junior Member
"Wheel rate" is NOT the spring rate! Particularly for double-wishbones/multilink suspension. It's closer to it for strut suspension, but still not usually exactly the same. Suspension geometry MUST be taken into account. FD springs are *highly* leveraged by the suspension design, hence you have to have much stiffer springs vs. a similar-weight strut car.
Title of the thread is "'Best' Ohlins spring rates?"
So we are talking about spring rates here.
But if you want to talk about how rates relate to the car's weight distribution, you definitely want to be talking about wheel rates and not spring rates.
That's fine, that's a totally legit approach.
For me, 11/11 was totally agreeable, but I wanted to increase roll stiffness while also trying to ensure I could maximize drive out of corners with 500-550hp. So I went to 13s up front keeping 11s in back. I can always stiffen the rears as well if I don't like or can't tune out the understeer.
Optimal setup will depend on many factors of course.
BTW you don't have to be a mathematics genius to understand the concept of leverage. The wheels of our cars have much greater leverage on the springs vs. strut cars. Consequently much stiffer springs are needed for the same effective stiffness at the wheels, a.k.a. wheel rates.
Our cars have different motion ratios front and rear, therefore different front/rear spring rates are needed *if* you want the wheel rates to match the weight distribution.
But any number of aftermarket coilover setups utilize "even" spring rates, which, again, give 44%/56% relative front/rear wheel rates, and that has worked fine for a lot of people who track these cars.
Title of the thread is "'Best' Ohlins spring rates?"
So we are talking about spring rates here.
But if you want to talk about how rates relate to the car's weight distribution, you definitely want to be talking about wheel rates and not spring rates.
That's fine, that's a totally legit approach.
For me, 11/11 was totally agreeable, but I wanted to increase roll stiffness while also trying to ensure I could maximize drive out of corners with 500-550hp. So I went to 13s up front keeping 11s in back. I can always stiffen the rears as well if I don't like or can't tune out the understeer.
Optimal setup will depend on many factors of course.
BTW you don't have to be a mathematics genius to understand the concept of leverage. The wheels of our cars have much greater leverage on the springs vs. strut cars. Consequently much stiffer springs are needed for the same effective stiffness at the wheels, a.k.a. wheel rates.
Our cars have different motion ratios front and rear, therefore different front/rear spring rates are needed *if* you want the wheel rates to match the weight distribution.
But any number of aftermarket coilover setups utilize "even" spring rates, which, again, give 44%/56% relative front/rear wheel rates, and that has worked fine for a lot of people who track these cars.
I don't get the ratio of wheel rates you are talking about - changing the rate does not change the weight distribution. If I put solid steel bars in place of the springs, the weight distribution is the same as stock. Changing ride height does change the weight distribution. And you want more weight over the rear, not less for acceleration - the increased rate will tend to cause oversteer.
12-20-16, 06:30 AM
#23
Senior Member
I don't get the ratio of wheel rates you are talking about - changing the rate does not change the weight distribution.
Here is the post that caused me to bring up wheel rates:
Relating spring rates to weight distribution is not appropriate. It is the wheel rates you would want to be closer to, or somewhat based on weight distribution.
An fwd car with 60/40 weight distribution will have somewhat forward-biased wheel rates, and a rear-engined car with 40/60 distribution will generally have rear-biased wheel rates. Whether or not they use barely-leveraged struts with softer springs or highly-leveraged double-wishbones with stiffer springs to get those wheel rates.
"Even" 50/50 spring rates get you fairly rear-biased wheel rates on the FD, not 50/50. It's certainly worth pointing out in the context of stiffness distribution vs. weight distribution.
Changing ride height does change the weight distribution.
And you want more weight over the rear, not less for acceleration
I sincerely wish I was closer to 45/55 than 50/50...
- the increased rate will tend to cause oversteer.
12-29-16, 08:57 PM
#24
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
Here it is implied that since weight distribution is 50/50, then spring rates should be close to that as well, as if same rate springs front and rear will be "even" or 50/50.
Relating spring rates to weight distribution is not appropriate. It is the wheel rates you would want to be closer to, or somewhat based on weight distribution.
An fwd car with 60/40 weight distribution will have somewhat forward-biased wheel rates, and a rear-engined car with 40/60 distribution will generally have rear-biased wheel rates. Whether or not they use barely-leveraged struts with softer springs or highly-leveraged double-wishbones with stiffer springs to get those wheel rates.
"Even" 50/50 spring rates get you fairly rear-biased wheel rates on the FD, not 50/50. It's certainly worth pointing out in the context of stiffness distribution vs. weight distribution.
Relating spring rates to weight distribution is not appropriate. It is the wheel rates you would want to be closer to, or somewhat based on weight distribution.
An fwd car with 60/40 weight distribution will have somewhat forward-biased wheel rates, and a rear-engined car with 40/60 distribution will generally have rear-biased wheel rates. Whether or not they use barely-leveraged struts with softer springs or highly-leveraged double-wishbones with stiffer springs to get those wheel rates.
"Even" 50/50 spring rates get you fairly rear-biased wheel rates on the FD, not 50/50. It's certainly worth pointing out in the context of stiffness distribution vs. weight distribution.
the maths are owning me, but it was like, 2300lbs, 62/38 weight distribution. we ran 750/950 springs (plus a sway bar the size of your arm), and with the 1.5/1.35 (.75/.8ish) motion ratios its something like 350/450 wheel rate.
the natural frequency is something like 2/4 (it wasn't street friendly), notice that the FC runs 450/350 (8/6k), and with a 50/50 weight distribution has a natural frequency of like 2/2.5.
12-29-16, 10:07 PM
#25
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUE TII View Post
but lets face it- Corvettes ride like wet noodles because that is the limit of what Americans will tolerate even in a performance car.
12-02-16 06:25 PM
LargeOrangeFont
Driven a performance (not a base) vette made in the last 10 years? They ride and handle pretty damn well... the ones with the magnetic shocks even more so.
Just because this thread was bumped and I happened on this thread in the meantime LOL.
C5 Z06 owner saying don't drive an FD will make your 'vette feel like a "big, soft, bloated barge".
Don't drive a FD RX7... - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion
Note- I am not saying anything about the handling prowess of either car, just the ride.