Am I pushing Racing Beats limits?
03-23-04, 11:05 AM
#1
Rotary Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Waiting for Indykid to catch up
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Am I pushing Racing Beats limits?
I have Racing beat springs/W Bilstien shocks and 255/40/17's up front and they rub bad on the top of the fender and on the sides. I took my wheels over to Sleepr1's and put them on his car and they were fine. He has H&R springs. Both cars appear to have the same ride height, so are the Racing Beat springs just to soft for the amount of tire/wheel I have up front? My wheels are 5Zigen FNO1R-C's 17x9 W 43mm offset.
Thanks
Thanks
03-23-04, 12:26 PM
#3
Lives on the Forum
Based on this quote from howard coleman, I'd say the Racing Beat front springs are too soft for the amount of drop you get with them? Ideally, if you lower the ride height, the spring rate should go up a proportional amount (but not too much so that you lose ride comfort).
With the new RB springs, based on howard coleman's measurements, it seems Racing Beat didn't increase the spring rate for the fronts (assuming Jason Baughman's info is correct for the RB springs).
IMHO, RB may have switched their spring rates from when I had them way back in 1998? I recall them being very stiff and rough riding.
The H&Rs are much more comfortable, but are tight enough to keep my car from compressing too much over bumps (and causing any rubbing). I had the H&Rs installed in 2000 with 20,000-mile R1 Showa shocks, and brand new rubber pieces. I have not had any rubbing problems with my 9 x 17, SSR Integrals and 255/40-17 Pirelli P6000s all around.
As Ryan mentioned, I installed his wheels in the front wheel positions. We had no real problems with rubbing.
My guess is RB's spring rates (at least for the fronts), aren't stiff enough to support a 255/40-17-on-9 x 17 wheel/tire setup for the front wheel positions without rubbing problems.
With the new RB springs, based on howard coleman's measurements, it seems Racing Beat didn't increase the spring rate for the fronts (assuming Jason Baughman's info is correct for the RB springs).
IMHO, RB may have switched their spring rates from when I had them way back in 1998? I recall them being very stiff and rough riding.
The H&Rs are much more comfortable, but are tight enough to keep my car from compressing too much over bumps (and causing any rubbing). I had the H&Rs installed in 2000 with 20,000-mile R1 Showa shocks, and brand new rubber pieces. I have not had any rubbing problems with my 9 x 17, SSR Integrals and 255/40-17 Pirelli P6000s all around.
As Ryan mentioned, I installed his wheels in the front wheel positions. We had no real problems with rubbing.
My guess is RB's spring rates (at least for the fronts), aren't stiff enough to support a 255/40-17-on-9 x 17 wheel/tire setup for the front wheel positions without rubbing problems.
Originally posted by howard coleman
stock rx7 springs are 263 fr and 195 rear.
according to Jason's site Racing Beat springs are 260 front and 212 rear. so the front are about the same as stock and the rear are up 8.7%. as i said, they are too close to stock to make any difference if the site's numbers are accurate. howard coleman
stock rx7 springs are 263 fr and 195 rear.
according to Jason's site Racing Beat springs are 260 front and 212 rear. so the front are about the same as stock and the rear are up 8.7%. as i said, they are too close to stock to make any difference if the site's numbers are accurate. howard coleman
Last edited by SleepR1; 03-23-04 at 12:56 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SakeBomb Garage
Group Buy & Product Dev. FD RX-7
8
10-09-15 10:05 PM