When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What tire size/sidewall are you running with the Ohlins?
The experience I related was with Ohlins recommended settings and OEM tire sizes.
Feels different on my 17s or 18s. I still love the ride though.
IDK if its a TUV liability claim or an actual statement of shock tuning goals, but Ohlins states in their literature that the "Road and Track" shocks are designed for a stock FD
It may be unrealistic for the car to ride more comfortably than stock with massively stiffer springs, but the point (I think) everyone's making about spring rate not being the be-all end-all of comfort is really true, damping/valving quality matters. I'm one of the few that absolutely HATED Koni yellows and Eibach Pro-Kit springs, and found the ride better with GC/GABs at the old classic 550/450lb, and I think even better now that I'm on 14/14k with the JRZs (I've run a TON of shock/spring/rate combos over the years, those are just a few). Stiff, but controlled. I suspect that's the case with 11/11k Ohlins, the damping quality is going to get you a great ride with little compromise for a massive increase in rate that helps the roll and dive and general handling.
I'm back to stock bushings except for the rear links, I don't see any benefit to poly.
Also, generally upgrading to 17" or 18" wheels will adversely affect ride quality because you've got smaller sidewalls, but like the shock scenario, it's not just sidewall height, tire choice matters. Especially with some of the more aggressive 200tw stuff that's out there that are essentially autocross homologation special race tires, the sidewalls are super stiff. Going from my 35-series, 300tw 18" streets to 30-series 18" Hoosiers track wheels makes the ride a ton more harsh.
...I went for a test ride with all 4 tires at 28 psi cold (30-31 after the drive), and the rear harshness was reduced to a decent level along with more predictable handling compared to the OE shocks at the same tire pressures. So I consider this a success.
We went out for another ride today on roads that used to feel very rough with the OE rear shocks. I would describe the ride quality with the Koni's as firm, but sophisticated, with a very low harshness level. I am enjoying driving the FD now MUCH more than before the change.
i wonder if the comments here about the R1 dampers being so stiff is referencing a good set. These parts are old now and maybe they're worn out. in the 90s I installed R1 springs and dampers in my touring, and tried the eibach prokit springs for a while. Both had decent street results. I switched to coil-overs because the car was a little too sloppy for street/track usage.
The ride may indeed be terrible, but I'm not sure this is a proper characterization of an in-spec set.
I think to some extent that was just the standards then, and probably damper tech has come along. In the early 90's, cars were a lot less extreme than today, and so "stiff" was relative to the time. I'm sure if I hopped in a stock R1 today, it would feel like a limo. My wife's C300 feels fairly stiff now compared to the way cars used to be.
Also, semi-controversial opinion: It was probably too softly-sprung, and thus required stiff shocks to work right, and the shocks were probably cheap like to many of the other ancillaries.
i wonder if the comments here about the R1 dampers being so stiff is referencing a good set. These parts are old now and maybe they're worn out. in the 90s I installed R1 springs and dampers in my touring, and tried the eibach prokit springs for a while. Both had decent street results. I switched to coil-overs because the car was a little too sloppy for street/track usage.
The ride may indeed be terrible, but I'm not sure this is a proper characterization of an in-spec set.
99% of the time, dampers lose damping and friction with age, so, IMO, the reverse would be true.
Much of the ride harshness associated with the OE and aftermarket shock + spring setups comes from the bump stop design and implementation - especially on the rear shocks. The same problem with the NA Miata that led to Fat Cat bump stops. Google for that if you want history.
I described some of this in my old suspension thread. Sakebomb also describes this in their old thread about developing their FD specific Ohlins setup. My thread: https://www.rx7club.com/suspension-w...setup-1104755/
Basic summary, the bump stops that Mazda uses are hard rubber. The stock rear suspension does not have a lot of suspension travel. When you lower the rear, you decrease the suspension travel which means you are slamming into the bump stops more frequently. I suspect that many of the aftermarket rear coilover shock lengths are slightly shorter to accomodate this. This is also why people report on improved ride quality with stiffer springs. The stiffer springs keep the car off the bump stops.
Fun fact: I have NO bump stops at all on my JRZ setup, and have had zip ties on the shafts to monitor travel. The front, there's about 1/2" left that's never been used. in the rear its about 1/8" or so. This is with 14/14k springs.
We dont have to speculate.
The shock dynos for stock base/touring, stock R1, GAB Super R and Koni yellow shocks for the FD have been around since the cars were pretty new.
The difference between normal stock and R1 shocks for the FD are the front shocks have about four times the rebound damping.
What that means is that since they share the same spring rates the overall balance of the car is largely the same, but the R1 shocks prevent the front from lifting under rear squat to limit the weight transfer during squat and provide a much quicker turn in feeling by preventing front roll.
The downside to high rebound damping is the front will jack itself down onto the bumpstops under hard braking with turn in and over really bumpy surfaces.
I don't see the zero-velocity offsets that define the amount of friction in the shock. IMO, that is a very important part of the equation, and my "normal" '93 shocks have a very large friction force which needs to be overcome before anything moves. Friction is a major contributor to harshness.
That, IMO, was the largest obvious difference between the OE's and the Koni yellows. The Koni's have very low friction.
We dont have to speculate.
The shock dynos for stock base/touring, stock R1, GAB Super R and Koni yellow shocks for the FD have been around since the cars were pretty new.
The difference between normal stock and R1 shocks for the FD are the front shocks have about four times the rebound damping.
What that means is that since they share the same spring rates the overall balance of the car is largely the same, but the R1 shocks prevent the front from lifting under rear squat to limit the weight transfer during squat and provide a much quicker turn in feeling by preventing front roll.
The downside to high rebound damping is the front will jack itself down onto the bumpstops under hard braking with turn in and over really bumpy surfaces.
This high rebound damping also acts similarly to rebound limiting, which does many of the same things you describe, except that it is position-sensitive vs damping being velocity-sensitive.
Rebound limiting causes the chassis to roll relative to the inside (relative to the turn radius) suspension and the car to jack downward, lowering the roll center, which lowers weight transfer and increases grip.
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to describe in "lay" terms regarding R1 shock rebound damping.
Regarding zero velocity offsets (stiction in lay terms I believe), I made the assumption stock base and R1 shocks, Koni Yellow and GAB Super R shocks were low pressure twin tube design as most OE, low cost and comfort shocks were back then to specifically lower the initial force required to initiate movement relative to production costs and reliability.
Tein Flex Z are a popular low cost option for comfort/real road capable coilovers specifically because they use twin tube design and compliant rubber bushings to deal with low stroke high velocity movements.
Penske's answer to keep the tire on the ground over low stroke high velocity movement was low drag piston and shaft seals that weep/need high maintenance and Ohlins answer was the DFV bypass valve.
The othe thing I noticed with my Ohlins versus standard coilovers was how the Ohlins werent incredibly stiff when cold (right when cold race tires could use softer damping).
Turns out they use metal with very high thermal expansion/contraction for their oil passages so the passages are physically larger cold and smaller hot for consistent damping.
I felt this 2013, but just learned why last week.
Maybe its a standard thing they are touting, but my previous monotubes really seamed more harsh right off the bat in cold weather (in autox you are parked for a long time before your run).
08-20-22, 07:41 AM
